“UN Security Council may recognize Azerbaijan an aggressor, as it disrupts peaceful negotiations”
Interview with Stanislav Tarasov, columnist at Regnum news agency, political analyst.
Mr. Tarasov, OSCE MG Co-Chairs recently issued a statement, that on May 15 Azerbaijani armed forces fired a missile across the Line of Contact, striking military equipment, in response to which the Armenian side also implemented activities. In Armenia this statement is called unprecedented, addressed, non-standard. In your opinion, what urged the Co-Chairs go to this?
Our experience and observations show that in April during the meeting with Russian FM Lavrov the sides reached some agreements, then Serzh Sargsyan stated in the parliament that Kazan document lies on the basis of negotiations, or, probably its certain modification, at the same time, stating that confidentiality of negotiations is maintained.
When Nalbandian stated he is ready for negotiations and Mammadyarov also stated they are ready for negotiations, however, there are territorial issues, and at the moment they were ready for a new meeting, happened what happened.
Based on small, silly, made-up reasoning, as if the Armenian side intended to shell the helicopter of Azerbaijani defense minister, although it was non-publicly stated that neither side will strike the first, those attempting to disrupt those negotiations reached their purpose. In this case, I consider it were militants of the Azerbaijani side, moreover, than OSCE MG’s statement was addressed to Azerbaijan and accused in disruption of the process. That’s all.
In your opinion, did Russia also set a purpose to bring into life the formula “concession of territories for Artsakh’s interim status”?
No, Russia holds negotiations in non-autonomous mode, but participates in negotiations within OSCE MG. If any side touches upon it, this doesn’t mean there is some program, for instance, Lavrov’s plan or other. There is nothing like that. The point is that there were elections in France, the president is yet new, the French aren’t yet ready, Trump’s administration moved forward its action plan and makes abstract statements, as a result, under current state of affairs decision was made that Moscow appeared as a coordinator. Nothing more. There is a document, which we don’t know, however, the process has been disrupted and that’s it.
In response to MG statement, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry stated that it’s autocratic territory and it can do whatever it wants. Then they shelled their own positions and continue striking Armenian positions, on May 20 the Armenian side recorded a casualty, i.e. MG statement didn’t’ have any restraining impact. In your opinion, which new steps is Baku plotting on the frontline?
Azerbaijan is cunning. There are Vienna and St. Petersburg agreements, which, unfortunately, Azerbaijan didn’t sign, which enshrined installation of investigative mechanisms on the contact line, monitoring by international observers.
As soon as international observers appear and they make a statement, that any of the sides violated the ceasefire, one may believe in it, but now, that there are no international observers, each side blames the other, it’s complicated. Azerbaijan is against installation of mechanisms on the contact line. It seemed if it constantly blamed Armenia in ceasefire violation it should have supported installation of mechanisms, and let not Baku speak, but be announced by Brussels. In this case that statement would have a different weight. What Baku does now is simple speculation.
What measures can the international community undertake, will respective activities follow this addressed statement, e.g. imposing sanctions against Azerbaijan or any other step?
No, the point is that Azerbaijan disrupts the agenda, Vienna and St. Petersburg agreements are touched upon, and Baku says everything should be started from a new line, i.e. they introduce a different agenda, disrupt negotiations. All OSCE MG members are UN Security Council members. They can raise the issue in the Security Council and that time Baku will face issues. UN Security Council may recognize Azerbaijan an aggressor, as it disrupts peaceful negotiations.
Then, as it’s said, a fatal turning point may be recorded—there will be states, which will recognize independence of Nagorno Karabah.
On March 8 French president Francois Hollande in the meeting with Armenian president Serzh Sarsgyan stated that equipment should be installed on the conflict zone, which can not only record ceasefire violations, but punish the guilty. However, that proposal didn’t gain wider social reflection. Why?
Who is guilty? For instance, I didn’t observe any prevention or opposing opinion, and Azerbaijan is against. A question rises here: who is interested in settlement through force? Naturally, the side, touching upon conflict settlement through force. It’s Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijani diplomacy is defeated, European diplomacy is defeated, they appeared at a deadlock.
By Gayane Khachatryan
