Answers to armenian and azerbaijani journalists

On the future of the peace process:

The peace process was in trouble anyway. There has been no progress since the failure to achieve agreement in Kazan in June 2011. The events of the last week have now dealt the process a deadly blow. I cannot see, at least for the short term, the possibility of SerzhSarkisian agreeing to negotiate face-to-face with Ilham Aliev. And there is the danger that the Armenian side will recognize Nagorny Karabakh as an independent state. From my conversations with the US State Department, I understand that they believe that would mark the end of the Minsk Process—there would be nothing left for Baku and Yerevan to negotiate over. 

On the legal issues:

I am not a legal expert. It is quite possible that RamilSafarov’s transfer to Azerbaijan was technically legal. What concerns me is the moral and political side of it. Morally, it is distasteful to see how a man can be given the status of hero for having killed another man with an axe. That is all that can be said on this side of the issue – I can see no justification for the Azerbaijani government’s actions. Politically, I see this as a big miscalculation by the Azerbaijani side. They may have won some support at home for playing the nationalist card. But this episode has done great damage to Azerbaijan’s international reputation. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on projecting the image of a new modern Azerbaijan, staging occasions like the Eurovision Song Contest, winning membership of the UN Security Council. Now the pictures we see from Azerbaijan are those of a convicted murdered being greeted with flowers.

Changing the format of the Minsk Group:

It is much too easy to blame the Minsk Group format or the co-chairs for the lack of progress on achieving a settlement for the Karabakh conflict. But changing the format will not change the fundamental issue, which is the gap between the conflict sides and their unwillingness to compromise. A mediating team consisting of Richard Holbrooke, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lamacould not change that. The two presidents, of Armenia and Azerbaijani, are the conductors of this process and it is they who decide what is acceptable to them and what is not.

I can only see this changing if the threat of conflict grows to such an extent that the international players see the need to impose a settlement on Armenia and Azerbaijan, which neither side wants. Those who ask for greater international involvement should be a little conflict about what they ask for: they could get something they do not desire.

Questions of peaceful co-existence:

After the pardoning of RamilSafarov, questions are being asked if it is possible for Armenians and Azerbaijanis to co-exist peacefully. Some Armenians use the episode as proof that there is no way that Armenians of Karabakh can live together with Azerbaijanis again. I would not be in such a hurry to make this kind of conclusion. Armenians and Azerbaijanis live together in Moscow, in Tbilisi, in Iran, in the same villages in Georgia. They can live together in the future in and around Karabakh as well. The important thing is for there to be a trusted and powerful policeman who can provide protection and security. To my mind, that has to be an international policeman. 

On issues of justice and what kind of action is justified:

I see this conflict as being complicated by two unacceptable positions. The first (Azerbaijani) position: Armenians are occupying Azerbaijani land and therefore any measure taken to change this is acceptable, be it snipers shooting across the Line of Contact or pardoning a man who has murdered an Armenian. I reject this because although it is true that Armenians are occupying Azerbaijani land, both sides are responsible for this state of affairs. Both sides fought a conflict, killed the other, tried to destroy the other and bear moral responsibility for what happened. The Armenians were just more successful in winning the conflict.

The second (Armenian) unacceptable position is: The conflict has ended, we must accept the status quo. I reject this in the name of justice for those who have suffered. A fair settlement of the Karabakh issue will see justice both for the Armenians of Karabakh and for the maximum number of refugees (both Armenian and Azerbaijani, but more of them Azerbaijani) who were deported from their homes. To achieve that situation means changing the status quo. To call for the continuation of the status quo is a kind of quiet aggression (“passive aggressive behavior” as we say in English.)

(By the way, there was a question about there apparently being thousands of Azerbaijani prisoners in Armenia. This is clearly a misunderstanding. The Red Cross and Red Crescent are informed about this issue and do not give any such information. There are still thousands of missing Armenians and Azerbaijanis from the conflict, but sadly these are obviously lying in graves somewhere and their fate will probably be only determined when the conflict is over).