News.Az interviews Yuriy Sigov, political reviewer and head of the Russian magazine Delovye Lyudi's (Business People) office in Washington.
Were the Armenians right to project the situation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kovoso (especially after the UN International Court ruling) onto Nagorno-Karabakh?
I think any reference to the exclusivity or “specialty” of the de facto independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo are from the evil one. Independence either exists or it doesn't and there cannot be any special cases. As was the situation before, no country that was directly involved in those cases of independence intends to take command on Karabakh. Neither Russia nor the United States are ready yet to stake their foreign policy interests on Karabakh and create tension in the Caucasus, which is a long way off complete stability and peace after the war between Russia and Georgia two years ago. There is no link between the independence of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the one hand, and Nagorno-Karabakh on the other, but the leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh can make its own proclamations (without consulting Russia or the United States) and the further developments in the Caucasus may not proceed in the way Moscow and Washington expect.
How likely is it that Russia will recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh?
It's likely that Karabakh will declare its independence and this is something that all the parties in the conflict should not only take into account now but plan their response to. It is impossible to predict Russian policy on this issue since it is inconsistent and chaotic. Moscow does not have special means of pressure (either military and financial) on Nagorno-Karabakh unlike its complete maintenance of "independent" Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including financing the recognition of their independence by other countries.
Do you think that Russia's current active mediation on a Karabakh resolution can avert a possible new war in the region and promote a peaceful solution to the conflict?
I think mediation makes sense only if there is real interest in solving the conflict. I think not only Russia but also the other mediators are interested in something else – in preserving the current “non-military” status quo in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and in averting hostilities between the two CIS countries in the Caucasus. It is really possible for Russia and the United States to avert war, but it is unrealistic to settle the conflict from a position of “unclear negotiations”.
Russia has recently assumed a leading role in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Why do you think the United States ceded the leading role as a mediator to Russia, despite the recent visit of Secretary of State Clinton to the region?
I have said several times that what is most important for the US in the region is that no hostilities should break out there, whoever's fault they may be (not only because of Karabakh). The US administration has many other important affairs, including Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the coming mid-term elections to the US Congress where the Republicans may beat the Democrats and suppress the reformist ardour of President Obama. On the other hand, neither Russia, nor the US or Europe are ready to settle the Karabakh conflict alone and won't be for some time. If everything muddles along as it is, the Americans will be completely satisfied, but if the situation over Iran worsens, the Caucasus will become a more important region for the United States for the resolution of practical political and military objectives.
The United States is drawing out the appointment of their ambassador to Azerbaijan for over a year. The Armenian lobby is actively hampering the appointment of Matthew Bryza, a former co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, who was nominated by President Obama. How do you assess this situation?
The United States has to fill many envoy positions throughout the world and Azerbaijan is no exception. They recently chose the US ambassador to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez refused accreditation. As for the position in Baku, like in other post-Soviet countries it is not a priority for US foreign policy. Washington will probably resolve the issue depending on the importance of contacts with Azerbaijan, in the light of overall developments in the Caucasus and the way affairs proceed with Iran. Anyway, the personality of the US ambassador in any country is a purely nominal factor. This will be important only to those who attend receptions in the US embassy in Baku and who are going to work directly with US business. US policy on Azerbaijan and the Caucasus is made by people in the State Department and the White House, while the ambassador fulfills it within the frameworks strictly laid down for him or her.
U.U.
News.Az