– Mr. Kazimirov, what would you say about the current phase of the Karabagh conflict negotiations?
– I don’t have an optimal opinion. The fact that the negotiations are going on is very good, but it doesn’t proceed in the best way and in the most optimal format. All the decisions that were made in the framework of the OSCE sessions in Budapest concerned organizing negotiations between the conflicting parties. Neither of those documents contains information saying that the conflicting parties are to make negotiations, I mean Armenia and Azerbaijan. Let’s take for example the mandates of the OSCE Minsk group members. I was the author of its preliminary text, and it writes about negotiations between the conflicting parties. I think this sentence says a lot. And the second point is that it is very difficult to negotiate only with the participation of the presidents and foreign affairs ministers of these two countries. In this case, the two sides are responsible for everything. If these parties formed delegations from the two countries, some people would take on certain responsibilities. They would then understand that they should make compromises, would lead mutual and maybe systematic negotiations, besides that they would hear the public opinions and feel a sense of responsibility. I think it is better to lead these negotiations through delegations, rather than to throw all these responsibilities on the presidents. They are not as magical as they seem to be.
– Who is to blame for leaving Karabagh out of the negotiations process?
– I can only say that it was not Russia’s fault. I think that, in this case, all sides made mistakes. In 1994, when Azerbaijan saw that the OSCE was speaking about the conflicting parties in Budapest, it started to refuse the inclusion of Karabagh in the negotiations process, but they saw that it was impossible because we were working to proceed the process, first of all Russia, as a separate party, and then as a party of the OSCE Minsk group. When they saw that it was impossible, they tried to recruit the Azeri representatives of the Karabagh community as negotiators. But the problem was that the former citizens of Karabagh who were originally from Azerbaijan couldn’t be involved in the negotiations process as a separate party due to the fact that their issue was the same as that of Baku. We can’t say the same for Yerevan and Stepanakert.
– What kind of issues?
– Even though we are trying to support each other, in this case the approaches are different. I’d like to draw an example. Stepanakert made an announcement saying that it is ready to confirm the agreement on “keeping ceasefire on the borderline”. In fact this was a step forward to exclude cases of war. Stepanakert petitioned Baku and Yerevan to confirm the agreement too in spite of the fact that the agreement didn’t have any time limits. In fact, this was the only agreement for ceasefire made within the framework of the OSCE, because the ceasefire agreement was made without the efforts of the OSCE, but rather the efforts of Russia. In this case the OSCE is not interested in the fulfillment of this agreement. Now let’s talk about the difference in the approaches of Yerevan and Stepanakert. Yerevan didn’t say anything about this announcement that Stepanakert made. As for Baku, of course they will ignore the announcement of Stepanakert. And if Armenia were not passive and joined Stepanakert, the co-chairmen would have an opportunity to apply to Baku and say that these parties had fixed a specific approach and would offer them to discuss it. I don’t know why Armenia kept silent. Baku kept silent too. OSCE is currently not reacting. Now, please tell me, whose fault is it?
– Recently, the co-chairmen of the group have been visiting the region separately. Rumor has it that there is some difference in the approaches of the co-chair countries. What do you have to say about this?
– No, no. This is either exaggerated or a figment of their imagination. It is no secret that a while back, my colleague Youri Merzlyakov was sick and was in the hospital. How could he visit the region? And since he couldn’t travel, the other co-chairmen representing France and America visited the region on their own; this is the reason why they started to make certain assumptions and look for other reasons. I am glad that they currently keep in touch and work together. Before, we weren’t keeping in touch that much. They are starting to use their brains, you know?
– How can you explain the fact that all sides are rushing to resolve the conflit this year?
– The reason is the fact that this year is election year neither in Azerbaijan nor Armenia. Political campaigning is a serious obstacle for negotiations and this year the parties are out of this obstacle. It is time to develop the process. I think that, alas, there won’t be serious developments. But of course the parties should use the opportunity they have to at least to move one step forward.
– Don’t you think that the reason that all the sides are rushing to resolve the conflict is the possible conflict with Iran?
– I think analyzers exaggerate this too. Of course, if something happens in the region it concerns the other countries too, but Karabagh doesn’t have anything to do with Iran. I haven’t heard any of the existing co-chairmen say that they have such a problem. Maybe they are going to discuss such issues, I don’t know, I can’t say anything about this. Of course, analyzers may make assumptions and say, for instance, that someone wants to close the Northern part of Iran and allocate military troops there, etc. These assumptions are just assumptions, nothing more.
– Do you think that there is pressure on either of the parties-I mean Azerbaijan and Armenia?
– I don’t think so. I haven’t ever heard anything concerning pressure from the co-chairmen. But I think there should be pressure based on the international legal norms and documents. I think this pressure should be applied. I think the OSCE should be the first to do this. I think that by helping develop the negotiations the OSCE must not only reject all recommendations that are out of the norms, but make its own recommendations, for instance, in regard to the critical announcements, ceasefire violations, etc. I don’t know why the OSCE is so passive from this perspective. Let’s take the military competition in the region. Can they be indifferent to this issue? I don’t think so. I think they should fix their approach and not only say that they advocate a peaceful resolution to the problem, but they must also say that it is very dangerous to undertake any military actions. They should be brave enough to condemn those critical announcements. I think the moral and other relevant pressures stipulated based on the international legal norms that have been agreed beforehand are right; I think it is right to do so-but only within this framework.
– Do you think the sides will be able to come to a final agreement without any political pressure on the part of the co-chairman countries?
– I think that only the sides can answer this question.