Experts had expectations that Russia would take the process of Nagorno-Karabakh settlement into its hands at the meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev with their Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in the context of clashes on the contact line. The sides expressed commitment to continue negotiations to resolve the conflict. A British journalist specializing in the Caucasus has discussed the problem in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
What is your evaluation of the latest meeting in Sochi?Obviously the public part of it did not tell us very much. My main impression was: how little was said, how little detail there was in the public statements by the three presidents or [Russian] Foreign Minister Lavrov. It obviously achieved its first aim, which was to kind of dampen down the fighting on the ceasefire line, which is positive. But as for more details, more substance about mechanisms for preserving ceasefire or new commitment to the negotiating process. We did not hear any of them.Do you believe that there was something else said behind the closed doors?I am sure there were other things behind closed doors, particularly in bilateral meetings: Russia-Armenia, Russia-Azerbaijan. But I think neither side in the conflict really wants to commit itself to anything substantial at this point and maybe even President Putin is not interested in the details of the Karabakh negotiations. He also had his points to make he also wanted to play a role of a peacemaker for a day in contrast to what is going on in Ukraine.The latest proposal by the Minsk group, the six principles – do you believe they are acceptable by both sides?Clearly, they are not acceptable for both sides, otherwise we would have a peace agreement by now. These six principles have been on the table in one form or another since end of 2007, when they were called Madrid principles. So clearly they are the fundamental basis for negotiations. There are no other ideas on the table. However, I think, the problem is less in the proposals themselves, but just in the complete lack of trust between the two sides, the lack of will to have a proper peace agreement. They prefer to have a kind of imitation of negotiations rather than a substantial peace agreement. In other words, both sides are more or less happy with the status quo.If we look at the map we can see that most of the occupied Azerbaijan’s territories are not in Karabakh. Do you think the time has come for Armenia to return these lands at least, and then discuss the Karabakh status?I think the point about these six principles is that they cannot be separated. So, if Armenia leaves the occupied territories, it does so in return for a kind of guarantees about status and sovereignty of Karabakh. Everything has to happen at the same time. This is why the Devil is in the details.Do you think that Russia and the US are doing enough to resolve the conflict?At the level of the Minsk group ambassadors they are doing what they can. But I think that the basic reality of this conflict is that the mediators cannot want peace more than the parties to the conflict themselves are extremely cautious. So there is only so much the mediators can do. And now, of course, we have an extra complications the mediators are also involved in a big fight over Ukraine, which again does not formally affected the Minsk process but certainly undermine the overall authority of the Minsk process. Do you believe that the people of Nagorno Karabakh should decide the future of this region and do you see the possibility for Azeri refugees returning to Nagorno Karabakh?I think, everything has to happen… Nothing will happen in isolation. Clearly, the idea of these basic principles is, basically, that Azerbaijan will get occupied territories around Karabakh, but the people of Karabakh get to express their right to self-determination in some kind of a vote. In the future there is right of return, including Azeris to Karabakh.So, when you are talking about the right of people to vote, to choose their future, you are talking about those who are living in Karabakh right now?I think, if there is a vote, it would need all present and former residents of Karabakh there. But, of course, since the Armenians were in the majority before, one can assume how the Armenians vote will determine the answer.What do you think can be and should be done at present to move forward to resolve the issue?I think, a lot can be done, obviously. But in practical terms, I think, it is time to look again at a mechanism to investigate violations of the ceasefire. It is very bad that the ceasefire is violated. And basically, we do not know what is going on. If there were more substantial mechanism to investigate the ceasefire, then, I think, less people would die. I think, it is a shame, that it is not being implementedWhat is your evaluation of the latest meeting in Sochi?
Obviously the public part of it did not tell us very much. My main impression was: how little was said, how little detail there was in the public statements by the three presidents or [Russian] Foreign Minister Lavrov. It obviously achieved its first aim, which was to kind of dampen down the fighting on the ceasefire line, which is positive. But as for more details, more substance about mechanisms for preserving ceasefire or new commitment to the negotiating process. We did not hear any of them.
Do you believe that there was something else said behind the closed doors?
I am sure there were other things behind closed doors, particularly in bilateral meetings: Russia-Armenia, Russia-Azerbaijan. But I think neither side in the conflict really wants to commit itself to anything substantial at this point and maybe even President Putin is not interested in the details of the Karabakh negotiations. He also had his points to make he also wanted to play a role of a peacemaker for a day in contrast to what is going on in Ukraine.
The latest proposal by the Minsk group, the six principles – do you believe they are acceptable by both sides?
Clearly, they are not acceptable for both sides, otherwise we would have a peace agreement by now. These six principles have been on the table in one form or another since end of 2007, when they were called Madrid principles. So clearly they are the fundamental basis for negotiations. There are no other ideas on the table. However, I think, the problem is less in the proposals themselves, but just in the complete lack of trust between the two sides, the lack of will to have a proper peace agreement. They prefer to have a kind of imitation of negotiations rather than a substantial peace agreement. In other words, both sides are more or less happy with the status quo.
If we look at the map we can see that most of the occupied Azerbaijan’s territories are not in Karabakh. Do you think the time has come for Armenia to return these lands at least, and then discuss the Karabakh status?
I think the point about these six principles is that they cannot be separated. So, if Armenia leaves the occupied territories, it does so in return for a kind of guarantees about status and sovereignty of Karabakh. Everything has to happen at the same time. This is why the Devil is in the details.
Do you think that Russia and the US are doing enough to resolve the conflict?
At the level of the Minsk group ambassadors they are doing what they can. But I think that the basic reality of this conflict is that the mediators cannot want peace more than the parties to the conflict themselves are extremely cautious. So there is only so much the mediators can do. And now, of course, we have an extra complications the mediators are also involved in a big fight over Ukraine, which again does not formally affected the Minsk process but certainly undermine the overall authority of the Minsk process.
Do you believe that the people of Nagorno Karabakh should decide the future of this region and do you see the possibility for Azeri refugees returning to Nagorno Karabakh?
I think, everything has to happen… Nothing will happen in isolation. Clearly, the idea of these basic principles is, basically, that Azerbaijan will get occupied territories around Karabakh, but the people of Karabakh get to express their right to self-determination in some kind of a vote. In the future there is right of return, including Azeris to Karabakh.
So, when you are talking about the right of people to vote, to choose their future, you are talking about those who are living in Karabakh right now?
I think, if there is a vote, it would need all present and former residents of Karabakh there. But, of course, since the Armenians were in the majority before, one can assume how the Armenians vote will determine the answer.
What do you think can be and should be done at present to move forward to resolve the issue?
I think, a lot can be done, obviously. But in practical terms, I think, it is time to look again at a mechanism to investigate violations of the ceasefire. It is very bad that the ceasefire is violated. And basically, we do not know what is going on. If there were more substantial mechanism to investigate the ceasefire, then, I think, less people would die. I think, it is a shame, that it is not being implemented.
