Russian Foreign Minister gives interview to Azerbaijani news agency Trend on the run-up to the Russian President’s visit to Baku this autumn.
- What issues are on the agenda of the upcoming visit? What is on the list of priorities in the development of bilateral cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan?
- We regard Azerbaijan as our important strategic partner in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region. Our relations are booming now and it is traditional that the heads of the two states discuss all the spectrum of these relations during their meetings, and I’m sure that will be the case this time. Warm personal relations between our presidents are one of the key factors in the development of our partnership. The main issue to be discussed during this visit is the signing of the state border treaty and, in connection with this, the signing of an agreement on rational use of the Samur River resources. These documents have been under preparation for several years now, and it is no secret that Dmitry Medvedev and Ilham Aliyev themselves contributed greatly to its coordination.
They considerably revised the principles of the document, which allowed agreement to be reached during their meeting in Baku in 2009. Back then, they laid the foundations for future agreement, which allowed a legally binding document to be developed.
Of course the foundation of our partnership - economic cooperation - holds a very important place on the agenda of every summit or negotiation, despite the crisis, which has unavoidably affected our trade and economic relations. Today, the situation has improved substantially and trade is recovering. Some sound investment projects in the fields of industry, transport and banking are being developed. I am sure that the presidents will discuss all these issues in general and will render political support to those developments if necessary.
And, of course, we should mention humanitarian relations. This is an area that is very important for the ordinary citizens of both Russia and Azerbaijan. This year we have launched a new major project. Baku hosted a forum on humanitarian issues. It was decided to hold this event annually, under the patronage of our presidents. A subsidiary of Moscow State University has also been operating in Baku since 2009. Branch offices of the Russian Scientific and Cultural Centre and the Russian Books House were opened in Azerbaijan as well. All of this contributes considerably to the promotion of cultural and educational ties between our countries.
Therefore, in my opinion, the prospects for our future interaction are very promising. Another important factor is the development of relations between the regions of our countries. Cooperation in all the areas that I have already mentioned meets the interests of our two peoples, as well as the interests of strengthening stability in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region. Moreover, in addition to bilateral matters, our presidents will consider regional and international issues, as well as our partnership within international organizations in Europe and across the globe - particularly, in the framework of the UN.
- During Medvedev's recent state visit to Armenia, a protocol was signed extending the terms of the Russian-Armenian treaty on the operations of military bases in Armenia. The president told a press conference that the protocol is aimed at maintaining peace and security in the South Caucasus. How will this protocol impact on the military balance in the region without violating the fundamental principles of the CFE Treaty? What potential threats does Russia see for Armenia in the region and from whom would Russia defend the country?
- The protocol you mentioned extends the agreement on the presence of Russian military bases in Armenia to 49 years. And there’s nothing more to it. This changes neither the function of the Russian military base in Armenia, nor the number of servicemen at this base, nor the number of arms in the possession of the base. So there is no point in talking about any changes that the protocol might introduce to the balance of forces in the region or to state that the extension of the current functions and parameters of the Russian military base by 49 years violates any agreement. The main purpose of the Russian military base is to ensure the interests of the Russian Federation. These interests, of course, include maintaining stability in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region. This was the goal that was set before the Russian military base when the agreement was signed. And this goal is not changed by the extension of the agreement.
- Russia has been the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group for many years, and is struggling to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Unfortunately, no visible results have yet been reached. What further steps could your country take in this regard?
