Mehman Aliyev: "Our people want to resolve the issue of territories in Nagorno-Karabakh now and immediately"

***

- The war in Karabakh has transformed from a hot phase to an equally acute political and diplomatic one.  The main topics of discussion and reflection of the Azerbaijani population is the future of the territories in Nagorno-Karabakh, which are under the control of Russian peacekeepers...

- The desire of the Azerbaijani people to resolve the issues of the territories of the entire Nagorno-Karabakh as soon as possible can be understood.  Everyone is in a hurry and wants everything at once. However, we must prepare for the difficult way to restore territorial integrity and regain control over the areas that are now in the zone of responsibility of the Russian peacekeeping forces. The situation in this region of Nagorno-Karabakh is controlled not by the Armenian community, but by the peacekeeping mission. The real power there is with the Russian peacekeeping contingent, or, more precisely, with Russia. This situation should be regarded as temporary, since the entry of troops itself took place under extraordinary circumstances. This decision was made at the level of administrative bodies. At the level of the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and the Prime minister of Armenia. That is, it was adopted, bypassing the consent of parliaments and holding some public discussions. Now we can say that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is in an emergency, and later all this will be legalized and new decisions will be made. I think that then a peaceful negotiation process will begin, and the European Union and the United States have already speak about it.

Continuing negotiations is an inevitable process. The visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the region, their meetings with the heads of Azerbaijan and Armenia can be regarded as preparation for negotiations, which are likely to begin in February 2021. By this time, the Christmas holidays will end in Europe, and the new White House administration will begin work in the United States. I believe that one of the main topics of the talks will be the issue of the status of the Russian presence in Nagorno-Karabakh. Within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group, discussions will begin on issues of further coexistence of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the future form of Nagorno-Karabakh, border problems in the region, etc.

- Meanwhile, there are talks that the OSCE Minsk Group has discredited itself and decisions are now being made in a new format: Russia, Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan...

- There is no Armenia in this format. There is interaction between Russia and Turkey, as well as Azerbaijan and Turkey. There is no trilateral interaction between Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia. In this case, Turkey will be present as an observation mission in Karabakh. It should be noted that the current situation does not replace the format of the OSCE Minsk Group. Another thing is that Ankara insisted on changing the composition of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. It is known that the French Senate adopted a recommendatory decision to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. The claims of Baku and Ankara regarding the format change were related to France's supporting one of the parties to the conflict. However, after the French government announced that it would not accept any recommendations of the parliament and confirmed the recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, this issue was closed. In any case, further negotiations will take place within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group, which also includes Turkey. Now Russian-Turkish interaction concerns compliance with the ceasefire regime. This is just the military part of the security issue and does not replace a political settlement. Probably, the peacekeeping contingent of the Russian Federation will receive an OSCE mandate and in the future will become multinational.

- The OSCE Minsk Group had the Madrid principles, which were "hard-won" in many years of business trips to the region, which assumed a symbiosis of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination. Some experts believe that these are mutually exclusive concepts. Is it possible to revive this document?

- Throughout the course of the Karabakh conflict, approaches have changed at the negotiation platforms. For example, there was the Lisbon summit, the Kazan Initiative, a phased, package settlement options, etc. The composition of the OSCE MG mediating countries has not changed, but the persons representing the co-chairs and its initiatives have changed. The OSCE Minsk Group, putting forward various initiatives, proceeded from the realities prevailing in the Karabakh conflict, and the realities changed for various reasons. For example, the change of power in Armenia or new proposals from the parties to the conflict. After Ilham Aliyev's meeting with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, it became obvious that in connection with the ended hostilities in the region, new realities appeared. For example, seven regions were liberated, which were the subject of bargaining with the Armenian side. For a long time, Armenia offered the return of territories in exchange for the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. Now at least one third of the liquidated NKAO in 1991 is under the control of the Azerbaijani army. Thus, a completely different situation has developed. This can also include the situation in Armenia itself. After the actual surrender of Yerevan, attitudes in Armenia and among the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh changed and will continue to change. At a meeting with the President of Azerbaijan, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs from the United States and France noted the development of a completely new situation. It is obvious that the co-chairs received new proposals from the Azerbaijani president. We do not know yet what the proposals are, but the co-chairs promised that they would bring these proposals to the attention of the leaderships of their countries.

