Vienna Talks Open New Possibilities for Resolving Karabakh Conflict

On the results of the negotiations in Vienna between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia with the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries the political scientist Elkhan Shahioglu says in the interview with the Chetin Sual (Difficult Question) column.

What are the results of the meeting in Vienna between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents, which took place with the participation of co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group?

Even before the meeting, I predicted the absence of any significant results, although there are details that are worth paying attention to. So, in a joint statement by the Co-Chairs attention is drawn to two points: the parties have agreed to comply with the ceasefire and a peaceful settlement of the conflict, as well as an increase in the composition of the group of the OSCE investigation of incidents on the frontline. I do not think it is a way out of the current situation, since a conceptual solution is necessary. Not found in the document are the following factors, which Armenia will take steps to liberate the territories. I think that in this case, both parties will not stick to the ceasefire. It was proved by a skirmish which took place on the eve of the meeting, as a result of which there are casualties on both sides. There is another point, which is the statement of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the meeting, in which he stressed the need for a phased settlement of the conflict. Does this mean that Armenia without imposing any preconditions must release several regions around Nagorno Karabakh? This joint statement does not say anything. We have to wait until June. If there will not be achieved any progress, and to be honest, I do not believe this, we will witness an intense fire violations after two months.

In the past few years, the leadership of Azerbaijan as if divides the conflict into two parts, calling it the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Could such an approach be the primary linear in resolving the conflict? That is the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict finds its solution, Armenia withdraws its troops from Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan then decides its relations with Nagorno-Karabakh.

Why this term is used and why the conflict is called so - at one time, when Tofig Zulfugarov was Deputy Foreign Minister, it was made a unanimous opinion that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as such, does not exist, as there is a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We have also explained this to the international community. This principle applies today. In the current situation we are trying to bring to the whole world that Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territories and the single Nagorno-Karabakh problem does not exist. Let Armenia withdraw its occupation forces, Azerbaijanis return to their lands, the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities themselves decide what will be the status. We are in talks only with Armenia, because it is the aggressor, the international community is aware of this and accepts this state of affairs.

After the Paris meeting, there was a statement by the French President, or the Foreign Minister, who said the status quo should be changed. After the Vienna meeting this position was not stated by the co-chairs. What is the difference between these two meetings?

From the perspective of 22 years of the history of the conflict, these meetings little differ from each other. These are two versions: a phased or a batch settlement option. The batch option does not suit Azerbaijan, since Armenians demand that Azerbaijan has set the date of the referendum, which will determine the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which the Azerbaijani side cannot do. These issues should be resolved step by step, and the negotiations are going in this direction. If you speak the language of diplomacy, 95% of the issue has been resolved between the parties. The problem is just the same in the five per cent, that is, in determining the status. Armenia does not intend to recede on this issue. As for the difference between the Paris and Vienna meetings, it is only a game of words, such as changing the status quo. And have any real steps in this direction been taken? It is due to the absence of real steps, we witnessed the April war. Thus, it became clear that the issues unresolved at the negotiating table for 22 years will be addressed at the front. In fact, the international community has little time left. If by the end of the year a real settlement plan is not put on the table, then we will witness not a four-day war, but a protracted one.

The statement noted that the Presidents should appoint a new meeting. In the statement, the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the Presidents should hold an exchange of views on the outcome of negotiations which unsuccessfully last for 22 years. To which diplomatic, political or military way is it necessary to resort to achieve the results?

The plans are called differently: Prague Process, Kazan Principles, Madrid Plan, and Advanced Madrid Plan. However, the name change does not change their essence. The conflict unresolved for 22 years proves Armenia's disinterest in its settlement, maintaining the status quo. At that meeting also sounded different suggestions and talks about setting cameras on the front line. Azerbaijan cannot accept any proposal of the sort until the regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh are liberated. If Armenia does not make concessions, then it is necessary to put pressure on it also at the front. Neither Armenia, nor the international community, unfortunately, shows us an alternative path. The issue must be addressed in the language of force and the opposing party has to see it.

If there is such an agreement, although diplomatic sources have not confirmed this, then Azerbaijan could agree to install cameras on its sovereign territory? But cameras can be installed at the state borders.

It is absolutely right. The question of establishing cameras works against Azerbaijan. Cameras can be installed on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as Armenia and Nakhchivan. However, the opposing party shells the Gazakh and Tovuz regions, so it is necessary to investigate the incidents there and set cameras there. How can we set cameras in Agdam and Fizuli? This is our territory. The international community accepts it as a territory of Azerbaijan. It turns out that we draw the line on our own territory, in agreement with the requirements of the occupants. International mediators do not exert pressure. In this sense, we cannot agree to an investigation of incidents in the war zone. We cannot pull snipers and heavy equipment, even despite the fact that international mediators require us to do this. For this reason, the Azerbaijani side will not agree to the installation of cameras.

The question of cameras sounds very serious in the society and the political environment. The government of Azerbaijan took an obligation before the Constitution and the people on the state borders protection. According to border legislation, in respect of any power violating the country's border force should be used. Is the agreement on the establishment of cameras not against the law?

This is a direct violation of the law. Why do they want to test this issue to Azerbaijan? Problems related to Nagorno-Karabakh also exist in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Donbas, and Transnistria. The West recognizes the territorial integrity of both Georgia and Ukraine, and they have not been made such proposals because their territorial integrity is recognized. If Azerbaijan's territorial integrity were clearly recognized by the West, such proposals would not be made. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia will do this, just like Azerbaijan. And the logic and the law are against it. But we do not know exactly how this proposal was announced, and who announced it.

