Azerbaijan and Armenia very near to basis of solving Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: LINKS Executive Director

Question: Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev expressed Moscow's willingness to use its mandate to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and took the initiative to organize a meeting of heads of the two conflicting countries. Why do you think Moscow wishes to play a main role in resolving the conflict and how much it could be useful?

Answer: We have to remember that Russia is a member of the OSCE Minsk Group. In fact it is one of the co-chairs and has been for the decade or so. And in this role together with the two other co-chairs - France and the US - Russia has been a very constructive partner in trying to contribute towards a solution of Karabakh conflict. But you are right, over the last year or so we have seen intensification on Russian policy of this issue and I think the highlight of that was the declaration signed in Moscow on 2, November last year. I attach great importance to that declaration. I think that the declaration lays down very important basis on which the next steps can be taken. And we welcome the role that the Russian co-chair and indeed the US and France are taking in order to push forward the solution of this problem.

People who have watched the region over the years understood that as long as Karabakh remains unresolved there is very little hope for important breakthrough for the region in the economic sphere, in the political sphere, in the social sphere also. This is a major obstacle towards cooperation and towards development in the South Caucasus. So every effort that can be done to resolve this conflict should be supported.

Q: Are there real preconditions to achieve progress in the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the following months?

A: The resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not going to happen to one single occasion or one single act. It's a process. The process needs to start. The negotiations have been going on for many years, but we don't really have a process for a solution yet. But I think that the two sides are very near to agreeing the basis on which the process for solution can start. I think this is where we are and this is what the presidents I think are considering at the moment. I read with great interest statements of president Aliev from his return his visit to Moscow a few days ago, quite optimistic about the future. I am very much encouraged by that. I hope that the next days, weeks and months will bring progress. Now we are in a period when every day there are intensive discussions. Very intensive work is going on among three co-chair countries, very intensive discussions are going on at the diplomatic level. Every day can bring us some positive development.

Q: Turkey and Armenia reached a framework agreement on the normalization of their relations and appointed so called "road map". Do you think that this "road map" would take into account the interests of Azerbaijan? And could it help in resolving the conflict and normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations?

A: I believe very strongly that it is very good for both Armenia and Turkey that relations are normalized and it is also good to the region generally. It is never good when two countries have problems with each other. Of course, there are series of outstanding issues between Turkey and Armenia. Some of them are bilateral, connected with Armenia and Turkey directly. But some other issues are connected to the region including the Karabakh conflict and the solidarity of Turkey with Azerbaijan on this issue. Azerbaijan and Turkey have very deep historical, human, cultural, religious relations. They are very special relations. So these relations will not be very affected by political problems. But obviously Azerbaijan has some immediate interest and Turkey need to address these interests in a way which can be mutually satisfactory.

In my view the relations between Turkey and Armenia will not again change over night. There would be a process over several months or may be several years, but it would be very good if this process starts. I see the start of the process as being to the establishment of diplomatic relations. The two countries need to establish the diplomatic relations and this will be in the interest of Azerbaijan, because it is necessary for Turkey to be talking to Armenia constantly on the Karabakh issue and that is best done to the diplomatic channels.

Then there is the issue of the borders. Azerbaijan has some clear positions of this issue. I think that situation today is different from what it was in 1998. And what perhaps was important and relevant in 1998 is not so important and so relevant today. Everything has to be put in a context. One has also to remember that many Turkish politicians have said with the issue of opening of the boarders we have to move in parallel with progress in the Karabakh negotiating process. I think that most international observers expect that there will be a synergy between the two processes.

As I said I welcome the normalization of the relations between Armenia and Turkey simply because I think it would benefit everybody. I think it would benefit Azerbaijan, too, may be not in a very short term, but certainly in the medium term.

Q: What if Armenia agrees to give back only those from the occupied regions which are not so strategically valuable? Do you think that this scenario is possible?

A: I really do not want to speculate about the details, because I don't have them. But I think there is broad understanding that for any piece deal to succeed. One of the conditions that we have to be firm about is the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the six occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh and the return in safe and dignified conditions of the refugees and the IDPs from these territories.

And I want to emphasize the last part, because for me it is not about land, this is about people. And I am not very interested to talk about land, I am very interested to talk about people. I think there are hundreds and thousands of people who are suffering and this suffering must stop. And this should be a priority.

There will always be some details in this type of negotiation and the details have to be worked out through the negotiations. I think that the principles are pretty much close to being agreed. This would be a very important step in the right direction. If the basic principles are agreed, then this serious negotiations can start about some of the details. I want to repeat - the Karabakh peace process is not an event, it is not going to happen in one day. It is a process that will take some time, but we must see developments, changes on the ground and these changes must first and foremost benefit people who are actually suffering now because of the current situation.