- There might be no visible results because the work is carried out confidentially. However, I, being a participant in the process, can tell you that there are results invisible to the public. Many disputed issues have been eliminated over the years that Russia has been involved in the OSCE Minsk Group's activities, together with our American and French colleagues, and in the years that Russia has been trying to bring the positions of the sides closer on its own. And the elaboration of the so-called basic principles, which is still underway, has had some positive results in finding a formula that could help the parties reach consent. That does not mean that all issues will be resolved after the completion of this work. After the basic principles are worked out, it will be necessary to develop a legal document - a peace agreement. Of course, it would require greater attention to the details, but the devil is in the detail, as they say. Nevertheless, the basic principles formulated into a political document would be of great importance, as they would facilitate reaching an agreement on a political level. Therefore, we are trying to move events on. President Medvedev initiated Russia’s attempts to make additional contributions to the peace process over the past couple of years. Six meetings between the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been held over the past two years, two of them this year - in January in Sochi and in June in St. Petersburg. As a result of these meetings we made a proposal supported by the co-chairs: indeed, we could not achieve consensus on every point, due to the drafting of the basic principles’ formulation, but almost reached a compromise formulation on a significant part of the text. We had a very simple proposal - to schedule two or three questions, which are not yet addressed in the agreed part of the text, for further discussion. To make the parties understand that there will be no final agreement without settling these two questions. At this stage, it would allow us to secure some progress that has been made over the significant part of the text and at the same time highlight some questions that are still left to be discussed. In this way we could highlight two or three concrete problems which require further efforts, and to review what has been achieved so far. This is a realistic approach, based on assessment of the current situation, and will undoubtedly be supported by all the mediators. It will at the very least allow us to continue the work. Approving of the basic principles, along with 2-3 uncoordinated agenda items, would give an important political stimulus to the whole process, expected by the international community. Europe needs assurances that the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan really aim to resolve this conflict and for a peaceful settlement, which has been proposed by the co-chairs many times. Such a settlement is stipulated by the so-called Meiendorf declaration, signed by the presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. I will mention another milestone - a principle milestone. While meeting in Alma Ata on the 17th of July in the framework of the OSCE defence ministers meeting, the co-chairs issued a joint statement noting for now our efforts did give any substantial results – if that’s what you are asking me about. These are the parties that should reach an agreement. The co-chairs cannot resolve this problem alone, without the cooperation of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Therefore, our position stays the same: we are ready to use all our resources to help find a solution, but the agreement itself can be worked out only by the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
- At the moment, the Caspian issue is still on hold. Abiding by the agreement reached by Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, Russia has slowed down its activities in the Caspian region. Does this mean that Moscow is satisfied with being just an observer?
- No, it does not. I think that this is an inaccurate interpretation of our position. We have in fact achieved an agreement with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan - our neighbours in the Caspian region - on the division of the Caspian seabed. However, the water surface area and airspace above this water surface area are still issues to be negotiated. This should become the subject of a convention on the Caspian Sea's legal status, the organization of which we are working on today.
Obviously, we don’t find ourselves in a legal vacuum. The Soviet-Iranian agreements signed in 1921 and 1940 continue to function due to the absence of an international convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Signing a convention is even more urgent today, because three new states have appeared on the Caspian Sea coast in the past 20 years. Today, there are five instead of two littoral countries. So it is necessary to seek agreements that will fully answer the interests of all Caspian littoral countries. A convention should do the trick. The basic issue for us to agree upon are the questions concerning the use of the Caspian Sea and the protection of its resources, the regulation of shipping and fishery and the development of mineral resources, as well as environmental control.
The problem is not who is less or more active in these matters. The point is that some of our neighbours in the Caspian region want to apply their national jurisdiction along the littoral zone, and that would hardly leave any free sea space. The Caspian is not an open sea. This might sound a bit excessive: even if we take the UN Convention on maritime rights concerning the World's Oceans, it limits the territorial waters of any country to a maximum 12-mile limit. But the Caspian Sea is a closed water reservoir and its exploitation should be regulated by a special regime. First of all, it should stipulate rational, careful use of this reservoir. We are ready for compromises. We are ready to acknowledge the necessity of having a national territorial zone, but on condition that freedom of shipping should be allowed, as determined by international law. Then, fishing in the Caspian should be carried out in such a way that fish stocks aren't exhausted. These are hard issues to settle quickly. Of course, patience is required to regulate them.
I can say that Russian initiatives have led to the successful launch of projects of several agreements on Caspian security that are being coordinated under the chairmanship of Azerbaijan.
I believe we will be able to conclude this work soon and the agreement will be signed at the next Caspian summit, which is to be held in Baku.
Russia's second initiative is the establishment of the Organization of Caspian Economic Cooperation.
A few years ago, Astrakhan hosted the first conference on economic interaction between Caspian littoral countries. I think that we have every reason to resolve issues of multilateral importance, such as trade and transit cooperation, within organizations that will be flexible enough to make room for negotiating in a multilateral format.
Thus, I hope that some progress on the Caspian question will be achieved soon. This is a very important matter, especially if you consider that many non-Caspian countries would not mind benefiting from disorder in the legal issues concerning the Caspian Sea's status, in an effort to promote their own interests, which do not always coincide with the interests of the Caspian littoral countries.
