According to David Shahnazaryan, after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia and the war in April, it became clear that the international guarantees are not functioning
– Mr. Shahnazaryan, first of all, let’s talk about the current situation on Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process.
– The developments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement are more than disturbing. Let us view some events in a chronological order. On November 28, in Baku, President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, and President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, signed a joint statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement which indicated that they attach a great importance to the resolution of the conflict in accordance with international law and universally accepted principles, “first of all based on the principles of sovereignty of the states, preservation of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders.” It is noteworthy that indicating the importance of the settlement, they gave the priority to the principle of territorial integrity, and the word “peace” is missing.
– But this statement had a continuation which listed the OSCE decisions, the efforts carried out in the framework of the OSCE and the Minsk Group.
Read also
– In the continuation, when they were citing to the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group, it was mentioned a “peaceful settlement” but the word “peace” is not mentioned in their estimated. In addition, there was an open dissatisfaction with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. The content of this statement is contrary to the position adopted by the Co-Chair countries and the principles of the settlement. At least, it is surprising and incomprehensible why after that, the ambassador of Belarus to Armenia was not recalled to the Foreign Ministry of Armenia in order to express the official dissatisfaction of Armenia in the CSTO and the EaEU with our so-called ally.
Next. On December 1, during the visit to Turkey, according to the official press release, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov discusses the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process with the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. The next day, Çavuşoğlu immediately made an unscheduled visit to Baku where he met with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister and the President and then announced the Russian initiative on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, noting that the Russian initiative is beyond the scopes of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. The other important event of this chain was the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim to Russia on December 5. A member of the Turkish delegation, the head of Turkey-Russia Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group, in the Turkish-Russian initiatives Recai Berber also emphasized the Russian-Turkish initiatives, noting that Turkey and Russia have agreed to intensify the efforts aimed at the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Next, on December 9, in Hamburg, in the framework of the OSCE Ministerial Council sessions, the Heads of the Delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the US Secretary of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, issued a statement in which they urged to respect the agreements reached during the previous sessions regarding the implementation of confidence-building measures and the elimination of the obstacles to the expansion of the office of the personal representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and report a progress on the establishment of a mechanism for investigation by OSCE. But this was immediately followed by Lavrov’s reaction. In Hamburg, he noted that no mutual agreement has been reached regarding the placement of new observers in the conflict zone.
This was an overt message addressed to Azerbaijan that “everything is normal. Do not pay attention to this statement.” This proves of the fact that Russia is against the use of the confidence-building measures. It is obvious, firstly, by using the existing uncertain situation of geopolitical security, especially since this period of assuming the power by Donald Trump in the USA, Russia is trying to diminish if not eliminate the role of the OSCE Minsk Group which Russia has long sought together with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have never concealed their negative posture towards the OSCE Minsk Group format.
Secondly, it is obvious that the Russia’s initiative as such which is supported by both Azerbaijan and Turkey is the Moscow-Ankara-Baku initiative. This is same so-called “Lavrov plan” which recently has begun to be called as “Putin’s plan” by Russian experts, the key points of which are primarily the return of five regions to Azerbaijan, and the deployment of Russian troops – so-called peacekeepers – in the Karabakh conflict zone. It is not also excluded that Russia will have the desire to achieve Azerbaijan’s accession to the Eurasian Economic Union which Aliyev directly speaking about the EaEU accession in the interview with Dmitry Kiselyov on October 18 noted that “nothing can be excluded.”
It is obvious that the Russian plan is more comprehensive; it is an aspiration of making Azerbaijan its satellite, establishing Moscow’s dominance in the South Caucasus and strengthening the influence, which according to my information has caused serious concern in Tbilisi with both the government and the opposition circles. I think that Armenia’s authorities are politically unable to resist the Russian plan. But at the same time, I am confident that Armenia will not agree to the return of any region. In this situation, I do not rule out that the scenario of hostilities in April will be repeated which failed because of the NKR Defense Army.
The repetition of this scenario is more than real, moreover, next time, Azerbaijan will have more extensive rights from the Kremlin to use arms in the military operations. What was the scenario of operations in April: Azerbaijan was going to attack and conquer several regions, after which Moscow would declare that the Armenian side is unable to protect Nagorno-Karabakh and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers are a must. I think this was the legend of April which failed only thanks to the heroic resistance of the NKR Defense Army. The Russian-Turkish subsequent plan to overthrow our only hope is the Armed Forces.
On one occasion I have said and will repeat that the next war which in my opinion will be inevitable will be the patriotic war. Russia will determine the timing depending on geopolitical developments. If until now the West has managed to prevent Russia’s plan then now, I have a serious fear that in the event of the uncertainty of the US policy and the US-Russian relations, Moscow may fulfill this scenario.
– Official Yerevan has announced several times that the “Lavrov plan” does not exist. After your listed events, recently, Serzh Sargsyan at the meeting with cultural figures in Stepanakert mentioned, “At this point, there are no negotiations,” and later expressed such an idea,”… both the army, the population and the citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh must be ready to pass through a hard time…” Can we say that the RA government indirectly once again at the highest level stated that it refuses Russia’s plan?
