Ariel Cohen :U.S. is tired of lock jam around Karabakh

How do estimate the normalization of Turkey and Armenia relations taking into account Nagorno-Karabakh problem? Will the protocols be ratified until end of the year?

I think that the situation in the Caucasus right now is changing very significantly. This is post post-soviet development in which the position of the US is diminishing. The US was here in the early 90-es relatively strong. Russia resisted and resented American presence. And now US is focusing on Afghanistan, Pakistan, relations with Iran and the Obama administration does not prioritize South Caucasus as much as Clinton and J. W. Bush administration did. So if vacuum is created when Russia and Turkey will step in, in particular, Turkey.

Turkey wanted to put the relationship with Armenia on a new footing. That will include opening the border but also other things like the discussion of the events of 1915. I think from the Turkish point of view it makes a lot of sense.

Because otherwise it was a stuck problem that kept creating lots of problems for Turkey. Now this new development opens at least the chance for further resolution. Whether the protocols will be ratified by parliaments, I don’t know. I don’t know how long is going to take, but I am also concerned that if they ratify it puts Azerbaijan in disadvantage.

Because Turkey and Armenia will have they own relationship, their own dynamic. In Azerbaijan will be sort of left behind. It is also important to understand that Azerbaijan today represents a different model than Turkey. Azerbaijan is secular and this goes back all the way to the end of the 19 century-beginning of the 20 century where Azerbaijan was developing as a secular republic even before the soviet experience. Turkey is no longer secular in a full sense like it was in Ataturk period. It has now air leadership that emphases religion and is in the process of bringing more and more religion in the public sphere in Turkey.

It is developing very strong relationship through the Muslim world with countries like Iran etc. And Azerbaijan is no longer brotherhood and sisterhood relationship which characterized this relationship until recent years, until the AKP party got a power.

Turkey also got much closer to Russia. And what you have known is an attempt to build a condominium between Russia and Turkey in South Caucasus which means that the sovereignty of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia may be diminished. Because if two strong regional players get together there the position if not to dictate at least to strongly influence, that comes in the region. So that’s puts Azerbaijan and Georgia at a disadvantage.

It improves the Armenia’s situation. Because Armenia has it’s old ally –Russia. And now it is developing relationship with Turkey. Armenia also has very good relationship with Iran. So Armenia is a winner and Georgia and Azerbaijan are the losers of this new development that I mentioned before.

You mentioned that US position became more and more in the region. But some expert believe normalization relationship between Turkey and Armenia was US initiative and they push Turkey toward these steps…

Apparently there is some truth in this discussion that US is supportive of Turkish-Armenia rapprochement. Both because the US grew tired of this lock jam, of this stuck situation I mean other Karabakh and between Turkey and Armenia, but also because of domestic considerations improvement between Turkey and Armenia plays to the domestic audiences that are interested in opening a new page.

Although there are people in US, who would probably Armenian community, that will demand Turkey recognizing the event of 1915 as a genocide. So because of the domestic politics, because of the Armenian caucus in the congress, they are strong voice supporting Turkish Armenia rapprochement and that’s also a position of US government and of the Russian government.

So far, there is some of a competition between Moscow and Washington who takes ownership over this achievement. But that’s not to say that I am convinced it is going to be ratified. But some time in the future it may be ratified and then the challenge for the US and for Turkey, and for Russia, because Russia is interested in good relation with Azerbaijan, I hope.
Parallel process, but why the ministers of foreign affairs of the Minsk group co-chair countries were at the signing of protocols?

In diplomacy you have a lot of times a situations were public announcement don’t correspond with real policy and that is exactly what I was concerned about when I was saying that Azerbaijan can be left behind. Stuck in a situation when its territory remains occupied, so that is a serious concern.

And then the question is can Turkey eternally and because of its historic ties with Azerbaijan can afford to just leave Karabakh issue aside and if this was a «old secular Turkey» I would say - don’t worry, they will work with you, but as I said before, this is not the same Turkey, this is not the same policy, this is not the same leadership. And they in my view are pursuing a policy in which relatively speaking Azerbaijan is less important.

Not just Azerbaijan, even the US and Europe are less important and the Islamic more are more important. And in that respect, almost paradoxically for them, management of the Turkey-Armenia relations becomes more important than Karabakh.

Is resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict possible this year?

I am encouraged that presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan are talking regularly, that is good. If I compare this with the Middle East «peace process» the high level meetings between the two presidents and sort of discussion seems to be more pragmatic and meetings more frequent than in Israel and Palestinian case for example. But at the same time I do not hear any new ideas, especially not from Armenian side.

I heard Armenian representatives recently in Washington and they stick to the old position, the old thinking of Karabakh being independent, of Karabakh never going back to Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan refugees not going back to Karabakh. So this is an intransigent position, and that makes me wonder how you going to change that and who in terms of international community – US, Russia, Europe - are going to prevail over the Armenian leadership to choose a peaceful track over Karabakh.

There is a famous opinion that Moscow and Washington have the key to Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The US and Russia seemed to have updated the relations, reached an agreement, though partial, on missile defense system. It turns out that a mutual understanding has been reached. Is this so?

First of all, the US and Russia have not reached an agreement on missile defense system. This is the unilateral decision of the Obama administration not to update missile defense system in Czech Republic and Poland. This was the advance given to Moscow to improve the situation in the negotiations concerning START and achieve Russia’s support with respect to Iran.

I do not know whether this policy will work or not, but I think this step is not so successful. But I do not agree to the question. The key to the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict is in Yerevan and Baku, not in Washington and Moscow. Of course, if the elite and people of both countries want peaceful settlement, they can achieve it, Washington and Moscow will be glad.

All the countries of the South Caucasus want peace agreement and settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, these nations are also interested in the restoration of Georgia’s territorial integrity. Changing of the borders in the post-Soviet space is very dangerous for all. Changing of the borders in the areas, where there are mutual claims and conflicts, - in Ukraine, Northern Kazakhstan, or any other place, is Pandora’s box.

If the changing of the borders begins, it should be realized by mutual consent, in accordance with the requirements of the international law. Russia, Armenia, or any other state has no right to change the borders unilaterally.


/APA/