THE PRIORITY IS TO STOP THE ROT

Russian mediation in negotiations to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh is a major theme in the region's political life. Some analysts believe that Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev's initiative is not paying off, while others think that his efforts have brought the positions of the parties closer. How close has Russian mediation got to the objective, if at all? What other changes may occur in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict in the near future? We put these and other questions to a well-known international affairs journalist, the editor-in-chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs and a member of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Fedor Lukyanov. 

- Russia has recently been acting as the main, if not sole, mediator in talks on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. Have the USA and Europe given up efforts to resolve the problem?

- In my opinion, it is unlikely that the conflict will be resolved in the foreseeable future. Obviously, the sides are extremely far apart, there is little confidence and so on. The USA, France and Russia may only put pressure on parties to the conflict, while the settlement proper depends on the way developments and the political situation in Azerbaijan and Armenia unfold. Why is it the Russian Federation that is putting in so much work? This is easy to explain because Russia will suffer the most if hostilities in the region resume. Due to its geopolitical location, Russia cannot distance itself from either of the sides. Neither can it make an unequivocal choice in anyone's favour. Russia has no right to disengage itself from its obligations to Armenia, as it would undermine confidence in Russia as a superpower. At the same time, Russia cannot alienate Baku because Azerbaijan is too important for it. It is important for Russia that the Armenian-Azerbaijani dialogue is continued, there is no alienation between parties to the conflict, the situation remains under control and the status quo is maintained. Karabakh is not as relevant for the USA and France. They are worried about other things.

- Doesn't the status quo raise the likelihood of a resumption of hostilities? After all, the talks can't last for ever.

- I don't think that the status quo heightens the risk of war. At present, a change in the status quo may only aggravate the situation. It is safer and more reasonable to maintain the balance of power in the region. And this is what Russia is doing.

But the statements by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries contain a call to change the status quo. And there is widespread disappointment in Azerbaijan because this hasn't happened.

The OSCE has outlived its usefulness. The organization was established in completely different historical circumstances. It used to be effective and useful. This applies to the OSCE's stabilizing role in the times of the "cold war" and for some time afterwards. But it is no longer effective now, as is the case with other international organizations of the previous era that have retained their original design. Although the Minsk Group is a derivative of the OSCE and is largely affected by the overall state of the organization, it acts somewhat independently, advocating the interests of three large countries. The Minsk Group co-chair countries - Russia, the USA and France - unlike others, are more or less interested in resolving the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict.

- Is there a compromise between the principle of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination? 

- In theory, these principles are mutually exclusive, but a compromise can be found. But to do that, the sides should demonstrate political will. And that holds true not only for the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. There should be a national consensus. It is not there yet. Even if leaders are ready to resolve the problem, their peoples may not support them for a number of reasons. So no-one will take chances. This is a purely political issue. If there is the will, a compromise can be found even in the most difficult situation. 

- Does that mean that no major changes should be expected soon in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict?

- Yes, unless the existing status quo is changed by an external crisis. For instance, if the USA and Israel go to war with Iran, this may take a toll on the entire Middle East and adjacent regions, which will bring many changes to in the system of balances. So that may happen due to an external shock, not due to the dynamics of the parties to the Karabakh conflict.