Hikmet Hajizade: "Armenia is stuck to Russia so much that it does not have its own independent external policy"

- How do you assess the visit of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to Armenia and his discussing the Karabakh conflict with the Armenian counterpart?

- On the one hand, the traditionally close cooperation between Russia and Armenia must not raise any special questions about. Yet we have recently witnessed numerous open remarks, proving the progress in the conscience of the Armenian elite and that the superstates (probably after a conflict in Georgia) have decided to settle this conflict.

I would like to remind that during an election campaign in the presidential elections in Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan said openly that the way to Armenia's development lies through Azerbaijan, while his supporters openly opposed themselves to the Karabakh clan, making a slogan: first Armenia, then Karabakh.

Sargsyan has recently called on Azerbaijan to invest in Karabakh, then he justified himself by saying his words were misinterpreted or he made a slip in speaking, but everyone knows what a slip means according to Freid.

Then we heard that Matthew Bryza does not speak about a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh any more and states in open that the peace agreement should be based on the unquestioned belonging of Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

Then Ter-Petrosyan says that a peace treaty on Karabakh, unfavorable for Armenia, can be signed in December, them assistant US Secretary of State Daniel Fried says that the conflict will be settled in two months.

President Medvedev said after discussing the Karabakh issue with Sargsyan in Yerevan: "I hope we are now at the advanced stage of talks, anyway, both parties are ready to search solutions". Thus, it is unclear to us what is going on but something is definitely going on.

-  How will the results of Russian President's visit to Armenia influence the process of talks on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?

- The task of the Russian leadership is to preserve domination in the Karabakh conflict settlement. And if Armenians are obliged to liberate some of Azerbaijani lands, it will occur in exchange for deployment of Russian peacekeeping forces in the conflict area, which will allow Russia to control both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

- But which settlement plan can be presented to us, considering the fact that the parties completely disagree in the issue of the status of Karabakh?

- I think maximum that super states can offer to the conflict parties today is a liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani lands around former Nagorno Karabakh and deployment of peacekeeping forces in the confrontation line in exchange for suspension of Armenia's isolation. Certainly, the United States will strive for deployment of international armed forces while Russia (if it has developed an idea of the need for peace in the region) will strive for deployment of only Russian peaceekepers.

- Is such a plan favorable for Azerbaijan and Armenia?

- The positive side of this plan for Azerbaijan is that the occupied lands around Nagorno karabakh will be liberated and our refugees will return to their lands, but the negative point is that we can lose Shusha and Khankendi, as the conflict may turn into the situation with the Cyprus for decades.

For any Armenian government the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani lands without attainment of independence of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region (or its annexation to Armenia) may end in resign and eternal persection from the side of the Chauvinist Armenian circles who may say: "this is a national betrayal, what have we shed our blood for?"

Unfortunately, none of the sponsors of the peaceful process proposes a plan under which Azerbaijan will set its control over the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region, for only the lands, surrounding Nagorno Karabakh are implied now.

- Can Armenia really recognize independence of "NKR"?

- Today this problem is not urgent, especially after scandals around Kosovo, Abkhazia and Ossetia.

- Why are the opposition and public in Azerbaijan and Armenia concerned over the prospects of conclusion of peace treaty on Nagorno Karabakh, accusing the powers of their countries of holding a defeatist policy?

- Well, this is a philosophic question. This is an essence of opposition. It criticizes any steps of the government making it be cautious and select optimal and not hasty steps in the issue of protection of national interests.

- Let's distance from the Karabakh topic. Why do you think did President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan make a statement that the European orientation remains one of the priorities of the external political vector of Armenia, while cooperation with NATO is a key element in this process?

- I think that this is just a diplomat trick, aimed at gaining sympathies in the West. Armenia is stuck to Russia so much that it does not have its own independent external policy, while the Russian leaders may say calmly that "Armenian membership in NATO does not bother us".

- In other words, you do not think that the external policy of Armenia changed much after the Russian-Georgian war...

- I do not see any special changes here. Armenia is obliged to behave as a Russian province. It should be noted that Armenian authorities and opposition fully supported Russia during the conflict in Georgia. In other words, it is Russia's complete outpost.

/Day.Az/