We can only guess what proposals were made by Ilham Aliyev. Perhaps, due to the changed status quo in the region, the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh will not be a subject of discussion. The Azerbaijani President has repeatedly said in his speeches that there will be no status. At the same time, Nikol Pashinyan, despite the fact that his country was defeated, declares the granting of independence to Nagorno-Karabakh. The task of the co-chairs is to find a compromise option between the positions of the opposing sides. For example, it can be some form of self-government in Nagorno-Karabakh. What boundaries and how this will be done is a matter for future discussions. We should expect that the talks in February next year would be based on new proposals from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. They were in Baku and Yerevan, listened to the views of the parties and presented new compromises.

- Will the political crisis in Armenia become an obstacle in the negotiations? The Armenian opposition promises a war to a victorious end. On the one hand, the Armenian people do not accept the former Sargsyan-Kocharyan regime, and names its representatives embezzlers and bandits. On the other hand, Pashinyan, who lost the war...?

- Pay attention, despite difficult situation in Armenia, not huge critical mass of protesters is going to the streets of Yerevan in order to force Pashinyan to resign. Despite the grave military defeat and the enormous national stress that the population of Armenia is experiencing, the maximum that the opposition can do is to bring about five thousand people to the streets. With all this, the population's confidence in Pashinyan remains. Ordinary Armenians are well acquainted with the system of political relations in the country. They are quite literate, and they have become even wiser. It is not so easy to confuse them with statements, they say, Pashinyan is a traitor, he received $ 5 billion, betrayed the country, etc. Armenian society no longer believes in this. They are already well aware of the conflict and at the same time, everyone is tired of the hopelessness and lack of clear guidelines for the future. This is clearly seen in the example of high emigration from the country. The fact that the Karabakh clan lost to Pashinyan is evidence that the Armenians are tired of Karabakh. On the one hand, they are offended that they were defeated by the Azerbaijani army, and on the other, the Armenian society has an understanding of what happened. People do not see Pashinyan's fault in this. People living inside the system analyze events, know who is to blame and what led to the defeat. There is no trust in the past, since the previous government was corrupt and brought the country to such a state. The defeat in the Karabakh war was a matter of time. It just so happened that the denouement came under Pashinyan's rule.

Ilham Aliyev's statement that not Pashinyan was to blame for the defeat of Armenia, but the previous presidents, was perceived on some political platforms as if Aliyev, by supporting Pashinyan, had actually passed a sentence on the Armenian prime minister. In fact, Aliyev assessed the situation objectively. The President of Azerbaijan made it clear that he is not going to talk with the previous Armenian team. This is a very interesting message to both the Armenian society and the international community. It is important for the Armenian people to understand that international mediators do not support Pashinyan's departure. Including Russia - it will not take any action to overthrow Pashinyan. Moreover, Putin has repeatedly spoken in support of him. Yes, there is talk that the Russian president does not like Pashinyan, considers him a pro-Western, Soros "fosterling", etc. It is clear that Moscow is not interested in removing the leader of Armenia. How many emissaries of the previous authorities, and now the Armenian opposition, traveled to Moscow in order to get the approval to overthrow Pashinyan, but nothing happened. International forces, including the Armenian diaspora, are not interested in the fall of the current government in Armenia. That is, he will not be dismissed in the near future. Over time, the situation in Armenia will stabilize, the emotional background will decrease, people will assess the situation more soberly, and street protest emotions will turn into calm polemics about what happened. By the way, Pashinyan opened such a controversy in parliament and he does not avoid discussions. Gradually, he will receive more and more support from the population. People understand that this is not a loss for Pashinyan specifically, but for the whole country. The population of Armenia does not go against the Prime Minister, but takes responsibility for what happened.

- For almost 30 years, for the sake of holding Karabakh, Armenia was a Russian outpost. Did the loss of Karabakh make Armenia less dependent on Russia? Tomorrow Pashinyan may say, “Let the Russian Federation protect Armenians in Karabakh, and we will actively implement the agreements on European integration. Russia, come on, bye! Is such a thing possible?

