“All three authorities of the three republic states must understand
that mutual interests are much more important than the contradictions
going on right now. One country’s security can not be secured on the
account of the other’s. The security of the neighboring countries must
be our guarantee for security.”
“Washington Profile”: “What kind of influence do the regional conflicts have on the security of the Southern Caucasus?”
David Shahnazaryan: “The conflict that is going to end all conflicts
within the Southern Caucasus region is the one concerning Karabagh. In
contrast to the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Osian conflicts, the
Karabagh conflict includes two of the republics of the region. Also,
the Karabagh conflict differs in that it puts a huge ban on
implementing international projects and investments, whereas the
Georgian conflicts do not place any obstacles on regional integration.
The Karabagh conflict closes the means of communication between the
Southern Caucasus countries. The Abkhazian and Osian conflicts include
the countries of Georgia, Abkhazia, Russia and Osia, whereas the
Karabagh conflict includes the Republic of Karabagh, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, Turkey. Iran, Russia, the U.S. and France just have some
personal interests. The Southern Caucasus region may develop and
flourish only as a unified region and a unified market. I don’t think
that the modern day politics led by Russia has a positive influence.
There are dividing lines in the region due to Russia’s politics and the
effort put in by the Armenian authorities. Georgia and Azerbaijan are
struggling to maintain national security with an aim to become members
of the EuroAtlantic structures and NATO. As for the Armenian
authorities, they look up to Russia’s military bases in Armenia and
Russian politics as a way of maintaining national security. The armed
forces of any country can not be another country’s source of security,
especially foreign military bases. I truly doubt the fact that Russia
wants to use Armenia to solve its problems with Georgia. Today, a
danger that faces Armenia is that if Russia decides to do something
like that, then Armenia may become a serious destabilization factor in
the region.
“Washington Profile”: “Why does the Karabagh conflict remain unsolved and can it be solved at all?”
David Shahnazaryan: “The main reason for the delay is that the
Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan are not interested getting out of
this situation. The Karabagh conflict is the base for their power, that
is why they consider any change in the situation as a threat to their
power. Both are not ready to take action in solving the conflict.
During a meeting in Astana organized by President of the Russian
Federation Vladimir Putin, there was a suggestion made to take a vote
for the Karabagh conflict. In my opinion, that will not help the peace
settlement and will only give Aliyev and Kocharyan the opportunity to
lead endless negotiations and win some time. The orientation of the two
countries is narrow. Robert Kocharyan declares that while Karabagh’s
politics remains unclear, there will be no negotiations. He demands a
settlement in exchange for lands. President Aliyev, in turn, claims
that negotiations will be led when Karabagh will return the lands
seized as a result of war. Both orientations are irreal. I think that
the only solution to the problem is by going through phases: not
discuss Karabagh’s status before the negotiations, make some sacrifices
and return certain lands to Azerbaijan, etc. Generally, the most
realistic solution would be to go phase by phase, return some lands in
exchange for guarantee for national security and opening of borders. As
a result, Azerbaijan will get back some of the lands and the refugees
will be able to come back. Armenia will be freed from the blockade and
will be able to take part in the regional integration. As for the
Republic of Karabagh, it will get the guarantee for national security,
I mean political, legal and military. Even many of Kocharyan’s close
friends think that the only road to take which leads to a peace
settlement is the phase by phase variant. At the same time, however,
they admit that they don’t want to solve things that way and that is
why they hold back. The internal status of both Armenia and Azerbaijan
are very much alike. The government of Armenia spreads anti-Azeri
propaganda and the Azeri do the same to Armenia. That propaganda slowly
becomes an official orientation and the countries’ politics.
Three years ago, the co-presidents of the Minsk group of the European
Security and Cooperation Organization announced that both presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan are ready to solve the conflict, however, the
societies of the two are not. I don’t agree with that. It is totally
the opposite-the two countries are more prepared than the presidents.
Unfortuantely, I get the impression that the Azeri and Armenian
authorities are much further from a peaceful settlement than they were
12 years ago when there was a war going on. Besides that, the Karabagh
conflict changes the course of democratic modifications being made,
which makes the conflict more complex.
“Washington Profile”: “What does the U.S. have to say about all this?”