– I am confident that Armenia’s authorities have, do and will refuse the “Lavrov plan”. The point that it does not is a fact although Moscow does not officially confirm it, however, official Ankara and Baku are continuously talking about its existence, while no refuting is made by the Russian side. The Russian-Turkish plan must be confronted with the army.
– Was the working visit of Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin to Baku an option of a pressure over Armenia by Russia?
– Rogozin’s visit was qualified successful both by the Russian and Azerbaijani side. Rogozin as an RF Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for military industrial and arms supply transactions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Baku was also concerning. Let us not forget that in addition to 5 billion dollars arms deal with Russia, Azerbaijan has signed almost similar amount of arms deal with Israel.
– In other words, do Moscow and Baku seek to achieve the final settlement of Karabakh conflict with a joint plan?
– Russia has never and will ever be interested in a comprehensive settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan has again put forward the “step by step” option for the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. However, this option has ceased to exist, primarily after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia when it became clear that the international guarantees institutions are no longer valid, and secondly, after the hostilities in April. Unfortunately, what the RA authorities are officially announcing that the international recognition of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is primary and it should be recognized by Azerbaijan, I do not see active initiative policy by the Armenian side in this direction. The integral part of this program would be the return of the Nagorno-Karabakh to the negotiating table as a full party to the conflict, and nothing is done in this direction too.
– What can be predicted for 2017 in terms of possible developments of Armenia, in our region and geopolitically?
– The year 2017 is going to be an extremely difficult year for us. Trump’s first presidential period is going to be difficult until the new US administration becomes sure that the hope to work effectively with Russia were mere illusions which, by the way, happened during Obama’s administration: in 2008, after the Russian-Georgian war, the United States began the Reset policy with Russia. Trump’s administration will pass in the same way. The year 2017 will be crucial for the European Union and the European security. As for Armenia, in my opinion, under the pressure of Russia, Armenia agreed to create an Armenian-Russian joined military troop which resulted in Russia’s acquiring direct influence leverages on the Armenian army.
It is not clear why until now Armenia and NKR are not signing an agreement on mutual military-political assistance which was mentioned by Serzh Sargsyan during the days of hostilities in April. I am confident that it is not implemented because of the Russian pressure. Armenia’s foreign policy is based not on Armenia’s state interests and the interests of the citizens of Armenia but it has a dogmatic character which underlies the already rejected dogma by the history that Russia is our strategic ally perpetually. Russia has always solved its issues in this region at the expense of Armenia.
To the point, unlike the RA authorities and political circles, the great part of our society clearly realizes that Russia has been and remains a threat to us and to Artsakh. Realizing all this, in 1992, the RA authorities made a decision to internationalize the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and take it to the OSCE to which Azerbaijan and Russia were categorically against it. Russia’s aspirations were clear at that time too. Russia’s role has not and will not be changed. Armenia should not tolerate Russia’s specific role and should protect the OSCE MG format for the settlement. And the famous principle of foreign policy by which the world is guided that there are no perpetual enemies and friends which means that the foreign policy should not be dogmatic, we use in the domestic policy which is an absurd. This indicates the weakness of our political system that the political system as an institution does not exist.
– Mr. Shahnazaryan, recently, Aliyev admitted that pressures are exerted over Azerbaijan to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. It was a very positive statement for the Armenian side. Does the Armenian side not have any chance to conduct a diplomatic task in this direction?
– The United States has repeatedly announced about the resolution of “Nagorno-Karabakh status in return of territories” which was also voiced by Serzh Sargsyan. In my opinion, it would be right that the status comes first and then the resolution on territories. We are witnessing Azerbaijan’s clear policy against the OSCE Minsk Group format, now, the so-called “Peace-loving Azerbaijan” plan is put into action. We need to understand that Aliyev is unable to keep to the agreements, he is breaking them. His policy is not only the claim to return Nagorno-Karabakh but at times, there are also claims for the territory of Armenia, and in general the anti-Armenian policy in Azerbaijan is a state policy. The access of people with Armenian surnames to this country is impossible, even as a transit country.
– But the access of several Armenians to this country did not cause any obstacle. Let us talk about this subject. Some people think that it is necessary to ignore and not to talk about the activities of these people, the other part is disposed more radical and acts with calls to destroy them physically. What should be done?
– That is why I said, the so-called “Peace-loving Azerbaijan” plan. I consider that the intimidations voiced against these people are unacceptable because they are calculated by official Baku and are included in the plans of Azerbaijan. Both Azerbaijan and Russia are recently trying to show that Armenia and Azerbaijan are on the same level about human rights and freedom of expression. I think that the authorities of Armenia and NKR can seriously oppose this plan, noting that Azerbaijan is trying to create a myth with “Peace-loving Azerbaijan” plan with this propaganda. Incidentally, it was noteworthy that the Azerbaijani official representative talked about this initiative at the OSCE Ministerial Council in Hamburg, in other words, it is obvious that it is Azerbaijan’s state policy which is encouraged by Russia.
EMMA GABRIELYAN
