Vestnik Kavkaza
The international society has reacted to sudden escalation of tensions on the contact line of Armenian and Azerbaijani forces and on the border of the two Caucasus republics with alarm and calls for peace today. People reacting to bloodshed in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are unanimous: the ceasefire regime should be revived, settlement process put back into the diplomatic course. Paul Goble, an American political analyst, author of the Window on Eurasia blog, has described his vision of conflict settlement in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.What do think about the latest fighting at the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan?It is extremely dangerous giving everything else going on in the world, because it could easily get out of hand. I hope that ceasefire is restored as soon as possible.Do you think the US might step up its political activity in the region after the events in Ukraine? It seemed like lately the United States has lost interest in the South Caucasus region.I do not think the United States has lost interest. But governments like individuals can only pay attention to so many things at any one time. And the events in the Middle East and in Ukraine are absorbing so much attention that it is difficult to imagine that there will to be any concerted effort made in the South Caucasus. At the same time one hopes that the United States and the other Minsk group co-chair countries will do everything they can to restore the ceasefire.What do you think about the latest Minsk group proposal on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict? It looks like no matter what the solution the group offers there is always criticism.The point is that the Minsk group has been from the very beginning trying to square the circle. It has been trying to combine two principles, which at certain levels, at least, are in contradiction. On the one hand, the Minsk group has started from the proposition that the existing borders cannot be changed and the territorial integrity of the two sides must be maintained, and at the same time that the right of nations for self-determination must be respected. It is not a requirement that the state borders be changed for national self-determination to be respected, but it is often difficult to achieve that if that is the case. The Minsk group is, therefore, in this difficult position of trying to be supportive of two ideas that are easily put in contradiction with each other. I do not believe that the Minsk group by itself can achieve settlement. I think the best thing that the Minsk group can do is to encourage the two sides to talk directly. Consequently, any new proposal can be useful if it leads to more conversations between Erevan and Baku simply because that is confidence building. But I do not think that in the current environment it is likely that there be a settlement any time in the near future.Do you believe that status quo that we have right now is what all the sides need?I believe that we need peace rather than an armistice. At best if the status quo means that the ceasefire is restored the best one could be talking about would be an armistice for an extended period of time not a peace. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia ultimately need a peace settlement for political and economic reasons. As long as this conflict continues there will be political pressures in the two countries that will preclude there development politically, and there will be problems with transportation and infrastructure that will preclude there development economically. So the status quo, by which we mean restoring the ceasefire, maybe the best that is achievable right now but it is ultimately not in the interests of the two countries that are immediately involved and therefore, one very much hopes, it is not in the interests of any of the co-chair countries.How serious is the famous influence of Armenian diaspora in the United States on the US foreign policy?I think it is very much overrated. Americans has always been sympathetic to the cause of the Armenians given their tragic history in the 20th century, but in fact America’s approach to this part of the world is driven by state interest, and the reality is that the Armenian diaspora was always attended, always listened to, is not very often followed. How long do you think Russia is going to support Erevan economically, because it is getting costly?First of all, Russia has an awful lot of expenses on the table just now, so the more those expenses increase the harder it will be to continue to support Erevan. I believe that the Russian government would very much like to not have to spend the money it has been spending in Armenia for a long period of time. I believe that Moscow’s goal in the Caucasus has always been to restore its influence in Baku, which is geopolitically and economically most important country in the South Caucasus. And that it has supported Armenia less as an end in itself than as means to bring pressure on Azerbaijan. If the Azerbaijani government were to declare itself more fully in the Russian camp as it were, I think, Russia’s interest in supporting Armenia would decline then very quickly. As long as Azerbaijan attempts to maintain its balanced foreign policy, I think, Moscow will do what it can to support the Armenian side as a way of having influence in the South Caucasus.Can you call Armenia a true Russian partner in the South Caucasus?I do not think they are partners that either side wants. I think Russia wants Armenia as a means to have influence in the region, and Armenia looks to Moscow not out of any special affection, but out of the sense that living, as Armenia does in a very bad neighborhood with problems in every direction around its borders, Moscow appears to be the only supporter it can get. The Armenians are not in Moscow’s pocket. They look to Moscow only as a defender and they would be delighted if there were others who were supporting them. I do not think this is the kind of warm and close alliance that is sometimes suggested.How would you evaluate Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, its ability to balance between Washington and Moscow?First of all, the balance between Washington and Moscow is not the only actors which Azerbaijan is trying to balance. It is trying to balance between Europe and Asia, between the Turkish world and Slavic world, between the Shia and the Sunni worlds within Islam and many, many elements to that balanced foreign policy. So, it is very difficult to have a balanced foreign policy that always works, because someone will decide that whatever Baku is saying is a balance is not supportive enough of their own position.The international society has reacted to sudden escalation of tensions on the contact line of Armenian and Azerbaijani forces and on the border of the two Caucasus republics with alarm and calls for peace today. People reacting to bloodshed in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are unanimous: the ceasefire regime should be revived, settlement process put back into the diplomatic course. Paul Goble, an American political analyst, author of the Window on Eurasia blog, has described his vision of conflict settlement in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
What do think about the latest fighting at the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
It is extremely dangerous giving everything else going on in the world, because it could easily get out of hand. I hope that ceasefire is restored as soon as possible.
