Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, the head of the European Bureau of Vestnik Kavkaza
Professor Wilfried Furman of Potsdam University has expressed his opinion about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the light of the Ukrainian crisis and changes in the geopolitical situation in the world.
- Mr. Furman, how would you evaluate the events around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in particular, the meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Sochi and Wales, preceded by violent August clashes in Karabakh?
- I would point out three main interconnected events here. Firstly, the meeting of the presidents in Sochi initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Secondly, as you noted, the Americans tried to keep up, organizing the meeting of Aliyev and Sargsyan in Wales, where the NATO summit was held. And, finally, on September 8, the European Union published information about granting Armenia and Azerbaijan funds within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy – up to 74 million euros to Baku and up to 170 million euros to Yerevan. The event should not be pulled out of the common context.
All these meetings and grants of certain sums to the sides of the conflict prove that none of the three main actors (Russia, U.S. and EU) are interested in aggravating the conflict and its transition to a “hot phase.” The large players I named are trying to keep all the conflicts in a deep frozen state.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in fact, happened in a zone between two power blocks and, as it happens in a zone between two tectonic plates, the region was in the zone of maximum military-political danger.
I disagree with the opinion that the key to the Nagorno-Karabakh is in the hands of Moscow. Neither the EU or the U.S. have it. The key to settlement of the problem is in the hands of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Speaking of Armenia, it puts maximum efforts into removing everything associated with genocide against Azerbaijanis in Karabakh out of memory. For me, it is a classic form of regional-scale genocide. Expulsion from the region and extermination of a whole ethnos, call it ethnic cleansing, destruction of the cultural landscape and all memories about Azerbaijanis living in the region, is genocide. Armenia accuses Azerbaijan but does not consider granting Azerbaijanis driven out access to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, the Armenian side is not ready for any concessions.
- The Armenian side assures that it would be possible but only after Azerbaijan recognizes “the independence of the NKR…”
- I will tell you, give me a million dollars, and I will invite you for coffee tomorrow morning… Azerbaijan keeps pointing out violations of territorial integrity, four resolutions of the UN Security Council, of international law. I, as a liberal-spirited man, can only welcome the fact that there has not been a full-scale war so far. On the other hand, the problem of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has not found a solution. The principle of territorial integrity is constantly emphasized in the case of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea. But when it comes to Azerbaijan, no one in the West seems to express readiness to support it in a potential war for restoration of territorial integrity.
- Do you think the problems of Crimea and Karabakh are similar?
- These cases are very similar but, at the same time, I think that separation of Crimea is more legitimate, because it was done via a referendum where the population of the peninsula was given an opportunity to express its will. In Nagorno-Karabakh, such a “referendum” was followed by pogroms, threats and the expulsion of the Azerbaijani population. Driving out Karabakh Azerbaijanis, holding a “referendum” and announcing that Armenians support Armenians is certainly a big surprise. The argument that Armenians were the majority in the NKAO before the conflict can in no way serve as justification or explanation for the genocide they committed against Azerbaijanis.
Azerbaijan, relying on international law and insisting on restoration of territorial integrity, does not find honest support from the West. Thus, it was left in solitude with its attempts to restore sovereignty over Karabakh.
- What do you think is the reason for the West’s refusal to help Azerbaijan?
- Risking getting into speculations, I will make a cautious supposition that it is greatly associated with the factor of Christian solidarity, present to a certain extent in all Western countries and governments. In this aspect, preferences between Azerbaijan and Armenia are unequal in the West. On the other hand, in the light of the topical events in Iraq and Syria, where religious fundamentalists are rampaging, the public of the West, having heard that Azerbaijan was predominantly a Muslim state, forms an opinion through the prism of their attitude towards all the Muslim world. The fact that Azerbaijan is a secular state becomes secondary.
Finally, in the West, there are many people interpreting the law depending on personal preferences. What some deserve, others do not.
- The unrecognized authorities of the “NKR” proposed resettlement of Yazidi Kurds from Iraq to Nagorno-Karabakh. How would you comment on that proposal?
- At first glance, the proposal looks very positive and humane. Giving refuge to persecuted people is a good deed. But on closer inspection, it becomes absolutely obvious that resettlement of an ethnos from one crisis region to another conflict region has nothing to do with humanism. Moreover, I do not believe that the unrecognized authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh had motives of humanism when they were making the proposal. One the one hand, it is a classic PR move to get mass media attention, improve one's own reputation, gain sympathy and legitimacy in the world. On the other hand, Armenians are trying to compensate for the outflow of their own population, young people from Nagorno-Karabakh, because they have no prospects and future there. Finally, considering the hostile stance of Yadizi Kurds against Muslims, which include Azerbaijanis, Armenians are trying to create another stronghold against Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh, using Yazidi Kurds for that. Armenia can also try to use the EU funds to form such a stronghold: build settlements, infrastructure. The attempt to continue unilateral changes on the ethnic map of Nagorno-Karabakh is obvious, and preventing it, other than by using diplomatic mechanisms and active work with mass media, is extremely hard.
