The head of the analysis Center of Globalization and Regional Development, Stepan Grigoryan, sums up the results of 2011 in the sphere of internal and foreign policy and appraises the negotiation process on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for VK.
- What was the most important event of the internal political life in 2011?
- The most important event for me was the release all people who are connected with politics from jails and the new demonstration on Freedom Square. These two events are important for future of democracy in Armenia, as the opposition should have an opportunity to hold demonstrations, and people the opportunity to participate in protest meetings freely. Moreover, the release of political prisoners turns another page of the country’s history, which means that the internal political situation in Armenia became liberal and relatively free.
- What can you say about political 2011 in general?
- In 2011 we saw positive progress, while at the same time this year can be characterized as a period of ambiguity. Everybody, including the authorities, understands that fighting corruption is relevant for the country’s future. The authorities undertook a series of steps, I mean new appointments and initiation of criminal cases against some officials, however, these steps were neither systematic nor sufficient.
- What was the most important foreign political event?
- I think a complex of issues was important for Armenia. This is connected with intensification of ties with NATO and the EU. In 2011 Armenia signed almost all the documents of the EU Eastern Partnership program. In 2011 it was decided to extend our contingent in Afghanistan.
- What are the year's results in the sphere of the Karabakh problem?
- 2009-2010 were marked by an active negotiation process, which caused certain hopes that in 2011 there should be a serious breakthrough. Unfortunately, after the Kazan summit a pause appeared, due to an effort to speed up the conflict’s settlement artificially by the president of Russia. I think this is the reason why the negotiation process is frozen today. The negotiation process should be restored within the Minsk Group, which is the best format for talks. Anyway, 2011 was a year when the negotiations continued, and that is positive.
- So you think the process slowed down after Kazan?
- Yes, as you know after Kazan there were no actual meetings. At the moment a new summit is being prepared. The second reason for the talks’ failure in Kazan is the position of Azerbaijan, when the Azerbaijani delegation proposed new suggestions. I think Armenia’s reaction was reasonable: we arrived to discuss a particular document, while Azerbaijan tried to change the negotiation process. Okay, let’s start from the very beginning.
- You said the Russian president aimed to artificial speed up the conflict’s settlement. However, it is well-known that Russia is not interested in a speedy settlement of the conflict, as it enables it to maintain influence over Armenia and Azerbaijan. What then can explain Medvedev's position?
- I think Medvedev’s initiative was situational and connected with the presidential elections. At that time it wasn’t decided yet who will compete for the presidential post - Putin or Medvedev. He thought that, in case of success in the Karabakh process, he would gain the support of the international community and Russian citizens.
- What are your forecasts for the terms and means of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict’s settlement?
- The pace of the conflict’s settlement depends on two factors. First of all, it is mutual trust. Today, relations between the two sides are very tense, including at the inter-social level. In this context a speedy settlement is not possible. I couldn't imagine the conflict being settled without trust measures.
Secondly, foreign players are very important. At the moment, the main foreign players, Russia, the USA and the EU, are not striving for a speedy settlement of the conflict. I don’t feel these three forces have come to consensus on the issue between each other. On the other hand, it is positive that they agree there shouldn’t be a military settlement of the conflict.
Interview by Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan, Exclusively to VK
