A VIEW FROM WITHIN

An exclusive interview with Professor Viktor Chernous, director of the Centre for Systemic Regional Research and Forecasting of the Institute for Re-training and Improving Qualifications of the Southern Federal University and the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the department of political science and sociology of the politics of the Caucasus of the South Russian branch of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of political sciences.

-  Viktor Vladimirovich, Russia has been single-handedly conducting a vigorous policy for a settlement to the Karabakh conflict for three years now. Can Moscow resolve this problem without the participation of other powers, in particular the US?

-  The Nagornyy Karabakh problem is one of the most complex in the Caucasus. The sides' positions are not getting any closer at an official level and the process towards a settlement has become deadlocked. Russia, like the other great regional powers (Iran and Turkey) has no vested interested in a conflict in the Caucasus, which could at any moment escalate into a full-scale war. But one should not forget that Russia could play a role as a guarantor of agreements and back them up with its resources, but without imposing solutions. The US and the EU could assist in the process towards a settlement which is happening, albeit sluggishly. Theoretically, they could enforce settlements to the Karabakh conflict. In practical terms this would mean the implementation of their geo-strategic tasks in the Caucasus in a situation where the idea of the US' as undisputed world leader is steadily ebbing away and NATO is clearly growing weaker. How the West's peacekeeping policy is being implemented can be seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and before that in Yugoslavia, and so on. Will such a scenario of a settlement accompanied by mellifluous statements about protection of human rights and the world population, and so on, suit the parties to the conflict?

In my view, the problem needs to be resolved by regional forces and the American bull should not he allowed to enter the Caucasian china shop. The very socio-political environment around the Karabakh conflict must be changed now: there should be a vigorous dialogue of experts, popular diplomacy, scientific-cultural contacts between the sides, meetings of young people and regional economic projects.

Russia, in particular Rostov-on-Don, the North Caucasus Federal District and its influential Azerbaijani and Armenian diasporas could become a mediator and at the same time a platform for such a dialogue and inter-action.

-  Russia's lease for the Qabala radar station expires in 2012. There have been contradictory reports in the Russian media about the future of this facility. Do you think Russia needs this station or will the station in Qabala be replaced by a station on Russian territory? 

-  The situation with the Qabala radar station is indeed a difficult one. It is linked with the problem of air defence, the elections in Russia and, of course, Azerbaijan's geopolitical identity. Russia is able to and is planning to create a new station in Armavir. But the termination of the lease of the Qabala radar station will be perceived as another indicator that Russia is being squeezed out of the southern Caucasus. Especially as the situation in the Near East remains extremely unstable. The hopes for a "rebooting" of relations with NATO and the US as a reality and not as an illusion have not been justified in the light of recent international relations, making the erroneousness of a number of Russia's recent foreign political steps obvious.

The Euro-Atlantic security system has run its course and has no strategic future. The future lies with a continental Euro-Asian security system where the Black Sea-Caspian region and the states within it will play the role of real components and not satellites of the US which is what they are virtually being offered. But first it is necessary to untangle and not cut up the complex knot of differences that the states of the southern Caucasus have between each other, with Russia and with the other countries of the region. Regional solidarity and cooperation are more rational and mutually advantageous than aggressive rivalry and hopes for exclusive relations with the US. The experience of the latter is unambiguous - even favourite allies and placemen lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the US when more advantageous options emerge.

- I would like to raise another important subject. A conference on the problems of migrants was held in Moscow recently. Can we expect the Russian government to take any new steps to tighten the law in relation to legal and illegal migrants?

-  Law-making activity is influenced by the coming State Duma and Russian presidential elections. People are concerned about the situation in the sphere of inter-ethnic relations and major confrontations involving ethnics, but this is unlikely to affect legislation directly and everything is restricted by pre-election rhetoric. As regards legal migrants there shouldn't be any tough measures, and in any event the regional authorities are busy looking for ways and means whereby migrants and the existing population can adapt to one another. Interest in carrying out corresponding scientific research has been expressed.

Policy in relation to legal migrants will be carried out in two ways: the legalization of some of them and the extradition of others and measures to restrict the arrival of illegal migrants. Russian migration policy is noted for its dichotomy of liberal and restrictive measures. The latter are unlikely in the long term. Opinion polls show that the majority of the population is not worried by the migrants themselves but the corruptness of the bureaucrats and officials in this sphere, as well as some businessmen who create a criminalised social environment by using migrant workers.

-  Last year the Russian government adopted a number of measures to restrict migration. These included migrants being prevented from trading in markets. Have these steps brought the expected results?

-  Restricting the trade of migrants has not even led to any serious visual changes in the markets. Although the problem was not so much who was actually behind the counter as who was controlling the markets themselves, determining jobs, prices and so on. There is still a combination of crime (including ethnic) and the law-enforcement bodies ("market cops", and now "polizei"). The "non-conformist" local manufacturer has a restricted access to markets - these are usually "babushki" who offer local goods from their own plots, but in fact are working for a boss, re-selling large consignments of goods from other countries and regions. Furthermore, you must remember that goods from the former Soviet republics are usually considered to be their own.

-  Can Russia really get by without migrants - builders, workers in the cultural sphere, trade, and so on?

-  A revival of the basic spheres of the economy is gradually beginning, and therefore the majority of regions, including Rostov Region, cannot get by without migrants of various categories. The problem is that the structure of migration and the region's demand for various specialities (qualified or not) do not coincide. The bureaucratic methods of solving migration (quotas and so on) do not work and are ineffective. The trouble is there are not enough people dealing with mutual adaptation between migrants and the population. The diasporas are not very active and non-commercial organizations are few and only just emerging in this sphere.