Lawrence Schitz:"Azerbaijan cannot exclude Russia from the Minsk Group, since Russia is a big regional power with its own security interests in the Caucasus"

- In the end of 2008 Russia supplied Armenia with military hardware of a total of $800,000,000 free of charge. How might the given fact affect settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

First, we should not rush to conclusions on this issue. The claim has to be studied and independently verified. If confirmed, Russian arms transfers to Armenia could be considered as a move undermining the peace process in the region, and putting at risk Russia’s credibility as a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The alleged arms transfers would risk further stimulating an arms race between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and diverting scarce public funds away from social needs.

- How you think, what purposes are pursued by Russia, on the one hand initiating signing of the Moscow declaration, acting as the co-chairman of the Minsk group of OSCE, and on the other hand arming Armenia - one of the conflict parties?

- Again before jumping to conclusions, we need to clarify all of the allegations. As regards the Moscow declaration, this seemed primarily a move by Russia to strengthen its position in the South Caucasus and present itself as a regional peace-broker, thus also improving its international image, which was tarnished by the August war in Georgia. This is not to say that the Moscow declaration is unimportant. Although the document is rather general and vaguely-worded in its content, it nonetheless is an important document in which the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents pledged to work towards a political resolution of the conflict based on the principles of international law and taking into consideration the Madrid proposals of the Minsk Group.

- The international organizations including International Crisis Group periodically condemn Azerbaijan because of increase in the military budget of the country several times. Why does International Crisis Group  not condemn actions of Russia and Armenia as the military arsenal exceeds the double size of the military budget of Armenia after supply of Russian military hardware to it?

- In its past reports, the Crisis Group criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan alike for sharing the responsibility for the unfolding arms race between them. The last Crisis Group briefing on Azerbaijan published in October 2008 was dedicated to Azerbaijan’s defense sector reforms. In this briefing we even mentioned that Azerbaijan is less militarized country than Armenia, in a sense that it actually spends a lesser percentage of its GDP to army. In our 2005 report “Nagorno-Karabakh: Viewing Conflict from the Ground” we criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan for arms race, and even called present-day Nagorno-Karabakh “the most militarized society in the world”. As you see, we were not criticizing only Azerbaijani side. So, I do not find your argument against Crisis Group justifiable.

- The Azerbaijan analysts support an exclusion of Russia from OSCE Minsk Group. Do you think it would be correct to exclude Russia from MG of OSCE and is it possible to replace with any other state?

The exclusion of Russia from the Minsk Group process would not be a prudent policy and would not serve Azerbaijan’s interests. Realistically, Azerbaijan cannot exclude Russia from the Minsk Group, since Russia is a big regional power with its own security interests in the Caucasus.

- The supply of the Russian armament of Armenia once again confirms the well known opinion that the key from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is in Moscow. Russia today is not interested in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, because the frozen conflict allows it to put pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If a conflict will be well-regulated, in this case Russia will lose all South Caucasus. Do you agree with such opinion?

- Statements to the effect that Moscow alone can decide whether the Karabakh question is resolved effectively ignore the responsibility that both Armenia and Azerbaijan bear for the continuation of this conflict. It is true that Russia has increasingly pursued a foreign policy based on its doctrine of limited sovereignty with respect to countries it views, because of history and geography, as within its natural sphere of influence. However, it is in the interests of Russia to be viewed as a responsible and cooperative international actor. So, the best possible option is to engage with Russia and, in cooperation with US and EU members, urge Russia to conduct responsible policies in the region. Stability in South Caucasus is fundamentally in the interests of Russia. A stable and peaceful South Caucasus will also bring benefits helping prevent conflicts in the North Caucasus region of Russia.

/Day.Az/