Interview News.Az with Alexey Vlasov, director of the Russian Center on Post-Soviet Area Studies.
Baku and Yerevan are accusing each other of the unwillingness to make compromises. Is the situation in the conflict area dangerous as the negotiation process is delayed?
The situation is really very complex and it is difficult to make any unambiguous predictions over prospects of its further development. If the settlement process is lingered, it will inevitably lead to the further growth of the threats of conflicts in the region. But even if the issue of the return of five regions of Azerbaijan is settled soon, this step will create a visibility of deep advancement in the resolution of the conflict only for a short period.
UN seems a more amorphous and passive structure
Azerbaijan tries to keep the Karabakh problem the center of UN’s constant attention, thus causing Yerevan’s concerns about Baku’s attempts to withdraw the negotiation process from the OSCE format. How can the United Nations contribute to the resolution of this conflict?
I think it is time for political negotiations to be enriched with a wider format of public dialogue between Yerevan and Baku. A systematic involvement of not only EU and OSCE but also the United States is more possible in this context. As for the practical influence on the situation, OSCE has more instruments than the United Nations. Another question is that these instruments should be used correctly and the systematic differences between the main participants of international organizations should be removed.
What is the problem of non-execution of the four well-known resolutions of the UN Security Council on Karabakh, to your mind?
In this sense, the UN seems a more amorphous and passive structure. However, this is an ideal area for political declarations that is maximally used by Azerbaijan’s leadership. But as Kazakhstan will chair the OSCE next year, I suppose Astana in the face of its President Nursultan Nazasbayev will have to use the potential of the organization more effectively, which is proven by his recent statement over Nagorno Karabakh.
Baku is criticizing the position of the mediating countries in the Karabakh settlement “agree and we will support the solution”. Does such conflicts settlement have prospects without elements of forcing the parties to execute the established norms, principles and resolutions of international organizations?
In fact, Azerbaijan’s claims are absolutely clear as it is tired of numerous resolutions, negotiations and discussions that prove to be ineffective. But we should take into account that the mediators also have no single views. And, probably, the formula that you listed above is a result of the clear understanding of impossibility to attain the desired end on basis of consensus. It is unclear how to act further. Therefore, they first followed the logics of a frozen conflict and after the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, the mediators seemed to transfer the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement to the sphere of lobby agreements. But then you can ask – what is the importance of the international organizations that must engage in the resolution of such conflicts? Here, we make a conclusion that the architecture of international security and institutions, that ensure it, fail to catch up with the changing state of affairs and the situation around Nagorno Karabakh is just worsening it.
Aliyah Fridman
News.Az