AN IDEAL SITUATION

The forthcoming meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Kazan may rightly be described as one of the most debated subjects on the regional agenda. The expectations are high and not without reason. The encouraging statement by the presidents of the broker countries, the impulsive nature of the talks on this problem and a number of other circumstances have led to experts making optimistic predictions about achieving real results at this meeting. Yevgeniy Stepanov, director of the Centre for Conflict Studies of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, also believes that the settlement process could be kick-started at the meeting in Kazan. He shared his views on this in an interview for our magazine.

Now the geopolitical situation is ideal for a settlement to the Karabakh conflict. I think there is an objective chance of achieving progress in the peace talks process in Kazan. The point is that everyone is suffering from this conflict: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia. And this problem must be resolved. It is perfectly realistic and feasible to make significant progress. The only thing that could stand in the way of this is interference from outside forces who have their own interests in the region. These forces might try to turn the process away from achieving a mutually advantageous agreement towards the prevalence of one side in the conflict over the other. A peace agreement should not, so to speak, cause stress to the parties in the conflict. The talks should be held in a calm atmosphere, and then a firm and lasting peace is possible. The more disgruntled and dissatisfied one of the parties is, the less chance the talks have of succeeding.

- Some experts claim that a settlement to the Karabakh problem is not, in fact, to Russia's benefit. They say that Moscow might lose influence in the region if there is an end to the confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

- If Russia is seen as a broker trying to coordinate the interests of the warring parties and not playing off the interests of one party against the other and thus gain a certain advantage, this will strengthen the recognition of Russia's influence. The question right now is this: Russia needs to play the role of a moderator who is coordinating and not playing off interests. If this proves to be effective, then, of course, Russia's influence in the countries drawn into the Karabakh conflict will increase. A mutually advantageous settlement to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict through Russian mediation will of course give Moscow the opportunity to win recognition from Baku and Yerevan. This is all objective. Safeguarding one's own interests by coordinating the interests of others. In today's world it is very important to work with your nearest partners. That is vital. For example, the fact that Russia has rather turned its back on Belarus is bad not just for Minsk, but also for Russia itself. Mutual interests simply must be coordinated.

- What does "Russian recognition" mean in a settlement to the conflict?

- It means that Russia does what it should have done in the first place as a broker -coordinate the mutually acceptable interests of the conflicting parties. In this instance recognition of Russia as an objective moderator in a settlement to this conflict. 

- Will Moscow agree to the deployment of Western peacekeepers in the zone of the Karabakh conflict without the participation of Russian troops?

- I'm sure it will. Because in this case the peace process will gain the support of the West, and the West will have a vested interest in the conflict not worsening, but on the contrary will help to reduce tension and promote cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

- What do you think about the work of the OSCE Minsk Group? Some people think that this format has served its time.

- The OSCE was entrusted with the mission of a neutral mediator. But, unfortunately, it has not shown itself to be an effective organization to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In this instance criticism of the Minsk Group is justified.

- Is there any possibility of ensuring the principle of self-determination of nations without damaging the principle of territorial integrity? Or are these two principles mutually exclusive?

- A compromise between these two principles is perfectly possible. It is possible and necessary to find a form of mutually advantageous inter-action. Cooperation is better than a struggle for one's own interests to the detriment of the interests of the other party. It is very important that Russia insists on this, and that the parties realize that all that will result from attempts to safeguard one's own interests at the expense of the other party is that the already huge losses of the participants in the conflict will increase.

- Could a successful outcome to the talks under Russia's aegis lead to external forces provoking a resumption of the war?

 - The threat is there. But at the moment there are no forces that want a war in Karabakh to start soon. In Afghanistan the question of the withdrawal of the US and other Western countries is a fairly acute one and there are domestic problems in the countries of the alliance.  So the situation in the Karabakh conflict allows for movement towards a compromise. And the global economic crisis is also nudging the sides towards a need to reach agreement.