David Shahnazaryan: “Before we discuss the orientiation of the U.S.,
let’s take a look at Russia’s. Modern day Russia is very unpredictable,
and that is dangerous. I am very worried about the reforms being made
in Russia because democracy and Russian federalism are losing their
values. I think that this will lead to negative consequences. Russia
does not want to see the Caucasus as a unified political region, but
rather, it wants to divide it. Russia’s politics for the Caucasus is
based on four levers: the conflicts within the Caucasus region, the
doubtful legitimacy of the Armenian and Azeri authorities, the Russian
military bases and the Armenian-Turkish blockade. If the border between
the two countries opens, I am certain that there will be new relations
between the countries within the region. This will help settle the
Karabagh conflict. Improving relations between Armenia and Turkey will
become a key factor for stabilizing the entire region. So, the U.S. has
to deal with encouraging the development of Armenian and Turkish
relations.
I think that the present day Turkish government is more able than its
predecessors to take steps in making the right choices. Former
President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s efforts put in to tie Turkey
with Armenia failed due to the development of the Karabagh conflict and
the change in power in 1998. Today, many Turkish politicians and
diplomats agree with the fact that opening the border will benefit
Turkey. The situation in Eastern Turkey is worse than Armenia’s, so
widening market economy will have a positive influence on those areas.
The European Union is interested in the development of the Southern
Caucasus. The European Union was pretty active in the past couple of
years. A couple of years ago the leaders of the European Union were
declaring that no new projects will being in the region until the
conflicts don’t get settled. Now they claim that the projects will be
implemented as soon as there is some progress towards a peaceful
settlement. In contrast to Russia, the European Union wants to see a
unified Caucasus. Unfortunately, the European structures are going at a
slow pace, but everything is changing rapidly in the region. I hope
that the European Union takes action fast, especially when Turkey
continues striving to be part of the union. That will not only benefit
Armenia, but also the rest of the countries in the region. The Caucasus
will have a border in common with the European Union while Turkey will
become more predictable.
I am certain that the present situation of the Karabagh conflict will
not last forever. If both sides do not come to a solution, the
situation may develop in two courses: first, pressure will be put on
Armenia and Azerbaijan by other countries leading towards signing the
“Deitonyan contract”, which I think is irreal. Secondly, there will be
a new wave rising for the conflict. Both sides must take precautions.
“Washington Profile”: “How does the government of Armenia look at opening the border with Turkey?
David Shahnazaryan: “Unfortunately, the present day Armenian
authorities are not interested in that. First of all, according to the
above mentioned reasons the government does not favor improving
relations with Turkey in order to solve the Karabagh conflict.
Secondly, Armenia’s economy is oligarchic and opening the border may
hurt the interests of oligarchs which are supported by the authorities.
In addition, that may loosen Kocharyan’s power. The third reason is
very clear: Moscow doesn’t want that. That is why whenever there is any
conversation regarding Armenian-Turkish relations, the Armenian
authorities claim that there can be no negotiations led about relations
until Turkey does not recognize the Armenian Genocide. I truly believe
that international recognition of the Armenian Genocide must not be the
main factor of Armenia’s foreign politics.
“Washington Profile”: “What do you think about relations between Armenia and Iran?”
David Shahnazaryan: “During the last couple of years, I have noticed
that the economic relations between Armenia and Iran are not moving
forward. When Levon Ter-Petrosyan was president, we did everything we
could to help the U.S. understand that Iran is our neighboring country
and it is necessary for usto have economic relations with that country.
At the same time, however, we stated that Iran is not a political ally
for us. The passage through Iran was very important for us during the
years of blockade. At the time the U.S. was in favor of our
orientation.
Today, the main course taken by both Armenia and Iran is not the
economic one, but rather the political. If we take into consideration
that there are some problems between Iran and Azerbaijan, this means
that Armenia may face some problems in the future due to the tendencies
in relations. Everyone knows about the situation, but when political
aspects come into the light, people may find out many unknown things,
such as the Turkish-Iranian, Russian-Iranian, American-Iranian
relations and complications which consist of many other problems.”
“Washington Profile”: “Do you think that the guarantee for security withing the Southern Caucasus region is a reality?”
David Shahnazaryan: “The only way that the Caucasus can become a stable
region is by turning into a unified, cosmopolitan region. “All three
authorities of the three republic states must understand that mutual
interests are much more important than the conflicts going on right
now. One country’s security can not be secured on the account of the
other’s. The security of the neighboring countries must be our
guarantee for security. We can guarantee security and develop the
region this way. There is no alternative, but in order to do that it is
necessary to establish democracy and have legitimate authorities in the
Southern Caucasus. Another thing that we must do to provide security is
to win the Russian veto in the region.”
November 10, 2004, Washington Profile