Today.Az » Politics » Azerbaijani political expert: Resources of peaceful settlement of Karabakh conflict are coming to an end
18 November 2010 [17:25] - Today.Az
Interview with Azerbaijani political expert Eldar Namazov.
How would you comment on Armenia's conduct of military exercises in occupied territories of Azerbaijan and Armenian president's war-like statements made during these exercises?
Armenia has conducted military exercises in occupied territories of Azerbaijan previously as well. But there are a number of circumstances that make you look at these exercises from a different angle. The fact is that Armenian president does not attend every exercise. In this case, it is a provoking move. Before the summit in Astana, the Armenian president participated in military exercises held in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The second point worthy of note is that this takes place following Armenia’s refusal to accept renewed Madrid principles.
In fact, Armenians’ behavior seems like a challenge not only to Azerbaijan but also to international community. It reveals true purpose of Armenia, which is not going to make any compromise in the negotiation process, and leave the occupied territories. Certainly, such a move on part of Armenia further makes Azerbaijan sure that the resources of a peaceful settlement are gradually coming to an end. I think that the meeting in Astana may clarify things finally - these resources are either exhausted or there are some other possibilities.
What do you think of this kind of steps taken by Armenia prior to the summit in Astana?
Now all parties involved in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict carry out fairly intensive preparations for the OSCE summit in Astana. It is known that the Russian president called on the parties to come to some agreement on "updated Madrid principles" so that demonstrate a unified position in the summit. It is known that OSCE Chairman-in-Office (Kazakhstan’s foreign minister), later U.S. ambassador to the OSCE and, finally, foreign minister of Azerbaijan (during an official visit to Turkey) emphasized a need to prepare a new document - the "road map" of the Karabakh conflict settlement. Now diplomatic struggle evolves around these two concepts ("Madrid principles" and the "roadmap") much of which takes place behind the scenes.
And what is the essence of this diplomatic struggle?
There are two components of this struggle - the diplomatic one, related to negotiations and geopolitical one associated with the strengthening or weakening mediator’s influence on negotiations. If we generalize and simplify everything, on one hand, there is position of Moscow and Yerevan, and on the other hand, there is position of Azerbaijan, which enjoys understanding from Western countries, including, apparently, U.S., one of the Minsk Group co-chairs.
The position of Moscow and Yerevan is that despite Yerevan’s refusal to accept the "updated Madrid principles," negotiations should be continued. This suits Yerevan for several reasons. Firstly, it means that the disruption of an agreement on "basic principles" by Yerevan remains without a proper assessment and appropriate response by the international community. Yerevan also has an opportunity to continue to simulate the negotiation process without making any compromise. Moscow is primarily interested in political issues. For several years, Moscow has been a leading element in Minsk Group co-chairmanship. Russian president has organized a series of summits devoted to discussion of the "Madrid principles," and this "status quo" completely suits Moscow.
Apparently, Azerbaijan's interests are different. It implies that either Russia will persuade Yerevan to accept the "Madrid Principles" before the summit in Astana which may mark a starting point for preparation of agreement on peaceful settlement of the conflict, or work on the basic principles should be considered useless and one should look for other more efficient technologies of the negotiation process, for example, a "road map".
After all, what is technological difference between the "basic principles" and "road map"? As reiterated by Azerbaijani and Armenian officials, as well as Minsk Group co-chairs, the work on "basic principles" is carried out based on a rule "either everything is coordinated, or nothing is coordinated." In practice, this means that even if the parties coordinate, for example, 15 out of 16 principles, the peace process still remains blocked. The roadmap technology does not have such tight restrictions. Many international examples show that the "road map" can even include a number of uncoordinated elements, implying that they will be agreed later. The Israeli-Palestinian "road map" had several such elements.
The Turkish-Armenian "road map" also had as a number of important uncoordinated points under the heading "Joint Commission", which would discuss them in the future. Of course, this proposal raises concerns in Yerevan and Moscow. For Armenians, this means that their refusal to embrace the "updated Madrid principles" was the reason that the long process of negotiations yielded no results, and international community will fix it as a fact.
Secondly, a "road map" will be very similar to a phased plan of settlement, and Yerevan would have to say "no" to this process, too. The second failure of the negotiation process because of Yerevan would further complicate its position in the international arena and also in terms who would be guilty if a new armed conflict breaks out in future. Finally, Moscow is not also happy with the idea of "road map" because it means that Russia’s proactive role has failed, and the United States which has rich experience in these matters will have a role in this "road map". (U.S. had a role in the preparation of Palestinian-Israeli and Turkish-Armenian "road maps").
And what will happen in Astana, in your opinion?
It is difficult to predict. There is some pressure on Yerevan and Moscow in connection with the idea of a "road map", but there are certain pressures from Moscow and Yerevan on Baku "to persuade it to accept some any interim agreement before the summit in Astana that would change the existing status quo."
Summit in Astana is not the last point in this process. Shifting the essence of negotiations from "basic principles" to the "road map" can happen later. This question is not in the competence of the OSCE Summit, but that of the Minsk Group co-chairs. There is simply rigid logic of the negotiating process - if the technology used does not give any result and has exhausted itself, the way out of the situation is very simple – either to use military force, or to look for unused diplomatic reserve. After all, it all started not with the "basic principles". Previously, a number of other approaches and options for settlement were rejected because of lack of prospects for agreement. I'm afraid “Basic Principles" are not the first and last option that failed because of Yerevan.
/Day.Az/
|
|