How do you see the principles of settlement of the conflict? At one time the package option was proposed, and then step by step. One gets the impression that the conflict is deliberately extended. How long can the discussion of Lavrov’s proposal last?

I think the meeting in Vienna showed that all the proposals were dashed. Nobody says anything about the Madrid Plan or the Expanded Madrid Plan or the Kazan Principles. It seems as if a new plan is being prepared. But how much will it last? I think this conflict should be resolved only in a phased version. Armenians should initially release five districts, Azerbaijanis should return to their former places of residence, the lines of communication should be opened, and only then the Azerbaijanis residing in Nagorno-Karabakh should open a debate about what should be the parliament and the local authorities and how the issue of security should be solved. But talk about a referendum and demand to determine its choice before all of the above steps is a violation of the principles to be taken. So we are offered once the gradual option and once the batch one. Not clear is the question why the leading countries do not wish to exert pressure on Armenia on this issue. In fact, the April war was an indication that the limit of patience of Azerbaijan is settled, it is waiting for practical steps, as is the case and the social order of society. The four-day war ended, but the social order is not exhausted and it is a form of pressure on the country's leadership. On the one hand the Azeri leadership is faced with the requirement of international mediators, "do not fight", but on the other hand it is faced with the pressure of the people, "fight".

Azerbaijan unambiguously stated that Armenian troops must leave Azerbaijani territories, an atmosphere of trust must be created, the refugees and internally displaced persons must return, the ties must be restored, and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh must be discussed. Were these proposals discussed at the Vienna meeting?

In all likelihood, at the private meeting, President Ilham Aliyev informed the Armenian President and the Foreign Ministers of France, the United States and Russia about this. However, it seems the discussion did not go around these fundamental issues, and the sides discussed the new June meeting, the observance of the cease-fire before the Vienna meeting. Let's say that Azerbaijan and Armenia will observe a ceasefire for two months. How to be then with the settlement and conceptual issues? It seems that the international mediators play for time. New issues may arise for these two months. This approach may lead to the question of a dangerous line. Every time in the summer we go witnessing violations of the ceasefire. This year's ceasefire violation could end in a war. If the international community did not accept the April war as a serious signal, then the probability of war remains high.

However, US Secretary of State Kerry said there are some grounds for agreement. Recently, US made statements on the withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories. Can this be regarded as a certain consensus in the US position?

Among the three co-chairs the United States takes a more principled stand. Over the past two years, the US co-chair Warlick has repeatedly stated that in order to solve the problem, in the first place, 7 regions around Nagorno-Karabakh have to be released. After that the opinion was also repeated by the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Robert Cekuta. In this sense, the US position is principled. Unfortunately, France and Russia do not have such a principled position. For the United States alone it is very difficult to speak on this matter, because it knows that Russia will not allow it. Therefore, the United States in this regard has to act in consensus with Russia. I do not think, however, that Russia is interested in a fair resolution of this issue. Russia understands that if the conflict is finished, the relations of Armenia with Turkey and Azerbaijan can normalize that does not coincide with some interests of Russia.

Do you think that a return to war in the South Caucasus can cause expansion by ISIS and other terrorist organizations via boundaries?

Such a danger exists. What will be the situation in Azerbaijan, if Russia, as it has done in Donbas, sends its landing force here? Russia must also understand that this is not the 1990s since Azerbaijan will receive help from Turkey and Pakistan. In this event the war will not be limited to Nagorno-Karabakh, and will be extended to the North Caucasus, which will create problems for Russia. The South Caucasus may repeat the events taking place in the Middle East.

In recent fights Armenia used Russian weapons, and Azerbaijan along with the Russian, used the weapons from other countries. In that case why does Azerbaijan sign agreement with Russia on the purchase of weapons and ammunition for four billion USD?

Azerbaijan does not want to spoil relations with Russia, even knowing that it is a strategic ally of Armenia. If Azerbaijan bought weapons only in Western countries, it would irritate Russia, and it could take serious steps against Azerbaijan. However, the April war showed that the Russian officials did not oppose Azerbaijan. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin, in response to Armenian accusations of selling weapons to Azerbaijan, said: "What do you want, if we do not sell arms to Azerbaijan, it will buy it from other countries, and will be their strategic partner." There is nothing wrong with that. Russia earns billions on arms sales. Armenia cannot afford to buy guns, so it takes loans for that. The April four-day war showed that Azerbaijan has very modernized weapons. Armenia also uses weapons of the 1980s. This is our advantage over Armenia.

Can the fire of conflict in the region lead to new alliances?

Appearance of alliances has already begun in the South Caucasus. In Armenia, there is a Russian base. In Georgia, although small, but there is already a US base. In such a situation Azerbaijan cannot stay aside, so we need to expand military cooperation with fraternal Turkey. It is necessary to actualize the issue of placement of Turkish military bases in Azerbaijan. In recent years, the ceasefire has been broken in Nakhchivan. According to the Treaty of Kars of 1921, Turkey is the guarantor of security of Nakhchivan. In order not to irritate Russia, Azerbaijan does not seek to join NATO. However, by expanding cooperation with Turkey, we can place Turkish military bases in Azerbaijan. So Azerbaijan will not be able to remain neutral in this situation. Armenia and Georgia have made their choice, so Azerbaijan also has to make a choice.     -0--