Russian expert: Int'l situation is very favorable to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Day.Az: You were in 1989 Baku and witnessed beginning of the Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ...

Konstantin Truevtsev: It is a painful theme for us. It is painful for me because the issue of the Caucasus is close to me. Apart from this, I have been both in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and I feel a deep and sincere sympathy to both countries and both peoples.

While in Baku in 1989, when I was participating in a scientific conference on ethnic and religious conflicts, I and my colleagues from Moscow and other cities and republics of the former USSR witnessed how the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict broke out. The conflict then escalated into a fratricidal war in the Nagorno-Karabakh. It dealt a deep political and moral harm not only to Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples, but also to other nations and former Soviet republics, including Russia as well.

Realizing the depth of the Karabakh conflict, I am very skeptical, or at least extremely careful about simple recipes offered to resolve it believing imposing such recipes (such as "exchange") can only exacerbate the conflict rather resolve it.  It seems to me that in this case, the medical rule of "do no harm" should be fundamental to the obvious long-term settlement process for both parties to the conflict, and especially for those who act in this process as mediators.

Efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been stepped up lately. OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs state a serious progress in the resolution process. In your opinion, what does this progress imply? Is there actually real progress or these are just habitual statements?

If one still tries to return to the "dry residue”, that is, those constituent parts of a conflict which we have today as result of its effects, overall situation seems extremely complex.

Some aspects of the settlement, for example, return of Azerbaijanis to their places of historical residence in Karabakh is intractable and it seems there has been progress in this regard.

The conflicting sides still have differences about status of Nagorno-Karabakh. I do not see possibility of even coming closer in this issue.

The position of the Azerbaijani side is to recognize territorial integrity of states stipulated not only by a certain norm of international law which was further consolidated in the Helsinki accords of 1975, but also legal practice established during the Soviet collapse, according to which the boundaries of the new states remain unchanged and integrity of these states has international legal recognition.

Armenia's position is based on the alleged right of nations to self-determination, which in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, they say was formed on basis of the status quo in the course and outcome of the Karabakh conflict, in fact, even before the Soviet collapse.

Simultaneously with resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the whole region also keeps a close eye on Turkey-Armenia protocols. Many in Turkey say that ratification of the protocols depends on resolving the Karabakh conflict. In your view, to what extent these two processes are interdependent?

Exactly these aspects of development of events in the region and around it create an entirely new situation which I regard as one of dimensions of nonlinearity of the political process. It can be viewed from different angles, what is done including by those in Armenia and in the Armenian Diaspora who are inclined to consider Sargsyan’s policy almost as a national betrayal, and those in Azerbaijan who tend to see Turkey’s policy as betrayal of closest Turkic brothers.

It seems Serzh Sargsyan is strongly willing to resolve the conflict while he makes statements such as "We won’t give a single inch of the occupied Azerbaijani lands." In your opinion, what does it mean? Are his words are meant for the Armenian people so that radicals will not replace him?

It is clear that it is not a personal position of Serzh Sargsyan, although, he has to politically maneuver in very difficult conditions which prevailed after the August events.On the one hand, Armenia wound up in a geopolitical and economic semi-blockade (in fact, Iran is the only lasting and stable outlet for the outside world for it).

On the other hand, partly because of the war, partly because of complex interplay of interests between NATO-EU-Turkey-Russia, almost unprecedented alliance between Turkey and Russia began to take shape in the formation of which Armenia saw unique historical opportunity for itself.

Do you think, the United States and Russia are really interested resolving the Karabakh conflict?

In my opinion, the international situation today is very favorable to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, especially if we bear in mind the two main outside players - the United States and Russia, as well as current relations through the Russia-EU and Russia-NATO Council.

As for Russia, despite all conflicts and contradictions, process of recovery of the post-Soviet area in a new format of unity took place in last few days. The question is whether Transcaucasia will enter this area. Armenia participates in this process despite its geographic isolation. Azerbaijan partly participates and partly does not participate in this process.  

Russia's relations with the United States, NATO, the EU have reach such a point that many shifts (economic, political, etc.) firstly lead to the convergence of many positions including in international field and specifically in the Azerbaijani-Armenian issue (though not in Georgian). It is taking place under the United States-Russia and Russia-France line, which is essential for this specificity. Secondly, the EU and the U.S. most recently made a number of steps to recognize Russia’s role in the post-Soviet area as compared with even very recent times.

H. Hamidov