Armenian expert: Russian, Israeli presidents’ recent visits to Baku affirm Azerbaijan's enhanced strategic importance prompting Armenia to become concerned

Day.Az: Baku says that the talks on resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is comig closer to final stage.  To what degree are you optimistic about resolution of the conflict any time soon?

Richard Giragosian:  As the Moscow meeting between recent Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian confirms, it is now clear that the diplomatic mediation effort aimed at resolving the Nagorno Karabagh conflict is now entering a crucial and more active stage.  But the timing of this latest stage of peace talks and summit meetings is most significant in terms of Turkish-Armenian diplomacy, as Turkey is now seeking to pressure Armenia to produce something that can be used as “progress” over the Karabagh conflict in order to allow Turkey to proceed with its diplomatic engagement of Armenia in anticipation of the October visit to Turkey by the Armenian president.  Yet from this context, there is a more realistic expectation for a limited and marginal sign of “progress” rather than any true breakthrough between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Q: What is the reason for negative assessment of Armenia to statement by Dmitry Medvedev and Shimon Peres in Baku which was also reflected in Armenian media as well.

A: Nearly one year after the war in Georgia, Azerbaijan has been steadily acquiring an enhanced strategic significance.  In this way, both Russia and even Israel has been actively seeking to forge closer ties with Azerbaijan.  Thus, the recent visits to Baku by the Russian and Israeli presidents affirm the enhanced strategic importance of Azerbaijan, prompting Armenia to become increasingly concerned.

Q: During a PACE session, a member of the Armenian delegation Zaruhi Postanjyan approached to representatives of the Azerbaijani and Turkish delegations and asked to sign for a change in PACE Resolution on Armenia. Her performance led to a negative assessment of Armenian counterparts. And at the next plenary meeting, she intends to once again appeal to Azerbaijani delegates. How do you assess this situation?

A: Postanjyan was courageous in working for the deepening of democracy in Armenia, and stays firm to her commitment to justice and human rights, although her critics still cling to outdated ad rather limited notions of nationalist posturing.

Q: How do you comment on the visits of representatives of the Azerbaijani and Armenian delegation to Nagorno-Karabakh, Yerevan and Baku? How these meetings can facilitate dialogue between the two countries?

A: The recent visit to Armenia, Karabagh and Azerbaijan of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Ambassadors to Russia marked a new effort of “people’s diplomacy.”  Although the visit was timed with a new, more active stage of mediation focused on the Karabagh conflict, what is most significant of the visit is that it revealed the fact that far too little has been done on either the Armenian or the Azerbaijani sides to prepare the general population for any possible resolution of the Karabagh conflict.

On a broader level, in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabagh, society itself is not engaged in the peace process, a reality that poses a real problem, and compounds the fact that the lack of information concerning the peace process only leads to misinformation.  While the Armenian government must do much more to educate and involve its citizens in the peace process, it is also clear that Azerbaijan has also failed to properly prepare its public for any possible progress in the peace talks.

Kama M., Day.Az