– Were your expectations sufficed from the OSCE summit?
– For us as an OSCE member state the Astana summit was interesting in two aspects. First of all it was important as an event related to security and collaboration and secondly – it was an eruption in the NKR conflict resolution process. In both of the aspects the optimists got frustrated although they made great efforts to disguise that. In the meantime the realists got once again convinced that the OSCE is in crisis regarding the NKR conflict resolution. As of the OSCE then we shouldn’t forget that it is an organization that was established to define the dual-polar world and for the purpose of maintenance. After the collapse of the OSCE many of the US political scientists were speaking about the uni-polar world and the actions of the DC office thrive and are directed by that logic. Russia doesn’t have a wish to get along with that attitude and policy and during the previous years it has been openly objecting the concept of the uni-polar world. Indeed, the economic mightiness of Russia is not enough to return to the dual-polar concept but for Moscow the multi-polar or even non-polar concept are also acceptable for Russia. This is the geopolitical basis, in the clarification of which it is possible to set up the rules of the “game.” There has been no OSCE summit for 11 years because in the conditions of uncertainty it is impossible or at least very difficult to come to an agreement around the principal issues. The summoning of Astana summit was the result of the efforts of the president of Kazakhstan. It is no accident that Obama and Sarkozy didn’t participate in the summit or that in Astana no major issue was discussed regarding territorial matters and even the expression of a concrete attitude was blocked (for example, Georgia’s case). Or based on the adopted statement the existence of the crisis regarding the NKR conflict was fixed.
– Does the statement made in Astana come from the interests of Armenia? Did the parties adopt the Madrid Principles by that?
– First of all the statement clearly stated that during the past several years there has been no progress in the regulation process. The evidence of that is the four statements made since November 2008, two of which were signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia and the two rest – by the presidents of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group of the OSCE. The two statements of the latter resemble each other just like the two drops of water. There is no news in these negotiations during two years, which means we can’t say anything but confess that the process is in crisis. Moreover, the crisis has a charter character. First of all the co-chairs don’t clarify their understanding, based on which the Madrid Principles would be applied to. This has become a basis of continuous bargaining. The second reason is that the co-chairs in order to create “balance” have turned over the issue and the NKR status was moved as last of the basic principles in Madrid document. The practice and logic of conflicts comes to prove that it is a rude mistake and an irreparable obstacle. During the regulation of Kosovo conflict this approach caused tragic consequences – new armed collisions, refugees, casualties, victims, etc. The third significant mistake in the negotiation process is that it proceeds without the representation of the main party of the conflict – the NKR. If one of the main principles is the right of self-determination then how can this matter be discussed without the representation of the bearer of that right. It is not hard to notice that these mistakes were not to suffice first of all the demands of the Armenian side because after the adoption in the process of negotiations the self-determination of nations in 2007 a unique opportunity was created for the fair resolution of the conflict. The basis of that should have been the recognition of the NKR independence. However, the abovementioned mistakes were included in the negotiations not because the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are trying to harm Armenia or the NKR. The thing is that the mediators involved in the international negotiations are fist of all defending the interests of their countries by trying to hide that fact in their activities. This is a well-known truth for the ones, who are more or less aware of the theory of the negotiation process. In such complicated negotiations, which is the NKR conflict (the mediators are three, two of which have their conflicting interests in the region), the sides of the conflicts should have in-depth knowledge, serious experience of conducting negotiations and daily hard work in order to reach success. Unfortunately in the aspect of Armenia none of this can be provided. Vice versa, there are numerous examples, which prove that the ones responsible for the issue, are not seriously treating to that. Let me bring several examples. The fixation of the self-determination, as one of the three principles of the regulation of the issue, created a legal opportunity for the Armenian side to demand the presence of the NKR around the negotiation table. It turns out that Armenia doesn’t respect the right of the NKR of self-determination. Armenia was totally indifferent to the process of Kosovo regulation at Hague International Court that was proceeding for two years. In the meantime 36 countries were actively participating in that. The indifferent approach to the professional work is also perceptible in the preparation of