PRESSURE WILL INCREASE…

Every surge of activity around the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict gives a new impetus to debates and predictions on the settlement of this conflict. The current wave of discussions in the media and expert community has been caused mainly by the statement made in Deauville by the leaders of the countries cochairing the OSCE Minsk Group and the forthcoming meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Kazan. Although many experts admit that the "Deauville" statement plays an important role in the negotiating process, they do not think that it will have a decisive influence on the outcome of the talks because its participants are not ready for this. But the head of the political and international relations department at the University of Oxford, Neil McFarlane, thinks that the cochairing countries are able to influence the sides to the conflict and do not intend to put up with the current status quo forever. Professor McFarlane spoke about all this in his interview with our magazine.

- Cease-fire violations along the line of contact have become much more frequent.  The European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and the head of the US Department of State Hillary Clinton have expressed their concern over the latest incidents. Nevertheless, the status quo has been maintained in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. In your opinion, when will Russia, the USA, and other Western countries really get interested in resolving the conflict?   

- I think they are already interested, in part because of concern about the possibility of renewed conflict. The statement of the presidents of France, Russia, and the United States at Deauville, in which they called upon the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to finalize agreement on the basic principles of a settlement in June, suggests that they agree on the need for a rapid resolution of the conflict. It also suggests they are growing impatient with the intransigence of the parties. There will be an increase in diplomatic pressure on the parties. The key question is what the Minsk co-chairs do when (if?) the parties fail to achieve agreement.

- Some experts assert that, in terms of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, Russia always looks after its own interests. Though, recently Baku has agreed to meet several of Russia's requests. First of all, Azerbaijan is ready to renew the lease of the Qabala radar station. Secondly, Azerbaijan has become a full member of the Non-Aligned Movement, therefore abstaining from any military alliances and pacts. Put it differently, now Moscow has a guarantee that Baku is not aiming to join NATO.  In this case, will Moscow push Yerevan into concessions in the talks?    

- All states look after their own interests. I am not sure Russia views Azerbaijani membership in the nonaligned movement as a concession. After all, Azerbaijan can change its mind on this at any time. The Russians have known very well for a very long time that Azerbaijan is seeking to avoid exclusive alignment not only with NATO but also with anybody else. By the way, I think Azerbaijani diplomacy has been very effective in this regard. 

Russia does want a settlement (or, perhaps more accurately, Russia wants to ensure there is no war). However, I think Russia is unwilling to try to force Armenia into concessions on status, return of IDPs [internally displaced persons], transfer of control over the occupied territories, etc. Armenia is a reliable ally of Russia in a difficult region. 

Even if the Russians were willing to try, there is no guarantee that they would be successful in moving the Armenian position.

- Yerevan is obviously pleased with Iran's role in breaking the economic blockade of Armenia, whose borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey are closed due to the occupation of Nagornyy Karabakh. Why is Iran helping Armenia, even against the interests of Turkey and Azerbaijan?     

- There is no "economic blockade" of Armenia. Turkey and Azerbaijan embargo Armenia. However, there is a fair amount of indirect trade. Georgia and Iran don't embargo Armenia. 

But that is not your question. On why Iran helps Armenia, Iran has no obvious reason to participate in the effort to isolate Armenia. Nagornyy Karabakh is not their fight. Second, there is a long history of rivalry between Iran and the Ottoman Empire in the region, and the current form is Iranian nervousness about Turkish influence on its northern flank. 

Iran's relations with Azerbaijan have been uneven, in part because of Iran's nervousness about the large Azerbaijani minority in Iran and sensitivity towards possible Azerbaijani irredentism. I don't think they care very much about the interests of Turkey and Azerbaijan on this issue. They care about their own interests (as they perceive them).

- Azerbaijani and Turkish diasporas in the USA have called on American law-makers to stop financial assistance to the Nagornyy Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, occupied by Armenia, and to cut financial assistance to Armenia in 2012. Will the USA decide to take these measures in order to push Yerevan into concessions in the negotiations? On the one hand, there has been a lot of statements about the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, while on the other hand the US has been constantly providing Armenian-occupied Karabakh with financial assistance. When will this policy of double standards end?      

- No, I don't think the United States will decide to take such measures. To do so might (or might not) make sense from a strategic perspective, or from a conflict resolution perspective, but any move of this type is impossible because of the influence of the Armenian diaspora in the United States. This is about domestic politics, and Armenian Americans are very well organized and funded. And we are in election season already.

At the end of the day, the conflict will be resolved when the parties themselves decide to resolve it and decide to take the political risks and to accept the concessions that are necessary. It's not about us. It's about you and the Armenians.