Russian expert: Yerevan will face increasing pressure from different sides

How do you assess U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Baku visit in terms of possible progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution?

Hillary Clinton's tour of the South Caucasus has not yet led to some significant developments in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The striking is the background rather than the actual content of the visit. On the one hand, tour of the U.S. Secretary of State of the region began with Baku, where Mrs. Clinton stressed the important geopolitical role of the Azerbaijan Republic, and noted that the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict is possible only within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In principle, it is too early to talk about the results of Washington’s diplomatic maneuvering. Perhaps, rising U.S attention to Baku is more important for Azerbaijan.

What is the reason for the U.S. rising interest to the region?

Washington's interest to the region is quite understandable. South Caucasus is "a skeleton key" of the regional policy. First, it is located near North Caucasus, one of the most vulnerable regions of Russia. Secondly, it is located near borders of Iran. The United States have never given up the idea of isolating Iran in the region (even during peace-loving rhetoric in the early months of Barack Obama's presidency).

Thirdly, the region plays an important role in international energy policy. For the EU, the South Caucasus is a key point of a route to Central Asian hydrocarbon resources, and it is "a window to Europe" for the countries of Central Asia,. Thus, with its hand on the pulse of the region, the United States may in some way have an influence on Russia, the EU, the Middle East and Central Asia. The value of all these factors will only grow in the coming years along with importance of the region for Washington.

Among the South Caucasus states Azerbaijan has the greatest potential for leadership in the region both for economic and human resources. The peculiarities of its geographical position enables it to influence these factors to a greater extent than other former Soviet states in the region. Besides, it is the only state with its own hydrocarbon resources on which the European Union relies. By the way, energy independence of Azerbaijan makes it more independent in its relations with Iran, which also draws U.S. attention.

For the U.S., in turn, the Azerbaijani "window" to the Central Asia is also associated with the supply of goods for troops in Afghanistan. Do not forget that nearly a quarter of this cargo passes through the South Caucasus, including Azerbaijan. In particular, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed this issue as well during his visit to Baku in early June.

Incidentally, it is worth noting that not only the United States is ready to stake on Azerbaijan. After all, Beijing is also striving to partnership with Baku. Of course, we must not forget that China, which experiences problems with separatists in Tibet and Xinjiang, not to mention Taiwan, in this sense, is in solidarity with Azerbaijan. Chinese officials have repeatedly stated that they condemn occupation of Azerbaijani lands. However, most likely Beijing also has a desire to enlist the support of the new prospective partner.

Recently, heads of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries issued a joint statement calling the parties to the conflict to agree on basic principles of conflict settlement. Can this statement be considered a kind of pressure on Armenia given that Armenia has not yet responded to updated  Madrid principles unlike Azerbaijan?

In practice, a statement by the three presidents can indeed be intended to put pressure on Armenia. But it is unlikely that pressure will be extremely tough. Most likely, in the foreseeable future the Minsk Group co-chairs will seek Armenia’s refusal from control at least over part of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. They will take number of steps towards Yerevan.

In early August, Dmitry Medvedev will pay an official visit to Yerevan. According to Armenian media, the Russian president will reportedly bring concrete plan to resolve the Karabakh conflict to his Armenian counterpart, the first phase of which allegedly requires Armenia to free three occupied regions. How realistic is such a plan?

The regions around Nagorno-Karabakh is an important argument for bargaining for Yerevan. It is unprofitable for Armenia to liberate them just for nothing. Moreover, such a concession will be very negatively met by the Armenian public. Yerevan will face an increasing pressure on this issue from different sides. Even some Russian officials publicly hint that hand over of control of these areas is a prerequisite for transition of negotiations on this issue to the next level.

Azerbaijan recently adopted Military Doctrine after which Armenia accused Azerbaijan of taking another major step towards war. In your opinion, are these allegations grounded?

The provisions of the Military Doctrine that Azerbaijani Milli Majlis adopted on June 8, 2010 do  not indicate that military force will necessarily be applied in practice to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh problem. A number of factors reduce the likelihood of outbreak of Armenian-Azerbaijani military conflict in the near future. First, the war is associated with very significant economic and political costs. Secondly, the war is unlikely to benefit the United States, Turkey and Russia. They don’t need such a conflict in the region. In particular, for the U.S. a new war in the region would preclude the use of the South Caucasus as a bridgehead in the confrontation with Iran.


/Day.Az/