James Warlick: "There are many reasons for fearing that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will expand"

The work of the OSCE Minsk Group on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which began in 1992, is still ongoing, and still the group of international mediators has failed to reach an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the end of July the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group (from the US, Russia and France) are planning to once again visit Nagorno-Karabakh. The co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group from the US James Warlick is in Moscow on a two-day working visit. Yesterday, meeting with a correspondent of Vedomosti, he spoke about the purpose of his visit, the upcoming meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Washington's assessment of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, the way out of it, and cooperation with Russia on this issue.

-What issues did you discuss at the meeting with [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov and [Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory] Karasin? What is the result?

-Unfortunately, I failed to meet with Minister Lavrov, he was in Vienna today. I hope that the talks on Iran will result in the signing of an agreement and, if so, he will return to Moscow. I look forward to meeting with him and the other co-chairmen tomorrow. Today we had the opportunity to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin. We exchanged views on the next steps for the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. We reaffirmed that the United States, Russia and France should continue to participate in the search for solutions together to develop the agenda. And we look forward to the meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan this year. But for that meeting to be successful, we have to prepare the discussion. And so we discussed a number of issues.

-Could you specify what issues exactly were discussed?

-Most of them have been discussed for ten years or more. As you know, for many years Russia played an active role in the negotiations on the settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh. We're talking about specific principles and elements of a settlement. Many of them were established during the negotiations which were held by then-President (Dmitry) Medvedev. This is a continuation of what was done then. We are not trying to invent new questions or new approaches. We are trying to continue to lead the discussion on the basis of what has been achieved then. This applies to a number of important issues. Among them is the return of the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the situation with refugees, security guarantees. These are all issues that have been on the agenda for many years, and we consider all of this in a package.

-The Minsk process on Nagorno-Karabakh has been going on for about 23 years. But of real achievements we can only name the fact that it provides an opportunity for discussion and dialogue. The rest of the goals that were identified at the beginning, unfortunately, have not been completed.

-Indeed, there is a big disappointment. Particularly in the region itself. Because its residents are still witnessing clashes that have been going on for more than two decades. The truce, on which we agreed, is not fully respected. This causes concern on our part. But a peace settlement is still achievable. Last year the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met three times, and if we count the preceding successful meeting in Vienna, then over the past 12 months four meetings were held. They met to discuss these issues. And each of the meetings gave a positive result. Yes, they have not reached an agreement yet. But I believe that this is possible. And it is exactly because a settlement through negotiations is possible, Washington and Moscow continue to participate in this process. And we are looking for an option to bring together all the elements and principles with which the agreement can be reached in the future.

-How does Washington evaluate the military situation in the region? Can the constantly evolving clashes escalate into a full-scale war?

-2014 was very dangerous, because as a result of clashes both sides suffered casualties among both military and civilians. January of 2015 proved to be generally one of the most dangerous months for the settlement in the last 20 years, with a large number of victims. So there is every reason to fear that the conflict could expand. This can also occur as a result of a miscalculation, and also due to any military conflict. Therefore, it is important to work together to find a solution to the conflict through negotiations and ensure compliance with the ceasefire regime. So a negative point is that it is a dangerous and bloody conflict, the escalation of which could happen at any moment. The positive point is that we – the United States, Russia and France – are seriously engaged in finding a peaceful solution to it, we are working with all the parties, urging them to respect the truce and to seek a resolve of the conflict through negotiations.

-How does Washington evaluate the recent purchases of large quantities of weapons from Russia and Israel by Azerbaijan?