Do you think the US might step up its political activity in the region after the events in Ukraine? It seemed like lately the United States has lost interest in the South Caucasus region.
I do not think the United States has lost interest. But governments like individuals can only pay attention to so many things at any one time. And the events in the Middle East and in Ukraine are absorbing so much attention that it is difficult to imagine that there will to be any concerted effort made in the South Caucasus. At the same time one hopes that the United States and the other Minsk group co-chair countries will do everything they can to restore the ceasefire.
What do you think about the latest Minsk group proposal on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict? It looks like no matter what the solution the group offers there is always criticism.
The point is that the Minsk group has been from the very beginning trying to square the circle. It has been trying to combine two principles, which at certain levels, at least, are in contradiction. On the one hand, the Minsk group has started from the proposition that the existing borders cannot be changed and the territorial integrity of the two sides must be maintained, and at the same time that the right of nations for self-determination must be respected. It is not a requirement that the state borders be changed for national self-determination to be respected, but it is often difficult to achieve that if that is the case. The Minsk group is, therefore, in this difficult position of trying to be supportive of two ideas that are easily put in contradiction with each other. I do not believe that the Minsk group by itself can achieve settlement. I think the best thing that the Minsk group can do is to encourage the two sides to talk directly. Consequently, any new proposal can be useful if it leads to more conversations between Erevan and Baku simply because that is confidence building. But I do not think that in the current environment it is likely that there be a settlement any time in the near future.
Do you believe that status quo that we have right now is what all the sides need?
I believe that we need peace rather than an armistice. At best if the status quo means that the ceasefire is restored the best one could be talking about would be an armistice for an extended period of time not a peace. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia ultimately need a peace settlement for political and economic reasons. As long as this conflict continues there will be political pressures in the two countries that will preclude there development politically, and there will be problems with transportation and infrastructure that will preclude there development economically. So the status quo, by which we mean restoring the ceasefire, maybe the best that is achievable right now but it is ultimately not in the interests of the two countries that are immediately involved and therefore, one very much hopes, it is not in the interests of any of the co-chair countries.
How serious is the famous influence of Armenian diaspora in the United States on the US foreign policy?
I think it is very much overrated. Americans has always been sympathetic to the cause of the Armenians given their tragic history in the 20th century, but in fact America’s approach to this part of the world is driven by state interest, and the reality is that the Armenian diaspora was always attended, always listened to, is not very often followed.
How long do you think Russia is going to support Erevan economically, because it is getting costly?
First of all, Russia has an awful lot of expenses on the table just now, so the more those expenses increase the harder it will be to continue to support Erevan. I believe that the Russian government would very much like to not have to spend the money it has been spending in Armenia for a long period of time. I believe that Moscow’s goal in the Caucasus has always been to restore its influence in Baku, which is geopolitically and economically most important country in the South Caucasus. And that it has supported Armenia less as an end in itself than as means to bring pressure on Azerbaijan. If the Azerbaijani government were to declare itself more fully in the Russian camp as it were, I think, Russia’s interest in supporting Armenia would decline then very quickly. As long as Azerbaijan attempts to maintain its balanced foreign policy, I think, Moscow will do what it can to support the Armenian side as a way of having influence in the South Caucasus.
Can you call Armenia a true Russian partner in the South Caucasus?
I do not think they are partners that either side wants. I think Russia wants Armenia as a means to have influence in the region, and Armenia looks to Moscow not out of any special affection, but out of the sense that living, as Armenia does in a very bad neighborhood with problems in every direction around its borders, Moscow appears to be the only supporter it can get. The Armenians are not in Moscow’s pocket. They look to Moscow only as a defender and they would be delighted if there were others who were supporting them. I do not think this is the kind of warm and close alliance that is sometimes suggested.
How would you evaluate Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, its ability to balance between Washington and Moscow?
First of all, the balance between Washington and Moscow is not the only actors which Azerbaijan is trying to balance. It is trying to balance between Europe and Asia, between the Turkish world and Slavic world, between the Shia and the Sunni worlds within Islam and many, many elements to that balanced foreign policy. So, it is very difficult to have a balanced foreign policy that always works, because someone will decide that whatever Baku is saying is a balance is not supportive enough of their own position.