- The Baku authorities have stopped concealing their disappointment and irritation with the position of the West on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The foreign political preferences of Azerbaijan are becoming more oriented towards the north, towards Russia. Does this mean that European integration has been scrapped?
- It will largely depend on development of the events in Ukraine, in particular, the resolution of the problem of the long-term status of the political system in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In the near future, in my opinion, the problems will be projected in the South Caucasus. In NATO, pressure from the Americans insisting on admission of Georgia to the Alliance will grow. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will appear on the agenda against, and pressure on Georgia will keep rising.
At the same time, President Putin will put pressure on Kazakhstan and Armenia because he wants Yerevan to join the Customs and the Eurasian Unions. Nagorno-Karabakh here is the key issue for Armenia, because Kazakhstan insists on Armenia joining the unions only in accordance with its internationally-recognized borders, which means exclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh from the process.
Armenia, in its turn, will put maximum effort into pulling Nagorno-Karabakh into the CU and the EaEU. And finally there is Azerbaijan, a country on “a lonely island.” Azerbaijan, in fact, has only two opportunities. It either starts drifting to the West, like Georgia, undermining prospects to get Nagorno-Karabakh under its jurisdiction. Another alternative is that Baku gives up its ties with the West and goes for a close alliance with Moscow and participation in all its integration projects. Because, at the moment, when Armenia is joining the EaEU, Azerbaijan will not do that, its chances of regaining Nagorno-Karabakh would significantly drop because Baku would be unable to affect the decisions that Moscow, Astana, Minsk and Yerevan will make. Now the question of whether Azerbaijan joins the EaEU or not, just as it was in Ukraine, greatly depends on financial circles, if you wish, the oligarchs, in Azerbaijan: will they prefer money or territorial integrity? Will they prefer dynamic EU markets and innovations or Nagorno-Karabakh, which can receive major autonomy as part of the Azerbaijani republic, at best?
Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, the head of the European Bureau of Vestnik KavkazaProfessor Wilfried Furman of Potsdam University has expressed his opinion about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the light of the Ukrainian crisis and changes in the geopolitical situation in the world.- Mr. Furman, how would you evaluate the events around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in particular, the meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Sochi and Wales, preceded by violent August clashes in Karabakh?- I would point out three main interconnected events here. Firstly, the meeting of the presidents in Sochi initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Secondly, as you noted, the Americans tried to keep up, organizing the meeting of Aliyev and Sargsyan in Wales, where the NATO summit was held. And, finally, on September 8, the European Union published information about granting Armenia and Azerbaijan funds within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy – up to 74 million euros to Baku and up to 170 million euros to Yerevan. The event should not be pulled out of the common context.All these meetings and grants of certain sums to the sides of the conflict prove that none of the three main actors (Russia, U.S. and EU) are interested in aggravating the conflict and its transition to a “hot phase.” The large players I named are trying to keep all the conflicts in a deep frozen state.The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in fact happened in a zone between two power blocks and, as it happens in a zone between two tectonic plates, the region was in the zone of maximum military-political danger.I disagree with the opinion that the key to the Nagorno-Karabakh is in the hands of Moscow. Neither the EU or the U.S. have it. The key to settlement of the problem is in the hands of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Speaking of Armenia, it puts maximum efforts into removing everything associated with genocide against Azerbaijanis in Karabakh out of memory. For me, it is a classic form of regional-scale genocide. Expulsion from the region and extermination of a whole ethnos, call it ethnic cleansing, destruction of the cultural landscape and all memories about Azerbaijanis living in the region, is genocide. Armenia accuses Azerbaijan but does not consider granting Azerbaijanis driven out access to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, the Armenian side is not ready for any concessions.- The Armenian side assures that it would be possible but only after Azerbaijan recognizes “the independence of the NKR…”- I will tell you, give me a million dollars, and I will invite you for coffee tomorrow morning… Azerbaijan keeps pointing out violations of territorial integrity, four resolutions of the UN Security Council, of international law. I, as a liberal-spirited man, can only welcome the fact that there has not been a full-scale war so far. On the other hand, the problem of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has not found a solution. The principle of territorial integrity is constantly emphasized in the case of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea. But when it comes to Azerbaijan, no one in the West seems to express readiness to support it in a potential war for restoration of territorial integrity.