The story of the Karabakh conflict is finished. It ended with a one-day, or rather, 24-hour war and Azerbaijan’s victory in it. Now Baku faces challenges of a different nature. However, this conflict has a nearly thirty-year history of negotiations within the OSCE Minsk Group, different formulas and proposals.
Matthew Bryza, former US ambassador to Azerbaijan, former co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, board member of the Jamestown Foundation, spoke in an interview with Minval.az about the current situation as seen from the outside.
What do you think about what is happening? What can you say about Azerbaijan’s military operation and solutions to the Karabakh issue?
I believe these counter-terrorism actions are a perfect example of how military force can be used to achieve diplomatic goals; experts and scholars often ponder this. Azerbaijan has showcased this solution perfectly. Using small military force, Azerbaijan has resolved the Karabakh issue and forced the illegal armed groups to lay down their arms. It came as a surprise to me. It is impossible for Armenia to change the situation in Karabakh. This is a great victory for Azerbaijan, it is a diplomatic and political victory achieved by force. That is one.
Two, now that there will be no more Armenian armed groups in Karabakh, there will be no obstacles to signing a peace deal. Both President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan want to sign a peace treaty. I am very optimistic about this situation, although a lot depends on future circumstances, on Nikol Pashinyan, namely, on his political opponents. They do not want peace, they want a perpetual conflict. They are making money and gaining political power thanks to their radical positions on this issue.
The UN Security Council met on September 21. The views of representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the United States were voiced. I would like to hear your opinion on the position of the United States. While even France said it recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, no such statement came from the US representative. What is Washington’s position on this issue? What do they think about reintegration?
I am not in Washington, so I cannot say what my colleagues in the US capital are thinking. But my experience suggests that the US recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Karabakh as part of it. On the other hand, the US has always been against a state using military force, but Washington itself uses military force. It is generally believed that the use of military force by a state is not a good thing.
I spoke to European diplomats yesterday, including ambassadors of European countries, and I will tell you that they paid absolutely no attention to the Trilateral Statement signed on November 10, 2020. For them, the story began when Azerbaijan started local counter-terrorism actions: they forgot the whole story before that and focused only on the fact that Azerbaijan used military force.
Perhaps they do not want to know the history of the conflict. Eventually, my former colleagues in the State Department and the White House will see something that will pave the way for the signing of a peace treaty. In the end, they will see it in a positive light.
Could we say that the document signed on November 10, 2020 has lost effect and that a new document will be signed that will dot all the i’s in the relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
Yes, this is more than likely to happen. Except I do not know if Pashinyan will be able to “survive” politically. Nikol Pashinyan wants to sign a peace treaty, President Aliyev also wants to sign it. If Pashinyan stays in power, and I expect he will, the peace treaty will be signed. I think the November 10 statement is a framework agreement for the peace treaty.
How much has the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus region changed and what is the role of EU and US influence in this?
This is a very broad issue. The most important thing at this time is that the road to a peace treaty is open and that Armenia will reintegrate into the regional economy and thus restore its transportation links with Azerbaijan and Türkiye. The quality of life for Armenians will improve if this process comes to fruition. I expect this to happen.
Some in the EU say that sanctions should be imposed against Azerbaijan. Will there be sanctions against Azerbaijan?
I do not believe this is serious, I do not think that sanctions will be imposed against Baku. It was an emotional reaction under the influence of the Armenian diaspora, especially in France. Azerbaijan acted legally from the point of view of international law. How can sanctions be imposed against Azerbaijan because of its lawful actions on its territory?
Did you expect the conflict to be resolved in this way at the time you co-chaired the OSCE Minsk Group?
When we formulated the Madrid Principles (the Kazan formula was also derived from the Madrid Principles), we communicated with foreign ministers to write these Madrid Principles. Then, in January 2009, in Zurich, both President Ilham Aliyev and former Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan endorsed this approach, but added that there were some details to be harmonized. However, on the whole, the parties were agreeable. In the end this is what happened, the agreement of November 10 is a framework document of the same Madrid principles, but with a very big exception—the issue of the status of Karabakh. It was taken off the agenda because of Armenia’s defeat in the Second Karabakh War.
I thought the result would be about the same as it is now, but I still hoped that the use of military force would not be necessary. The negotiation process was working, even though it was not finalized because of the political differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But I was confident that if these negotiations moved forward and gave Aliyev faith that Armenia was negotiating sincerely, there would be no war. However, I was also afraid that if Armenia showed its lack of sincerity, signaling that there was no actual negotiation process, war would break out. In the end, Pashinyan did show that he was sincere in the negotiations. But when his defense minister promoted the “new war for new lands” formula, I realized that war was inevitable.
Nijat Hajiyev
Translated from Minval.az
