Day.Az interview with Azer Mursaliyev, chief editor of the Russia-based Kommersant newspaper and member of the All-Russia Congress of Azerbaijanis.
In your opinion, what will be the outcome of the forthcoming Obama-Erdogan-Sargsyan meeting? Following the meeting, will the U.S. President utter the word genocide in his April 24 speech deepening Turkey’s confrontation with the U.S. and Armenia or, quite on the contrary, the U.S. President will try to soften Armenia’s position to ensure that Turkey will open border with Armenia?
Well, I think Obama needs to consolidate the success reached at a meeting in Prague (the new treaty on reducing strategic offensive arms between Russia and the U.S.) and reinforce its reputation as a peacemaker. So, he will try to persuade the Armenian and Turkish leaders to soften their positions and to compromise to each other. President of the United States needs at least some success in the formal relations between Turkey and Armenia.
In my opinion, in general, Obama’s projects begin well, but they do not usually have successful end. Here we can cite Afghanistan as an example, which he seemed to have chosen as a model to bring such a claim.
In response, Afghan President Hamid Karzai “progressed” from close ally and supporter of the United States to actually possible traitor who is willing to conclude an alliance with Taliban and fight with them for freedom from foreigners.
In your view, how does Moscow accept the possible resumption of diplomatic ties between Turkey and Armenia? Is it beneficial for Russia?
I think so. Moscow wants to see the South Caucasus region a bit calmer. Normalization of relations between Turkey, which had many common projects with Russia in recent years, and Armenia, which has been and remains the closest ally of Russia in the whole region, is beneficial for Moscow.
And in what ways can this process be beneficial for Azerbaijan?
It will surely benefit Azerbaijan if the opening of Turkish-Armenian border is accompanied by a kind of parallel processes in Armenia’s domestic and foreign policy and if the Armenian authorities choose a realistic attitude towards their neighbors, in particular on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and if all the parties will consider opening the border as beginning of the process of normalizing the situation in the region as a whole.
What are your thoughts on prospects of further progress in the process of resolving the Karabakh conflict? Do you thing this problem has almost fallen into oblivion especially by the major players amid the ongoing processes between Turkey, Armenia and the U.S.?
For the major players, the Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian-Turkish relations are just elements of a single and big problem. For them the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is just one of the problems in the South Caucasus region because it is a tangle of contradictions and potential and frozen conflicts.
It is clear that all interested parties have a dual approach in the relationship with stronger players. You’ve got to see all these problems as complex. You have to understand that the problem is unlikely to be resolved without permission of the remaining sides. Therefore, they are now trying resolve them normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia.
There is some attenuation in the Nagorno Karabakh negotiation. If the parties do not succeed in the process of opening the Armenian-Turkish border and the ratification of the protocols, it means that intermediary powers once again step up efforts to address the Karabakh problem. If they fail to overcome this impasse, they will take more active steps to resolve the problem of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
/Today.Az/
