In a week in Astana the OSCE member state summit will take place. One of the main issues of the agenda of Kazakhstan summit is the unresolved conflicts. Indeed the NKR conflict will be in the center of the discussion. Opinions are heard that in Astana the process may move forward. Also opposite assumptions are heard (more often), according to which as a result of the negotiations no positive result can be expected. A reporter of 168-Zham spoke about these issues and the Azerbaijani-Armenian issues with a Russian Duma MP, first deputy chairman of the committee of the State Duma for the CIS and relations with Russian nationals abroad Konstantin Zatulin.
– A week before the summit in Astana pessimistic opinions are expressed by experts regarding the NKR conflict, according to which progress is still not expected. Do you agree with these opinions?
– I want to believe that there will be some shift in the process. It is not acceptable to express such opinions because by doing that your opponents may misinterpret your words by stating, “He is not willing to come to any agreement and thus the success of the summit will fail.” Thus, pessimism before the summit may cause the counter-effect on part of the opponents. I don’t want this to happen at all. I would only like to say that the current situation around the NKR conflict is pretty hideous. During the past 8-9 months or even during the past year the tension around the conflict drastically grew. This is connected both with the statements of resolving the conflict via military means and military preparations (which are publicly demonstrated) as we well as tension of tones during the negotiations. I am worried that the two sides, especially Azerbaijan wouldn’t go too far in this approach, which would make it too late for them to prevent from correcting the situation. That is why in this case the best option would be to “feed the hungry with little pieces.” You can’t feed them at a banquet table and so the best way is to feed with a spoon. The Russian side has adopted this policy, when during meetings agreements are achieved regarding the exchange of war prisoners and discussion around the nearby territories. It is quite possible that in Astana such a similar agreement will be reached. This is also a positive thing because in the current situation it is hard to assume a drastic shift in the NKR conflict resolution. The opinions of the sides are contradicting each other and the militaristic statements even more deepen and tense the situation.
– In your opinion what can Yerevan sacrifice when reaching a serious progress in the NKR conflict resolution and what compromises will Baku take?
– I don’t think that Yerevan or Stepanakert will ever accept any compromises regarding the NKR independence. It means this can become reality only in the result of military actions, as a result of Armenia’s capitulation. And I don’t mean the capitulation of Yerevan or Stepanakert. It is clear that this is absolutely impossible and unrealistic. So there can be no constructive solution regarding this method. Having said that, we may assume that the methods of reaching solutions regarding the NKR conflict can be outlined in various methods. It is also understandable that if a package solution is attained Armenia will have to return the territories to Azerbaijan, which are currently occupied by the military forces of Nagorno Karabakh. The Lachin corridor should receive a separate solution. As it’s known the Armenian side is given different advices by offering to give one or two districts back to Azerbaijan. In a principally quieter environment this version and scenario could be discussed. But I don’t think the discussion of this scenario will conduce to the constructive conduct of negotiations. These steps cannot be accepted in an absolute manner by Armenia. And the Armenian government cannot take this step. I am sure that none of the OSCE member states is interested in the resumption of military actions regardless of the fact that their interests often collide in the international arena. The whole point of the negotiations is to maintain peace and make sure the sides refuse the language of threats. As a matter of fact this kind of behavior even more harms Azerbaijan. In an economic aspect Azerbaijan is a developing country, which was providing high GDP growth for years and was receiving foreign investments because of its gas and oil. And the capital is a very timid substance. So these statements do not only hinder the economic success but also damage these projects. In some cases these are merely bellicose statements. I think that the significance of this situation will reach not only certain people but the whole society of Armenia.
– For example, in Yerevan, there are talks that Russia may alter its political course based on its interests in the region and that it may pressure on Yerevan in order to reach a quick solution in the conflict and make Armenia accept unilateral compromises. To what extent is this motive substantiated?
– I don’t know anything about that and don’t see any grounds for such assumptions. Indeed, there might be certain nuances in the attitude of Russia. Armenia not in the formal aspect but virtually is involved in the conflict. Indeed, Russia is trying to keep a certain distance and not spoil its relations with Azerbaijan. So I don’t see any reason to put these things into threat and doubt. In that meaning, the behavior of the Russian side is directed to excluding the resumption of military actions and to ensure that the process of peaceful talks continues.