the president’s speeches. I wrote about this back two years ago. As a response to that they wrote that the ones, who believe that the practicing of the self-determination right should end in independence, are romanticists or extremists despite the fact that currently the RA president himself says that the basis of negotiations is the self-determination right. Unfortunately, the president’s speeches are prepared by certain people, who don’t take into account the preparation level of the audience, the purpose of the speech, etc. Although the presidential administration doesn’t get tired of lauding the Astana speech let me bring two examples, which will show that the preparers of the speech didn’t have enough skills. First, in his speech the president stated if Azerbaijan resumes its military aggression Armenia will recognize the NKR independence. This is a totally unacceptable formulation. First of all military aggression and recognition of independence are issues on different platforms. The example of the NKR proves that aggression is ceased when the aggressor becomes convinced that in the continuation of the war he is going to lose. Azerbaijan understands that. They know what happened in 1994. And the independence of the NKR is the inseparable right of the Karabakhi people and it cannot be jeopardized and substituted by any kind of threat of war. The second example is the following. The president spoke about Nakhichevan and the khachkars there. Indeed the annihilation of the monuments in Jugha is a precedent of vandalism and shows the actual face of Azerbaijan. But it could be done by other occasion because the speech was fully dedicated to Artsakh and so Nakhichevan could be mentioned in that context. Nakhichevan was autonomy in the composition of Azerbaijan, which currently doesn’t have a single Armenian. Nakhichevan is the future of Karabakh if the NKR appears in the composition of Azerbaijan. Of course speeches don’t have the same importance and effect as statements or documents but the speeches of the president are considered as an official standpoint of the country and so those should be prepared by specialists. Only the wide-scale professional approach and activity can provide the fair solution to the conflict. As of the second question then the statement once again can proved that the basic principles, which were presented by six points from the statements of L’Aquila and Moscow, are considered basis for the negotiations and the further work should focus on their clarification and concretization.
– There is an impression that during the recent period the threat of war has grown . Did Astana give solution to that?
– I think this impression is created on purpose in order to provide some progress in the negotiations. Indeed by pointing out the speeches of the representatives of the co-chair states at the summit in Armenia they are trying to demonstrate as an attempt to restrain the aggression attempts of Azerbaijan. However, I’d like to remind that these statements not always have been included in negotiations but also in processes, which have been mandatory norms for the UN and OSCE member states. But these norms and documents have never prevented wars and aggression neither in our region nor anywhere else. Moreover, one of the principles of the NKR conflict resolution is the agreement on not applying military means. In the meantime, the co-chairs of the Minsk Group do not relevantly respond to the violation of the regime of cease fire, some of which have caused serious human casualties and were a serious provocation for the resumption of war. It would be naïve to think that they really didn’t know, who the provokers are, as a result of which they were not able to make clear statements. But in this case as well I think it would be not right to blame the co-chairs of the Minsk Group. Instead we should have understood what we were supposed to do to exclude the possibility of avoiding clear statements on part of the co-chairs. The only guarantee of prevention of war would be the strengthening of the two Armenian states and the preparation of the army in order to bring certain serious damage to the aggressor.
– How would you evaluate the foreign policy achievements of 2010 if there are any?
– I would love to do so with pleasure but unfortunately the facts make us speak only about losses and failures. The agenda of the Armenian foreign policy is only limited by the Armenia-Turkey relations and the NKR conflict. We have already discussed the NKR conflict, which is currently in crisis. As of the Armenia-Turkey relations I can say that the developments of the first months of the year made many people believe that the whole process is subject to a quick fiasco. Unfortunately, even the termination was not done relevantly by the Armenian side. The RA stated that it was going to suspend something, which Turkey had done 6 months ago – in the next morning of the day of signing the protocols, which was done by Erdogan’s statement. In the meantime it didn’t have the full right to state the suspension of the process. And Turkey has fully used the privileges creates as a result of the launch of the process. Indeed, it is understandable that this year the Armenian authorities have tried to avoid timid statements and have tried to look more courageous and bold but it was evident that those were not professionally prepared and were stipulated merely by inter-political issues. In conditions of the absence of necessary skills and knowledge the sad results of absolutely natural.