- Do you think the problems of Crimea and Karabakh are similar?- These cases are very similar but, at the same time, I think that separation of Crimea is more legitimate, because it was done via a referendum where the population of the peninsula was given an opportunity to express its will. In Nagorno-Karabakh, such a “referendum” was followed by pogroms, threats and the expulsion of the Azerbaijani population. Driving out Karabakh Azerbaijanis, holding a “referendum” and announcing that Armenians support Armenians is certainly a big surprise. The argument that Armenians were the majority in the NKAO before the conflict can in no way serve as justification or explanation for the genocide they committed against Azerbaijanis.Azerbaijan, relying on international law and insisting on restoration of territorial integrity, does not find honest support from the West. Thus, it was left in solitude with its attempts to restore sovereignty over Karabakh.- What do you think is the reason for the West’s refusal to help Azerbaijan?- Risking getting into speculations, I will make a cautious supposition that it is greatly associated with the factor of Christian solidarity, present to a certain extent in all Western countries and governments. In this aspect, preferences between Azerbaijan and Armenia are unequal in the West. On the other hand, in the light of the topical events in Iraq and Syria, where religious fundamentalists are rampaging, the public of the West, having heard that Azerbaijan was predominantly a Muslim state, forms an opinion through the prism of their attitude towards all the Muslim world. The fact that Azerbaijan is a secular state becomes secondary.Finally, in the West, there are many people interpreting the law depending on personal preferences. What some deserve, others do not.The unrecognized authorities of the “NKR” proposed resettlement of Yazidi Kurds from Iraq to Nagorno-Karabakh. How would you comment on that proposal?- At first glance, the proposal looks very positive and humane. Giving refuge to persecuted people is a good deed. But on closer inspection, it becomes absolutely obvious that resettlement of an ethnos from one crisis region to another conflict region has nothing to do with humanism. Moreover, I do not believe that the unrecognized authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh had motives of humanism when they were making the proposal. One the one hand, it is a classic PR move to get mass media attention, improve one's own reputation, gain sympathy and legitimacy in the world. On the other hand, Armenians are trying to compensate for the outflow of their own population, young people from Nagorno-Karabakh, because they have no prospects and future there. Finally, considering the hostile stance of Yadizi Kurds against Muslims, which include Azerbaijanis, Armenians are trying to create another stronghold against Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh, using Yazidi Kurds for that. Armenia can also try to use the EU funds to form such a stronghold: build settlements, infrastructure. The attempt to continue unilateral changes on the ethnic map of Nagorno-Karabakh is obvious, and preventing it, other than by using diplomatic mechanisms and active work with mass media, is extremely hard.- The Baku authorities have stopped concealing their disappointment and irritation with the position of the West on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The foreign political preferences of Azerbaijan are becoming more oriented towards the north, towards Russia. Does this mean that European integration has been scrapped?- It will largely depend on development of the events in Ukraine, in particular, the resolution of the problem of the long-term status of the political system in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In the near future, in my opinion, the problems will be projected in the South Caucasus. In NATO, pressure from the Americans insisting on admission of Georgia to the Alliance will grow. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will appear on the agenda against, and pressure on Georgia will keep rising.At the same time, President Putin will put pressure on Kazakhstan and Armenia because he wants Yerevan to join the Customs and the Eurasian Unions. Nagorno-Karabakh here is the key issue for Armenia, because Kazakhstan insists on Armenia joining the unions only in accordance with its internationally-recognized borders, which means exclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh from the process.Armenia, in its turn, will put maximum effort into pulling Nagorno-Karabakh into the CU and the EaEU. And finally there is Azerbaijan, a country on “a lonely island.” Azerbaijan, in fact, has only two opportunities. It either starts drifting to the West, like Georgia, undermining prospects to get Nagorno-Karabakh under its jurisdiction. Another alternative is that Baku gives up its ties with the West and goes for a close alliance with Moscow and participation in all its integration projects. Because, at the moment, when Armenia is joining the EaEU, Azerbaijan will not do that, its chances of regaining Nagorno-Karabakh would significantly drop because Baku would be unable to affect the decisions that Moscow, Astana, Minsk and Yerevan will make. Now the question of whether Azerbaijan joins the EaEU or not, just as it was in Ukraine, greatly depends on financial circles, if you wish, the oligarchs, in Azerbaijan: will they prefer money or territorial integrity? Will they prefer dynamic EU markets and innovations or Nagorno-Karabakh, which can receive major autonomy as part of the Azerbaijani republic, at b
