A RECIPE FOR CHAOS

The situation in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict zone continues to alarm the international community. The peace talks are unproductive, and the status quo does not exclude the likelihood of a resumption of war. 

The director of international studies and expert on post-Soviet issues at North Dakota State University, Thomas Ambrosio, also regards the situation in the conflict zone as explosive. However, he believes, there are also several deterrents, including the fact that Russia and the USA do not want a war in the region and so on. In an interview with our magazine, Thomas Ambrosio shared his views on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and predictions on its settlement.

- In Azerbaijan, there are many ethnic groups such as Talisis, Lezgins, Russians, Armenians, etc. Only the Armenians living in Nagornyy Karabakh are demanding independence and rejecting the high degree of autonomy offered by Azerbaijan. How do you see the results of this process?

- The two sides have completely incompatible interests and demands. On the one hand, the Armenians want international recognition of their de facto independence, which is politically impossible for Baku to agree to, and on the other hand, the Azeris want to assert their sovereignty over this territory, which is politically impossible for Yerevan to agree to. They are locked in a zero-sum game in which one side sees a victory by the other as a loss for them. Even the highest level of autonomy would be politically unacceptable for Yerevan since that would mean that Nagornyy Karabakh's legal status as part of Azerbaijan would have to be codified by the Armenian side.

- One of your research works is dedicated to ethnic groups. What are your views on the issue that causes dispute all over the world?

- The first issue is that ethnicity matters. This is obvious to people all over the world, but not really to many Americans. They understand race, but ethnicity abroad is often lost to them. The example I always give is Iraq: How is it that Washington thought that the Sunni Arabs would agree to a democratic Iraq when simple demographics dictate that the Shi'ite Arabs would take power in a one-person-one-vote scenario? A better understanding of ethnicity would make US foreign policy more effective.  Second, my research tells me that ethnic conflicts are not easily resolved. The case of Nagornyy Karabakh, as well as many others, is called a "frozen conflict" because the interests and demands of the opposing sides are incompatible. Just having more and more negotiations is not going to change that. These frozen conflicts are frozen for a reason. It is na?ve to think that they can be easily changed.

- There are about 4,000 ethnic groups in the world. Is it right to give all of them independence? 

- It would not be correct to give each of them independence, which is obvious. Calling into question the territorial boundaries of all countries is a recipe for chaos. Human rights, minority protections, and liberal democracy are better in most cases than independence. There will always be a balance between the need for stability and the right of self-determination. With the exception of a few cases, the former should win out over the latter. I want to remind you that the Helsinki Final Act says the right of self-determination does not mean to separate countries, which are known at the international level.

- The USA behaves as a defender of democracy and human rights, but sometimes it violates human rights in as Afghanistan and Iraq. Does the USA really pursue occupation policy under the aegis of human rights and democracy?

- Like all great powers, the United States has interests beyond those that are stated. However, unlike other great powers, the United States has primary responsibility for peace and stability in the international system. One might disagree with whether that should be the case, but for the time being it is a reality. That being said, the United States does, in fact, deeply believe that it is part of America's mission to promote, defend, and spread human rights and democracy. This is not just a cover for more nefarious foreign policies. In fact, if one looks at US interventions in the past twenty years, one would be hard pressed to see any substantive advantage for the US other than promoting its values: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The Iraq one may be a tough case to make, but one should note that the US did not simply put in place a friendly dictator and leave (which would have been best from a purely interest-based perspective), nor did the US seize the oil or make beneficial oil deals which disadvantaged others;  instead, the US expended its blood and treasure to remove a tyrant, tried (maybe, ultimately, in vain) to create a democratic system for the Iraqis, and stood by while Baghdad opened up oil exploration/distribution to foreign competition.

Certainly no country is perfect -- the US included. But could one imagine the other current great powers acting in such a manner? Russia? China? India? Europe? I really do not think so.

- In spite of the fact that Azerbaijan acts within the framework of international laws, double standards are demonstrated towards it especially in the Karabakh issue. Can one regard international law objective in this case?

- International laws are, of course, binding on states. However, there are numerous things to consider. The laws themselves might be contradictory or open to interpretation - sovereignty versus self-determination is a pertinent example. Also, the enforcement of these laws may be difficult if not impossible, since there is no global enforcement mechanism. Finally, all systems of law (domestic and international) are based upon and influenced by power. This results in just the very double standards that you cite.

- The US Congress has confirmed its foreign aid packet for the 2012 finance year. The military aid allocated to Azerbaijan is less than the aid set for Armenia and Georgia. Do you think it is right?

- The Armenian-American lobby is very powerful in Congress, and that does not surprise me. However, one also needs to keep in mind that the US does not want to do anything that sparks a new war in the region and therefore, given Baku's increased spending on military hardware, the US does not want to add to any imbalances which might be seen as a "green light" from Washington to initiate a war to reclaim Nagornyy Karabakh.

- Whose influence in the Caucasian region is more: Russia's or West's? And why?

- Russia's obviously. Although both Georgia and Azerbaijan look towards the US and the West for support, they have to realize that Russian interests in the region are of primary importance, and therefore, Moscow will expend significant resources to maintain/increase its national interests there. By contrast, the region is of secondary/tertiary interest to the US/West. They are willing to allow Russia's de facto sphere of influence, as long as Moscow does not go too far.

- Have the regions been separated between the USA and Russia? For example, President Barack Obama is engaged in the events taking place in Afghanistan, Middle East and North Africa, Medvedev is engaged in processes in the Caucasian region.

- I would refer to my previous answer. This trend of US disengagement from the Caucasus should continue as the US moves away from a focus on the Middle East and towards East Asia. Russia is rightthere, geographically speaking it is not going anywhere. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Kremlin is focused on what it has long seen as its "soft underbelly".

- Do you think that 2012 will result in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh problem?

- I do not see a settlement for the foreseeable future. Unless conditions in the region or internationally radically change, the status quo will prevail. Again, the Nagornyy Karabakh problem is a "frozen conflict" for a reason and will most likely remain so.