atatwolf
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
If desired, the US can exert pressure on Armenia – expert
What happened in Ukraine is making the Azerbaijani-US and Azerbaijani-EU relations even more important. At the same time, the events in Ukraine once again show why the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has to be resolved. It is important that Azerbaijan and Armenia take steps to resolve the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and thus eliminate the instability in the region.
This statement has been made recently U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar while reporting about the forthcoming visit of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to Azerbaijan.
In an interview to 1news.az, Azerbaijani political scientist, Professor at the Western University Fikrat Sadikhov commented on issues related to the upcoming visit of the U.S. secretary of state.
How do you think, can the John Kerry's visit to Azerbaijan become significant in terms of progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
What happened in Ukraine, I mean, first of all, the situation related to the Crimean peninsula, should be an objective lesson for many of the leading states, primarily for the U.S. and the European Union in terms of understanding a fair and equitable settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
These events must sober up any politician who thinks that by contemplating what is happening in the South Caucasus and taking detached position, calling on the parties to any virtual compromise, they can eventually resolve this conflict. The reality of what is happening today in some regions and in particular in Ukraine shows that with some calls, exhortations and especially with such aloof attitude, to resolve the conflict is impossible.
In order to preserve the territorial integrity of states, including Azerbaijan, certain actions, real reliance on the principles of international law have to be taken, including the implementation by Armenia of the resolutions adopted at the UN Security Council. That is very important.
And in this respect, if Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to the region will be able to contribute to this, it will be a victory for common sense and reason. If the visit turns into something similar to the protocol, study visits and meetings, which will be non-binding, then there is no need to wait for something certain. However, the visit of a senior person like Kerry to the region, particularly to Azerbaijan, should yield positive dividends. I think following John Kerry's meeting with President Ilham Aliyev, in particular, informing him from the mouth of the head of state about the real events occurring in the region, Azerbaijan's position in relation to the West and the U.S. will be taken seriously by officials in Washington. If official Washington does not want the situation to get out of control in the South Caucasus, and even more so, not to turn towards the other centre of power, the U.S. will make appropriate conclusions and take a clear unambiguous position on the Armenian- Azerbaijani conflict.
If the United States does actually activate in the negotiation process, can we see this as a "message" to Russia, which, judging by recent events, is seeking to restore its influence in the former Soviet Union?
Even if it is, still, for us, as the aggrieved party in this conflict, such an approach of the US to the situation would suit perfectly. But I still believe that the issue is much deeper. This is the first attempt of the American diplomacy save its face in our region, and secondly - an attempt to try to restore justice, and, thirdly, to keep the region within the scope of its interests.
The U.S. is pragmatic enough in such geopolitical issues and realizes that if all is left to the other leading side, then eventually, as the Ukrainian events showed, it can lose other regions, where it has geopolitical, geostrategic and economic interests. This is a blow to the prestige of America, to its global interests. And even if for the sake of it Kerry as an official representative of Washington tries to convince the leadership that it has to take more than a clear and unambiguous position regarding the Karabakh conflict, this is already enough.
And what way can the United States offer as a regulator of the conflict? Could it be military, for example?
The military option, I think, is still far away. It will not act so straightforward. Nevertheless, the United States is a global world power, which has a lot of leverage on a situation in a particular region. I mean economic levers, and issues associated with overt show of force in the region. To this day, we have seen only the matching positions of all the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But time has shown that coincidence here just cannot happen, because each party has its own interests in the region and in the case of force majeure, one of the parties makes a breakthrough and takes control of the situation. Just the same is going to happen here.
If desired, the United States can exert pressure on Armenia over the same Armenian Diaspora, put pressure on financial leverage to stop to assist Armenia as a country which is an aggressor and impose banking and economic sanctions. Importantly, it must make a clear choice and unequivocally state about the unacceptability of territorial claims on the one side to the other, the impossibility of maintaining the status quo on Nagorno-Karabakh, especially the presence of occupation of seven regions by one party, and the launch of the de-occupation of Azerbaijani lands.
How will such developments affect the Azerbaijani- Russian relations?
I do not think that the U.S. desire to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict based on international law and the resolutions of the UN Security Council can certainly lead to a deterioration in relations between the Kremlin and the official Baku, the more that the Azerbaijani government pursues a balanced foreign policy in the international arena as well as in regional conflicts, such as Kosovo, the Crimea and others.
Azerbaijan makes no claim to Russia and is not going to join NATO or any other military alliances, but merely is trying to resolve the conflict which casts doubt on its territorial integrity. By the way, we have always clearly told Moscow, Washington and Paris about the readiness to liberate the occupied territories by military means if the negotiations do not lead to positive results.
Yes, it is possible that in Russia there are forces interested in maintaining the existing situation, in particular the status quo in the conflict, but it does not mean that we should sit back with folded hands. I think Russia and Washington realize it. In any case, Azerbaijan will defend exclusively its own territorial integrity, acting within the norms and principles of international law.