Both sides, Armenia and Azerbaijan, have the right to ensure their own security and, in this context, we can understand why they need and seek to acquire weapons from different suppliers. At the same time, the increasing militarization concerns us, especially along the line of contact, as well as along the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. This is not only about the amount of weapons, but also about its modification. As I said, there is a risk of miscalculation – this is what causes our concern. We are dealing with this issue. If in the past the ceasefire regime was violated with the use of sniper rifles and small arms, then now we know that at present there is even larger military equipment. And that is what worries us. We are also concerned about the issue of military balance. Clashes between the two countries are still happening. Therefore, we do not want the ratio of military power to stimulate one side or another to the use of some advantage. Again, it is for this reason that Armenia should take part in the settlement process. For the increasingly dangerous military situation to be under control.

- What is the position of Washington? Must Armenia liberate the Azerbaijani territories, which were not included in the area at the beginning of the Karabakh conflict?

The occupied territories must be returned to Azerbaijan in the context of the complex settlement. It is important not to focus on one element, or a principle of settlement. The territories must be returned, but there are other factors. And that's why we always speak about a complex settlement, as you cannot take into account only one aspect and say that it is the basis of a settlement. We need to consider a peaceful settlement in all its entirety.

-The position of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh is that if they return the territories that surround Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani army will be able to fire out on Nagorno-Karabakh. How is the OSCE Minsk Group going to solve this problem? 

-Security guarantees should be elements of the settlement, including the introduction of international peacekeeping forces. It is necessary to introduce international peacekeeping forces before this or after the return of the territories in order to ensure the security of Nagorno-Karabakh.

- Should they be peacemakers of the OSCE or the UN? 

-This should be determined by the participants, and it will be the subject of discussion. 

-What is the position supported by Washington?

-We don’t support any of these variants. If the countries agree to their participation and the format of the peacekeeping contingent, in this case the US is ready to support this position. But we are not discussing this issue now. We are speaking about different versions of possible guarantees of security. So we have not reached the point when we can begin to discuss the formation of peacekeeping forces. I would like to add that there is a group of the OSCE – the High-Level Planning group. Its purpose is developing peacekeeping operations directed at maintaining peace in the region. This group of military experts has already had a number of prepared variants that are regularly updated. Their work may serve as a starting point for the engagement of the international peacekeeping forces.

- How does Washington relate to the fact that the process of thawing Armenian-Turkish relations has failed?

-The so-called Zurich protocols haven’t been ratified by Turkey. The border between Armenia and Turkey remains closed. We hope that Armenia and Turkey will find a way to bring relations out of deadlock. That's all. The work of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group is tied to Nagorno-Karabakh, but not with Armenian-Turkish relations. But we hope that both countries can take a fresh look in order to move forward together.

-Is a peaceful solution to the situation in Karabakh possible, considering that the relations among the main allies of the Minsk Group (Russia, USA, France) have significantly deteriorated and disagreements are continuing to grow?

-The relations between the US and Russia are strained, but it is not about the current matter. This is a problem on which Moscow and Washington have the same position. I am working closely with my Russian colleague, and we look at things in the same way. We are working together on a number of aspects of this settlement in respect of its political components and a search for ways on the basis of the talks, as well as such issues as confidence-building measures, the implementation of programs in the field of humanitarian exchanges. This is an area where the US and Russia are continuing to work together. And I would cite it as an example of very specific areas of cooperation and diplomacy. We hope these measures lead to a settlement of the conflict in the South Caucasus region.

- Let's assume that the situation will be same as in Georgia in 2008 with the peace process and peacekeeping, but war suddenly broke out. So if it took place in Nagorno-Karabakh and Russia had introduced its forces to the region – what solutions and actions would Washington have resorted to?

- Each conflict is different and should be examined separately. I think that this scenario is the very thing that we are afraid of. It is the escalation of a conflict which could seriously defy the international community. It is necessary that the US and Russia work together on this problem in order to prevent a situation that could lead to a dangerous escalation. But it is difficult to predict this situation. That is why it is difficult to answer a hypothetical question. I would say that the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is not an area where we see problems in relations with Russia. On the contrary, this is an area where we work by means of diplomatic channels in order to reach an amicable settlement. And we will continue to do this.