Internet Press Conference with Rasim Musabekov

 

-It should not be assumed that the authorities and the public in Azerbaijan are only thinking of how they can start a big war. This is not so even though impatience is augmenting, the number of the proponents of decisive actions and their pressure on the authorities is rising. Azerbaijan has made great capital investments in strengthening its armed forces. It would suffice to say that this year over 3 billion dollars was allocated for this purpose. Not only does this sum exceed the whole of Armenia’s state budget, but is also the largest, after Russia, military expense made in the post-Soviet space. However, I do not expect a renewal of the military actions in the near future. First of all, negotiations are underway. Secondly, the decision on the renewal of large-scale military actions depends on the internal political situation in both Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the situation in the region. I do not exclude the possibility of a new big war, but I am very much against it, just like all sensible people in our countries, I hope.      

 

 

-The Armenian side has overachieved in realizing all of its military objectives. That is why before achieving peace on its own terms (and this assumes the legalization of the secession of Nagorno Karabakh and also a considerable portion of the Azerbaijani territory on the plea of a “corridor”) is eager to maintain the current status quo that is very beneficial for Armenians. It is understandable why Azerbaijan does not agree to this. In a context when according to the Bishkek agreement the sides refrain from hostilities and the use of heavy armory, the snipers and crossfire on the front line are the only means of military pressure in order not to make the opponent and mediators have an illusion that Azerbaijan has accepted its defeat in this war and agrees to prolong the current status quo as long as possible.  

 

 

-The placement of peacekeeping forces presumes the achievement of a peaceful settlement, the withdrawal of the Armenian forces from the occupied territories, aiming to ensure the security of the Armenian as well as the returning Azerbaijani population's security. It is not excluded that the placement of the international peacekeeping forces can be realized in the case of the renewal of hostilities by the decision of the Security Council of the UNO to separate the opposing parties. It is not topical now. 

 

 

-There is no such comprehensive decision that will be satisfactory to all the parties and stakeholders of the conflict. It should be arrived at step by step, eliminating the consequences of the conflict. International law that envisages the provision of peace and security, respect for sovereignty, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the rights of the Nagorno Karabakh people can serve as a basis for such an agreement. All the items I listed above are currently presented in the well-known Madrid principles. At the Astana Summit the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia signed to join many of the regulation principles that were promulgated by the Presidents of mediating countries (the Russian Federation, the USA and France) at Muskoka. I assume that now it is the turn for adopting the whole document, including the Madrid principles. Then a framework peace agreement must be adopted and, with God’s help, we can hope that it will become possible to finally transfer the peaceful process onto the practical plane. As for the intrusion of a decision from outside, some pressure has been applied onto the parties all the time. Something resembling Dayton when the conflicting parties are invited and dictated a peace agreement will be possible in case hostilities restart, and the superpowers will consider that the war is conjugated with great risks, it may involve and push them off, and in order to prevent possible negative scenarios, will ram peace at any cost. 

 

 

 

-Currently there are no serious issues in the domestic policy in Azerbaijan. The liberals, lefts and nationalists are weak. The authorities hold the Islamists who are gaining ground in leash. As for international organizations, the latter fairly criticize Azerbaijan, just as they do with Armenia and Georgia who is the favorite of the West, for restricting the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Even though the situations in our countries vary, they do not comply with the undertaken obligations and the standards in Europe where we seem to intend to integrate.

 

 

 

-We cannot expect that such discussions will bring the positions of the parties closer. In fact, Azerbaijan is the one who has initiated the discussion in the Parliamentary Assembly of the OCSE, NATO, PACE, UN General Assembly and other international arenas, in order to draw their attention to the gross violation of the international law, consisting in the occupation of the Azerbaijani territories and the expatriation of the many hundreds of thousands citizens from these lands by the Armenian armed forces. Secondly, these discussions demonstrate that Azerbaijan has not put up with the current situation and will struggle for the restoration of sovereignty and territorial integrity. In a word, this is a way to put political pressure on Armenia who is quite consent with the status quo.

 

 

-Such statements are often made by the opposition. This is a grain of truth in them, though. However, we remember what the legitimate power of the Armenian National Movement headed by Levon Ter-Petrosyan looked like a similarly legitimate power of the People's Front Party headed by Abulfaz Elchibey in Azerbaijan. But instead of demonstrating a political will to achieve peace, it was exactly during their reign that the war extended. The problem does not consist in the lack of a political will and insufficient legitimacy. Armenians think that they have won the war and have a right to take the “prize” in the form of seizing Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan believes that it is supported by the law, it has lost a battle, but is not defeated in the entire war and today possesses of incomparably larger demographic, financial, economic, and at this point also military resources than Armenia. All need something from Azerbaijan; we receive visitors of the highest ranks all the time whereas Armenia constantly acts as a petitioner. So, the process is pending because one party appeals to the past success and history, and the other one assigns primary importance to the law and its current possibilities.  

