Jamestown University expert: France should not be co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group

In your opinion, to what degree the current Armenian authorities are independent to make decisions in the Karabakh problem? For example, liberation of territories in exchange for opening borders...

It depends on many factors that are difficult to predict. For example, it is not known whether nationalist political forces of Armenia are able to prevent moderate decisions by their own government or not. In 1999, the Armenian authorities tried to make a deal with Washington to make it adopt a moderate political course in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The deal failed for obvious reasons. It is not known whether this scenario may happen again or not.

I think that the policy of the Azerbaijani leadership, which can be characterized as a "strategic patience", is correct. Azerbaijan's policy is designed for long term. Time is in favor of Azerbaijan. Armenia has not been modernized, and the difference in development between the two countries is growing every year. Armenia faces growing public dissatisfaction and high rate of emigration.

It is clear that time is working in favor of Azerbaijan, but this does not mean that one can indefinitely delay withdrawal of Armenian troops from occupied areas. This must be achieved as soon as possible. Withdrawal of Armenian forces is one of the basic items in the Madrid principles of Karabakh conflict settlement. This is also position of the OSCE Minsk Group.

However, Armenia does not agree with this. Hence, it is clear that the co-chair countries must put pressure on Armenia. However, this is not happening. In fact, Russia does not intend to put pressure on its ally. France does not have a significant impact on the conflicting parties. So, in general, this country should not be co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group.

We are witnessing endless transpositions in the United States. In 2006-2007, the Bush administration pursued scattered and chaotic foreign policy. Decisions passed back them were ill-advised. Then the Obama administration took up solution to the Karabakh issue. The South Caucasus is not a priority for the current U.S. administration.

The priority of this administration is the internal policy. The U.S. is in a state of permanent election campaigns. Foreign policy decisions are largely based on domestic political considerations. That is why the U.S. does not exert pressure on Armenia to accept the Madrid principles and withdraw troops from Azerbaijani territories.

How can Russia help its ally Armenia to exit from isolation?

I cannot imagine how Russia can help Armenia in this situation. Moscow has no influence on Turkey so that it will unilaterally open the Armenian-Turkish border. At some point, Turkey did not exclude such a possibility, but later declined to do this. Unfortunately, the U.S. tried to put pressure on Turkey to open border with Armenia without Azerbaijan’s consent and, most importantly, without withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories. It was a huge mistake of the American diplomacy. Such a policy by the administration of President Barack Obama was motivated by purely domestic considerations. Obama wanted to meet expectations of his Armenian voters.

Washington's actions jeopardized strategic position of the West in the South Caucasus. Fortunately, Turkey refused to open the border and thereby saved the U.S. strategic interests in the region. Next year, elections will be held in Turkey. Therefore, Ankara will not quarrel with the fraternal Azerbaijan and set the Turkish public, which expressed solidarity with the Azerbaijan people, against themselves. Now Turkey's position is quite stable.

Resolution of the Karabakh conflict was also discussed during Russian President’s latest visit to Turkey. In your opinion, to what extent Ankara and Moscow are interested in accelerating the peace process?

Russia is not interested in resolving the Karabakh conflict, which is Moscow’s leverage on both Armenia and Azerbaijan. So, Moscow does not wish to lose such an opportunity. Russia may support a final settlement of the conflict only if it meets its interests for example, deployment of troops, formed mainly from the Russian military, in the conflict zone. Alternatively, Russia may try to strike a deal with Azerbaijan, under which Moscow will use its influence on Armenia to liberate at least 5-6 occupied regions, and in return Baku will change its foreign policy orientation. But I do not think that Azerbaijan will agree.

By the way, Russia and Turkey have reached an agreement on "South Stream" project.  In your opinion, what are chances of the EU-backed Nabucco pipeline project?

The "South Stream" project has no a single chance to get to become real. Russia has neither resources nor money to implement South Stream. Nabucco’s chances do not depend on the Russian project. In August last year, Turkey and Russia agreed to build a gas pipeline under the Black Sea in the area of Ankara’s economic interests. But there was no agreement on gas supplies. Nabucco is a very attractive project for Turkey and other European countries. The fact is that Nabucco is part of a more ambitious project of the European Commission called “Southern Corridor". Nabucco will open a way for other pipelines through Turkey. There is gas and finance for this project. Moreover, Nabucco will help Turkey to become an important transit country.


/Day.Az/