- Pashinyan came to power not on anti-Russian slogans, but on the promise of a merciless fight against corruption and ensuring an increase in living standards. The Armenian society, disappointed with the corrupt Karabakh regime, relied on Pashinyan. He came from the street with promises of justice, and the population voted for justice. There are both pro-Russian and pro-Western people in Armenian society. Yes, Pashinyan signed a partnership agreement with the EU, which Sargsyan could not sign. Armenians want to live in a developing, democratic country, and Europe provides this experience of building a state system. Therefore, the desire of the Armenians to create a society of the European type is quite understandable, and there is nothing anti-Russian about this. The fact is that there is such a bias in Azerbaijan too - if it is "pro-Western", then it is necessarily "anti-Russian". This is fundamentally wrong.  A large number of people in Russia want to build a Western-style society. In this case, Pashinyan will not make any sharp moves in relation to the Russian Federation. Like, he is offended at Russia, Armenia has nothing to lose and will turn its course to the West. No, that will not happen. Yerevan will pursue a balanced policy: build up relations with the West and at the same time strengthen relations with the Russian Federation. One should take into account the close economic relations between Armenia and Russia, where a huge number of Armenians live. Quite a lot of money comes to Armenia from Russia, which is strongly tied to the Armenian economy. It is just that now Yerevan, using the defeat in the war, will strive to attract investments to the country as much as possible. Therefore, it will begin to build relations equally with the West and with Russia. It is very important for Armenia to build relations with Azerbaijan as well, and especially with Turkey. Without opening communications, resuming relations with neighbors, it is impossible to stabilize the economic situation and develop the country in a peaceful direction. The purely geographical position of Armenia dictates the restoration of relations with Baku and Ankara. Therefore, we should expect a pragmatic, balanced policy based on these realities. Moreover, in the OSCE Minsk Group there are Russia and the West represented by the United States and France. Armenia may well stabilize by pursuing a policy taking into account the interests of both geopolitical centers.

- Does the trilateral agreement provide for the opening of communications between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Now the reason for the isolation of Armenia by Turkey and Azerbaijan is becoming even clearer...

- Now, our levers of influence are the territories liberated by the Azerbaijani army. The communication factor is no longer an important tool. Today, communications between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh are open and operational. Humanitarian cargoes from Russia are delivered to Karabakh via the Azerbaijani railway. This connection has already been established, the goods freely arrive at the terminal station in Azerbaijan, and then by cars through the territories controlled by the Azerbaijani army, they enter Nagorno-Karabakh. According to the trilateral statement, which is of a declarative nature, a railway communication should be opened along the Megri corridor from Azerbaijan to the Nakhichevan. If everything goes in a positive direction, Azerbaijan is able to restore this railway within a year. Baku has experience and, resources in this regard.

The issue of communication between Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan can be resolved within the framework of a trilateral statement, and there is no need to wait for a big peace agreement. As for the opening of communications in different parts of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, including the Armenian-Turkish border, this is possible within the framework of an interim peace agreement. Much depends on Armenia itself. There are no problems from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Turkey made it clear that communications will be closed until the Azerbaijani territories are liberated. Now the territories have been liberated, and the international community recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, including the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. There are no obstacles for Turkey to open its borders with Armenia. Now the ball is on the Armenian side. As soon as the Armenian leadership declares that it renounces territorial claims against Azerbaijan and Turkey, and this must inevitably happen, the process of establishing diplomatic relations and opening communications will begin. By the way, Armenia can use the Zurich agreements of 2009, when there was an attempt to open the Armenian-Turkish border. From this moment on, the way for the movement of goods and passengers between Turkey and Armenia will be open.

- When Pashinyan, at the very beginning of the war, spoke about the "Syrians" on the side of the Azerbaijani army, people in Armenia believed that the diaspora would make it so that the Europeans and Americans would grab Azerbaijan's throat. However, the forces of the diaspora, so much spoken about by the Dashnaks were enough only for nasty things about Azerbaijan in the Western and especially Russian media. Is not the role of the diaspora exaggerated?

(to be continued)