 

 

 

-The best proof is that even though Armenians were able to record much greater a success than could have been imagined during the past war, they cannot yet consolidate it. The war was waged in order to ensure a better life for the 140 thousand Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh, and as a result 300 thousand Armenians from Azerbaijan and about a million Azerbaijanis were deprived of all they had. Over one million people left Armenia in the years of war. And if this is a victory, then what do you call a defeat? In my understanding the war will not bring about the results that would be impossible to achieve through negotiations. Then why should it be recommenced? In essence, if Azerbaijan has enough patience to continue the policy of economic exhaustion of Armenia, it can achieve quite good results similar to the ones that could be ensured by successful military operations. However, a war is a risky business, and you can never be sure of its successful outcome, no matter how advantageous the positions of the parties preliminarily are.

 

 

-In essence Minsk Group mediators are trying to work out a scenario, outlined by the Madrid principles. As far as I know, the parties are quite close to adopting it. Unfortunately, it has already happened before that when the parties had only one last step left to arrive at the agreement, they would take a step not to approach but move farther apart. The Minsk Group is an important negotiation and mediation format. In order to assess it, it would suffice to look at Georgia and Moldova. They do not have, nor would they like to have an analogous mediating tool in the resolution of their conflicts. However, the Minsk Group does not exclude parallel mediation efforts. Currently Russia is doing so. We can recall other initiatives, too. The most important thing here is that they should not compete, but lead to a common goal – a stronger peace.

 

 

-Armenia is led by people you cannot use scare tactics on. Azerbaijan has been doing what any country would do if its territories were occupied by the armed forces of a neighboring country who is trying to use this illegal seizure to wring concessions unacceptable and incompatible with sovereignty.  Azerbaijan does have reasons and most importantly, means to arm. Since the population of Azerbaijan makes up over 60% of the people in South Caucasus, the economy exceeds 70% of the regional GDP and the volumes of the gold and foreign currency reserves and export are over 90%, we can and will have the most powerful armed forces that are in line with our potential. Armenia has to catch up in the armament race, overstraining its already modest budget. This is how the USA brought the USSR to a wreck at a time.

 

 

 

-The resolution is not pleasant. The power has expressed its disappointment, but unlike Belarus, in low-key terms. The authorities will sure draw the necessary conclusions. However, unlike Armenia, Belarus and many other countries, Azerbaijan does not need the financial support of the European Union. Oil and gas will be bought, and they will stand in a line to ask for it. So, sanctions are out of the question.

 

 

-I think that the consolidation of ceasefire is in the interests of the parties. The withdrawal of the snipers could be an important component. But we must be realists. Without achieving serious progress during the negotiations, the toll along the front line will not only fail to decrease, on the contrary, will increase, entailing a risk of large-scale hostilities.

 

 

-There is no need to twist things. Azerbaijan is not laying territorial pretences on Armenia. Simply, President Aliyev reminds that at the beginning of the previous century Yerevan was populated mostly by Azerbaijani people and was ceded to Armenians as a capital for Gyumri was occupied by the Turks. He reminds of this in order to neutralize Armenians' constant references to history thaty are always unilaterally interpreted.

 

 

-They have not and I hope they will not. I assume that Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are the most secular of Muslim countries and will remain such in the future. I can see the trajectory of Azerbaijan's development not in the Arabic, but European version. This is the opinion of the majority of citizens, revealed in a public opinion poll. The number of the Europe-oriented respondents exceeds Islamist-oriented ones more than 3 – 4 times.

 

 

 

-Such missions must take place parallel in both conflicting countries. Think of how many ancient Azerbaijani cemeteries, mosques, and other cultural objects have been destroyed only in Yerevan? And what is the name for the plunder in the ancient burial place in Kelbajar region and taking the unearthed wealth to Yerevan? Isn't this a plunder of cultural valuables of another country? So, Azerbaijan has its own list of reciprocal pretences. and we do not intend to receive unilateral missions.

 

 

 

-The Karabakh issue is used to divert the attention of the population from social issues in Armenia, not in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan disposes of sufficient resources to solve such problems. We have 5 – 6 times larger budget revenues than Armenia. Meanwhile, over 25 billion dollars has been amassed in the oil fund for future generations.

 

 

 

-We know that Russia is the strategic ally of Armenia. However, at the same time we realize that Armenia is strongly dependent on Moscow. I do not want to repeat the unflattering epithet which a Russian political figure called Armenia. You surely know what I mean. That is why Baku thinks that if there is anyone who can induce Armenia to make the concessions and compromises inevitably necessary for peace and will explain the limits of the possible is first of all Moscow. In the recent years the relations along the Baku – Moscow, Ankara – Moscow line have significantly improved. This gives hopes that Moscow's mediation may turn out to be not only impartial, but also effective.

 

 

 

-It is a historical fact that before the invasion of Russia into South Caucasus Azerbaijani khanates with a predominantly Turkish and Muslim population were located here, including those of Erivan and Nakhijevan. It would only suffice to refer to the official documents of the Russian Empire.

