Karen Bekaryan: "Monopolization of mediation in the Karabakh settlement, poses a great danger"

The chairman of the organization "European Integration", political analyst Karen Bekaryan, speaks about his vision of the prospects for a Karabakh settlement and the role of Russia in it in an interview to VK.

- Following the tripartite meeting between the presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in Kazan, the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh peace process remains unclear. Can the same be said about the approaches of the Armenian side to the negotiating process?

- It seems that the approaches of the Armenian side to the negotiating process on the resolution of the protracted conflict has never been so clearly defined since the signing of the armistice in 1994 as it is today. Official Yerevan does not use phrases which require to be read between the lines to become clear, it clearly expresses its views on the need to implement one of the articles of the international treaty on the right of peoples to self-determination. It seems to me that today the clarity of our position has led to the international community developing a more balanced approach to the Karabakh problem, in contrast to the period preceding the appearance of the Madrid principles on the table. Returning to the period before 2007, when, in fact, these principles appeared, we see that the thesis of territorial integrity always prevailed over the principle of self-determination. Today the situation is quite different, since both principles are considered equivalent to each other by the international community.

- Azerbaijan is categorically against the participation of Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiation process. Is this one of the factors hindering the  development of the negotiation process towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict?

- Certainly. At any moment, when Armenia and Azerbaijan are ready to sign any document, Nagorno-Karabakh can come up with its own position, which will be hard to ignore. This is the reason that we see the OSCE Minsk group co-chairs in Nagorno-Karabakh from time to time. It is therefore quite logical that very soon we will see a dramatic change in the situation in the negotiations. The fact is that we often forget that Azerbaijan once rejected the idea of a common state, so now all his statements about readiness to give a high degree of autonomy to Nagorno-Karabakh are not regarded seriously. If Baku really has such a desire, then why it was necessary to reject the idea of a common state which had a defined mechanism of autonomy? So if it suddenly happens that the Madrid principles are removed from the agenda of the talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, a possible new framework for the negotiations on a settlement of the conflict might involve Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. And this is not due to pro-Armenian intermediaries, but it is in the logic of the negotiation process.

Thus, in the case of removal of the Madrid principles from the agenda of the process, Baku will receive a great chance for success only in the case of direct dialogue with Karabakh, as the sides will be given a broad time framework to reach consensus. If consensus is still not achieved, there remains the status quo, which is so unacceptable to Azerbaijan. There is also another option - the resumption of war in the region. But that presents too many risks, because Azerbaijani society expects a blitzkrieg, but based on the existing balance of forces on the confrontation line, today it is clear that a blitzkrieg will not happen.

- The recent active involvement of Russia, in particular President Dmitry Medvedev, in the Karabakh conflict settlement, is obvious. What are his chances of success, especially on the eve of parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia?

- I do not think that the activity of President Medvedev at the vanguard of the Karabakh issue in Russian foreign policy is going to decrease during the election campaign. I think that there will be a reverse process, as the political career of Medvedev will also depend on his successful foreign policy, in which Karabakh does not hold last place. If the president of Russia is able to achieve at least some success in resolving this issue closer to the elections, then the spectacular success in terms of the PR would be much more significant. Following this logic, I do not think that the Russian President will weaken his attention to the Karabakh process in the coming months.

- Today, many Western experts talk about the danger of monopolization of the Karabakh conflict on the part of Moscow. Do you agree with them and what could it mean for the sides, in particular for Armenia?

- Let's start with the fact that the monopolization of mediation in the Karabakh settlement, regardless of whether it will be on the part of Russia, the United States or France, poses a great danger. Therefore, the question as to whether the activity of Russia in the Karabakh conflict is in agreement with the West, is not even relevant for me. When speaking about danger, we should note that it applies not only to Armenia and Azerbaijan. We very often use the phrase "double standards", but it is a law of politics. Each state is guided by its own interests and their approach with respect to this or that problem builds upon a current political situation. This applies to the US and Russia, as well as France. That is why the conflict should be, above all, addressed by the parties, although the role of intermediaries, of course, has great significance. At the same time, I believe that we should not exaggerate the significance of statements made by the leaders of major powers, calling on the parties in the conflict to refrain from resuming the war. Neither the five-day war of 08.08.08 nor periodic warnings guarantee security to the Armenian side. Our army is the guarantee of our security. Political situations and the interests of states are categories which are not always consistent and which are ambiguous. Accordingly, a leader of a great power will not always adhere to the same position.

Interview by David Stepanyan, Yerevan. Exclusively for VK