Q: Recently there was a softening in attitude of West towards Iran. However, the conference on racism in Geneva a few days ago ended with an incident when the European delegations decided to leave the meeting hall while Iranian president was making a speech. Does it mean the end of the dialog? Or what does this incident mean?

A: I hope not. I think that there is an important opportunity here for a new chapter of relations between Iran and West and I hope that Iran will take this opportunity. I think that president Barack Obama was very courageous both during his election campaign and since he has become president, in indicating his readiness for dialog and in his indicating to move forward and look forward on these issues.

I am not particularly concerned about what happens in a particular conference because somebody says something that irritates other people. The issue of the Holocaust is something that I think Iranians misunderstand, misinterpret. We in Europe have seen Holocaust, may be not my generation, but certainly my parents' generation, have seen the Holocaust happening before their eyes. So they don't need anyone to tell them that Holocaust happened or not happened. We have seen it happening, it happened in front of our eyes, in our own cities, in Berlin, in Rome, in Vienna, in other places. The European countries do not need somebody to tell them that this has not happened, because they saw it.

In my view the major issue still facing the United States and the European Union on terms of its relations with Iran is the nuclear issue. And whilst everyone recognizes the right of Iran to have nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes, I think there is completely unanimity in international community this should not be allowed to turn into a military nuclear capacity. The world is also here in a new face. Russia and the United Stated are starting a process that will hopefully lead to destruction of a lot of their nuclear arsenal. This is extremely important historical moment. People like me, who have been very (from time when I was young) concerned about nuclear weapons, welcome this with great enthusiasm. We have great hope that president Obama and president Medvedev would be able to reach a good agreement and that we will see a large part of nuclear arsenal of Russia and the United States being snapped. So we don't need new nuclear power states with capacity for nuclear destruction. I think as I said there is a window of opportunity here. Iran should see this window of opportunity and I think they will find if there are positive signs coming from Tehran, both the Unites States and the European Union and will respond.

Q: Czech legislation suppose that while there is interim government, the president has more priorities. And Czech president, as known, is the opponent of deployment of missile shield. How could the political crisis in Czech Republic, which is presiding in the European Union, affect the process of deployment of American missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland?

A: There are several elements to your question. The first element is to Czech presidency of the European Union. The presidency offers a certain amount of leadership, especially in terms of crisis for the European Union. But of course the European Union has a lot of other structures: the European Commission, the European Council, a lot of other structures that ensure the continuity of the work, even when there is internal crisis in the country that has the presidency. Czech diplomacy is working very hard to ensure that there is continuity despite the internal political problems. Internal political problems are sometimes a sign of democracy. You should not be shocked. It can happen in Britain, it can happen in Germany, it can happen anywhere.

In terms of the missile deployment - this is a decision of the Czech government, whichever the Czech government there is. The current government is a "caretaker" government, we call it. But soon there will be a new government elected in the elections and this government will have to take a decision as it wants to do with this issue.

The issue of missile shield has been under consideration for many years and I am sure it could wait two months until the new Czech government is elected.

Q: Do you believe in the possibility of using Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan together by the United States and Russia instead of stations in Czech Republic and Poland?

A: This is a very technical issue which I am not sure I am able to answer, because I am not sure I know the answer. But I will give a political answer to it if I may. This is a decision for the government of Azerbaijan to decide whether it wants to play this role or not. It will have to take different things into consideration and then come to a decision. I think first and foremost this is a decision for the government of Azerbaijan.

Q: NATO and Russia recently decided to "restart" their relation. However Russia has put an ultimatum to stop the work of NATO - Russia Council if NATO does not stop or postpone its planned military trainings in Georgia. What does Moscow want to achieve by this actions? And how do you see the development of NATO - Russia relations after that?

A: Georgia like Azerbaijan and Armenia is a member of Partnership and Peace. The three countries have a cooperation program with NATO that has proved it is successful and from which the three countries have benefited to a certain extend. Military exercise that is planned for the next week is in fact by military standards are small exercise and can not in anyway be seen as being /// or so ever to Russia. I think the Russians on this occasion are being over sensitive when they did not need to be. I think they must accept that this exercise has been, first of all, planned a long time ago, before the August war. And secondly, that it isn't in no way connected with the war or the results of the war. I would say this is not "a storm in a teacup" and this is not something that will impact Russia - NATO relation in the medium to long term. There may be some diplomatic, but I think generally speaking there are now very serious issues on the agenda between Russia and NATO and the United States particularly. And I think both sides will focus on these bigger issues.

/Trend News/