 

 

-Israel has no involvement in the Karabakh resolution process. Iran is not very much interested in the resolution for it is concerned with the appearance of troops of the countries beyond the region under the flag of international peacekeeping forces. The strong, secular Azerbaijan that has solved all its problems is a thorn in the flesh of the Islamist authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Turkey demonstrates its increasing interest in the resolution, but at the same time supports Azerbaijan. The co-chairing states are more interested in excluding the risks of a probable renewal of hostilities, but they realize that they only guarantee it by moving the resolution process forward.

 

 

 

-I assume that the bellicose rhetoric will soften. However, the real preparation for the renewal of the hostilities will continue. The problem remains unresolved, and Azerbaijan does not intend to constantly reconcile with the occupation of its territories by the Armenian forces and has firmly announced about it. If the softening of the military rhetoric would make anyone feel relieved, I would advise not to flatter oneself.

 

 

-The status quo may last for a while, but not forever. At a certain point the military advantage of Azerbaijan may inspire confidence in the high probability of military success, and if a favorable geopolitical situation emerges (aggravations in Iran, that would require Azerbaijani support to the West or the strengthening of the political influence of the Azerbaijani element in Iran as result of democratic developments) the renewal of hostilities is quite anticipated. Military actions may also start very spontaneously if negotiations fail, and the toll will significantly increase.

 

 

 

-The participation of a representative delegation of the Armenian community in Nagorno Karabakh in the negotiations has never been rejected by the Azerbaijani party. But this has to do with the discussion of status quo issues, that is to say when the expeditionary corps of Armenia are withdrawn from the occupied territories beyond the borders of Nagorno Karabakh.

 

 

-It is a reminder that the war is not over, that we are only in a ceasefire. It will be impossible to freeze the conflict for a long time.

 

 

 

-I would not like to discuss military scenarios now. There are more of them than the roughly outlined presentation in Serzh Sargsyan’s speech. I am not a proponent of military decisions, even though as a realistic politician and an analyst I cannot exclude them and I do consider various options.

 

 

 

 

 

-You should not be surprised that all this is said in a country a major part of which has been occupied by the Armenian armed forces for over 18 years regardless of the 4 resolutions passed by the Security Council of the UNO. The combination of the principles of territorial integrity and people’s self-determination has been realized in global practice through internationally guaranteed autonomy. The examples in Europe are the Allands, Tirol. Kosovo with its population of two million can find its own place on the map of Europe, even though it needs the financial and economic support of the European Union. But Nagorno Karabakh with its population of 100 000 cannot. If you are concerned with the rights of minorities, you should not forget about the expatriated Azerbaijani minority of Nagorno Karabakh which even by the understated Soviet data constituted over one quarter of the population in the region. If everything is determined at the will of the majority why do you sideline the 9 million citizens of Azerbaijan from the resolution of this issue, for Nagorno Karabakh is still considered to be part of their country - Azerbaijan?

 

 

 

-I apologize. I did not thank for the congratulations on the victory of the Azerbaijani performers at the Eurovision song contest. According to the rules of the contest, the participation of the representatives of all countries is ensured by the country-organizer. I assume that the representatives of Armenia may participate (the country can decide for itself) and their security, the possibility to prepare and decently perform will be ensured.  

 

 

-The internal political situation in Azerbaijan does not provide any ground for the consideration of any scenario of “orange” or any other revolution, at least, as of today.

 

 

 

-You shouldn’t twist things. The official representative of the Air Communications Operation Service announced that an illegal flight may be stopped, but did not assert that it will happen by all means. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave the corresponding clarification. One thing is clear that in the conditions of neither peace nor war the airport in Nagorno Karabakh will not function. No country will send its flights across occupied territories in spite of the recommendations of ICAO, no one will undertake the insurance of planes and passengers. The flights from Yerevan will cover a very short distance, and will be extremely unprofitable in the economic sense. This is the reason why there are no flights between Yerevan and Tbilisi. The flights between Nakhijevan and Baku are affordable to the population because the authorities subsidize the ticket cost by half. Is the poor Armenian treasury ready to assume such a burden and carry it systematically? It’s a big question.         

 

 

-At least, negotiations continue. I am not sure that the lack of such statements will have ensured more considerable progress.

 

 

-I still hope that the progress will be achieved in the negotiations, and the participation of the Armenian representatives in the Eurovision will symbolize a new and peaceful page in the relations of our countries and peoples.

 

 

 

-You asked a concrete question in the previous post and I concretely answered it. The format of the online interview does not provide for a scientific discussion for your additional questions, which merely reflect, to my mind, your quite unilateral and distorted perspective. I assume that if the journalist and experts feel interested in this topic – but not unilaterally, looking into the appearance of not only the Azerbaijani, but also Armenians in South Caucasus, they can discuss it on the forum. I have exceeded the time allocated for me by 40 minutes. I thank everyone for their questions and wish you all peace and welfare.