News.Az
What happened in Ukraine is making the Azerbaijani-US and Azerbaijani-EU relations even more important. At the same time, the events in Ukraine once again show why the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has to be resolved. It is important that Azerbaijan and Armenia take steps to resolve the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and thus eliminate the instability in the region.
This statement has been made recently U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar while reporting about the forthcoming visit of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to Azerbaijan.
In an interview to 1news.az, Azerbaijani political scientist, Professor at the Western University Fikrat Sadikhov commented on issues related to the upcoming visit of the U.S. secretary of state.
How do you think, can the John Kerry's visit to Azerbaijan become significant in terms of progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
What happened in Ukraine, I mean, first of all, the situation related to the Crimean peninsula, should be an objective lesson for many of the leading states, primarily for the U.S. and the European Union in terms of understanding a fair and equitable settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
These events must sober up any politician who thinks that by contemplating what is happening in the South Caucasus and taking detached position, calling on the parties to any virtual compromise, they can eventually resolve this conflict. The reality of what is happening today in some regions and in particular in Ukraine shows that with some calls, exhortations and especially with such aloof attitude, to resolve the conflict is impossible.
In order to preserve the territorial integrity of states, including Azerbaijan, certain actions, real reliance on the principles of international law have to be taken, including the implementation by Armenia of the resolutions adopted at the UN Security Council. That is very important.
And in this respect, if Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to the region will be able to contribute to this, it will be a victory for common sense and reason. If the visit turns into something similar to the protocol, study visits and meetings, which will be non-binding, then there is no need to wait for something certain. However, the visit of a senior person like Kerry to the region, particularly to Azerbaijan, should yield positive dividends. I think following John Kerry's meeting with President Ilham Aliyev, in particular, informing him from the mouth of the head of state about the real events occurring in the region, Azerbaijan's position in relation to the West and the U.S. will be taken seriously by officials in Washington. If official Washington does not want the situation to get out of control in the South Caucasus, and even more so, not to turn towards the other centre of power, the U.S. will make appropriate conclusions and take a clear unambiguous position on the Armenian- Azerbaijani conflict.
If the United States does actually activate in the negotiation process, can we see this as a "message" to Russia, which, judging by recent events, is seeking to restore its influence in the former Soviet Union?
Even if it is, still, for us, as the aggrieved party in this conflict, such an approach of the US to the situation would suit perfectly. But I still believe that the issue is much deeper. This is the first attempt of the American diplomacy save its face in our region, and secondly - an attempt to try to restore justice, and, thirdly, to keep the region within the scope of its interests.
The U.S. is pragmatic enough in such geopolitical issues and realizes that if all is left to the other leading side, then eventually, as the Ukrainian events showed, it can lose other regions, where it has geopolitical, geostrategic and economic interests. This is a blow to the prestige of America, to its global interests. And even if for the sake of it Kerry as an official representative of Washington tries to convince the leadership that it has to take more than a clear and unambiguous position regarding the Karabakh conflict, this is already enough.
And what way can the United States offer as a regulator of the conflict? Could it be military, for example?
The military option, I think, is still far away. It will not act so straightforward. Nevertheless, the United States is a global world power, which has a lot of leverage on a situation in a particular region. I mean economic levers, and issues associated with overt show of force in the region. To this day, we have seen only the matching positions of all the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But time has shown that coincidence here just cannot happen, because each party has its own interests in the region and in the case of force majeure, one of the parties makes a breakthrough and takes control of the situation. Just the same is going to happen here.
If desired, the United States can exert pressure on Armenia over the same Armenian Diaspora, put pressure on financial leverage to stop to assist Armenia as a country which is an aggressor and impose banking and economic sanctions. Importantly, it must make a clear choice and unequivocally state about the unacceptability of territorial claims on the one side to the other, the impossibility of maintaining the status quo on Nagorno-Karabakh, especially the presence of occupation of seven regions by one party, and the launch of the de-occupation of Azerbaijani lands.
How will such developments affect the Azerbaijani- Russian relations?
I do not think that the U.S. desire to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict based on international law and the resolutions of the UN Security Council can certainly lead to a deterioration in relations between the Kremlin and the official Baku, the more that the Azerbaijani government pursues a balanced foreign policy in the international arena as well as in regional conflicts, such as Kosovo, the Crimea and others.
Azerbaijan makes no claim to Russia and is not going to join NATO or any other military alliances, but merely is trying to resolve the conflict which casts doubt on its territorial integrity. By the way, we have always clearly told Moscow, Washington and Paris about the readiness to liberate the occupied territories by military means if the negotiations do not lead to positive results.
Yes, it is possible that in Russia there are forces interested in maintaining the existing situation, in particular the status quo in the conflict, but it does not mean that we should sit back with folded hands. I think Russia and Washington realize it. In any case, Azerbaijan will defend exclusively its own territorial integrity, acting within the norms and principles of international law.
News.Az
