Lorens Schitz: “It would be naive to think that Russia does not want to dislocate its peacekeepers in the region”

Today.AZ

Day.Az interview with Lorens Schitz, director of the program of the International crisis group on the Caucasus.

 - In Moscow, on November 2,  Ilham Aliyev, Serzh Sargsyan and Dmitri Medvedev signed a Declaration on regulating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Though, document is considered differently by Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia. So, what is your analysis of the Moscow Declaration? In your opinion, which way of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement can be seriously considered now? Let’s assume that Russia is sincere in her efforts, then how can you explain Moscow’s haste?  

- The Karabakh conflict continues can be solved given sufficient political will in both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and good-faith efforts of the current mediating parties to help the sides realize that difficult compromises are necessary on all sides to achieve a solution. The Moscow declaration, while rather general on content, was nonetheless an opportunity for the sides to meet face to face. This can only be welcomed. As to Moscow’s motivations, it is not uncharacteristic for various mediators in any armed conflict to attempt to at one time or another to demonstrate their activism, both for domestic political reasons as well as to show the effectiveness of their efforts at international diplomacy. This is a rather natural result of diplomatic efforts to end such conflicts, and as such is not confined solely to the political culture of the Russian Federation or other regional or world actors.   

- The three presidents agreed to seek a political solution to the 20-year conflict, support the peace settlement process with legally binding international guarantees of all its aspects and stages, and not to resort to the use of military force. Does the Moscow Declaration imply that Russia has demonstrated her real capabilities in the region? Does it mean that the key to this problem really belongs to Russia?

- Certainly Russia, the leader of the CSTO – which Armenia is a member of, has some natural diplomatic influence over approaches Yerevan takes in regards to its own foreign policy. This is the natural essence of interstate alliances. However, statements to the effect that Moscow alone can decide whether or not the Karabakh question is resolved effectively ignore the responsibility that both Armenia and Azerbaijan bear for the continuation of this conflict. Shifting the blame entirely onto third parties and absolving oneself of responsibility is not a productive endeavor.   

- There are some opinions, that the reason why Moscow is trying to find a quick solution to the conflict is hidden in her plans to deploy a military base in Nagorno-Karabakh under the pretext of the peacemaking forces. In your opinion, is this scenario possible? 

- Any future settlement between Azerbaijan and Armenia will in all likelihood include a discussion of the composition of an international peacekeeping force. It is up to the parties to the conflict to agree on this important question. It would be naïve to think that Russia would not like to station its own peacekeepers in the region; Russian officials have on many occasions indicated that Moscow regards the South Caucasus as an area where it has rightful strategic and historical interests. However, unsubstantiated speculation that Russia is out to create a “military base” in Nagorno Karabakh seem premature at this time.   

- The joint communiqué signed by the foreign ministers of NATO member countries in Brussels on December 3, supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. So one more time this document has attested that with every new turn of the negotiation process the international community passes different objective documents which anyhow point that the principle of territorial integrity is more important than the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. Do you agree with it? 

- The age-old question of territorial integrity versus the rights of nations to self determination is one of the most enduring in international relations today. Both principles are of paramount importance, and it does not necessarily have to be the case that once must be sacrificed in order for the other to exist.

- During the last visit to Baku Matthew Braiza, the USA envoy to the OSCE Minsk Group, made a suggestion that the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is quite possible in 2009. In your opinion, what is the base of Braiza’s conclusion? Are there any facts that can prove it?   

- There are certain positive signs regarding increased flexibility on the parts of both Azerbaijan and Armenia to finally try and reach at least an interim settlement. Objective internal and external factors contribute to this, namely the fact that no elections are scheduled in either country for the next year. In addition, there are the first signs of tentative moves between Armenia and Turkey to improve ties, which can only help lessen tensions in the region. There have been many dates mentioned as “key years” over the course of this two-decade conflict. Let us hope 2009 is finally that year. This is indeed a sensitive time in the history of the tragic Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and yet a bit more patience is needed. 

- The sides in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict are not going to make compromises. Moreover, many regional players are interested to keep the conflict unresolved. All these factors impede the peace settlement. Keeping the status-quos in Nagorno-Karabakh means keeping the perspective of international recognition, and, as for Russia, strengthening Moscow’s positions in the South Caucasus region (because such a problem gives an opportunity to put pressure upon both Azerbaijan and Armenia). In these conditions, is it possible to talk about yielding a solution to the conflict? 

- The question seems to be a disputable statement to me. I think I have already answered to a greater part of it in the answer to the fifth question. 

Source: www.today.az/news/politics/49556.html

Posted by admin December 2008

Post A Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website