THE KOSOVO PRECEDENT IS VERY DANGEROUS Interview with the “Noravank” Foundation expert Suren Movsisyan
-How is “the balance of geopolitical interests” on Karabakh conflict expressed today and what is its significance in the conflict settlement process?
- Nowadays there is no conflict to be completely settled, if there is no geopolitical balance. Accordingly, geopolitical balance is very important for the Karabakh conflict settlement as well. In spite of the fact that today along with the US China and Russia are also becoming more and more powerful (to a certain extent) the world still remains unipolar. The quicker these countries develop, more they may influence on geopolitical balance. The matter is that with each conflict occurred a state is pursuing its own objectives and the Karabakh conflict is not an exception: each of the mediating countries (the US, Russia, France) has its interests here, and misbalance among them is sure to influence on its settlement. The dominating states make an attempt to dictate their interests, but no consent may be reached under these conditions. I think that the settlement of Karabakh or any other conflict depends on geopolitical balance.
-Which important conclusions may be drawn after Kosovo independence is recognized and can it become an exception from generally accepted international laws?
- Recognition of Kosovo is the very exception from the generally excepted laws: In spite of the fact that the international law adheres to the principle of the nations’ self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, up till now only the second principle has been made a reality (the precedent of the first one has never occurred). Before Kosovo was recognized, the conflicts were either regulated or not, were frozen or changed their course of development. The rules of games accepted in the world have today become subject to alterations, and it is not clear what is to happen next. It is a very serious and dangerous challenge as, in fact, both of the principles contradicting each other are being somehow used and making any kind of decision on the conflict settlement becomes much difficult. There are many suchlike conflicts in the world and the precedent of Kosovo may become the ground for the others. I don’t think that Kosovo’s recognition may have positive influence.
- What do you think, what kind of international institutions may favor the Armenian nation’s security, and which format of international mediation is the best today for the Armenian party?
- Due to its geopolitical disposition Armenia doesn’t have a chance to NATO membership. I think that Armenia must aspire to the extension of its participation in the EU projects and has no way but to be in close cooperation with Russia. The parties in conflict are to choose mediators. Usually the parties prefer mediators with whom they have historical, cultural and economic ties in the hope that it will help them in protecting their interests. For example Russia today is a very good mediator both for Armenia and Azerbaijan. France’s mediation is very advantageous for Armenia. Involving Iran into the mediation group is also notable. Azerbaijan would maybe prefer Turkey’s mediation. The same may be said about the US as Turkish and Jewish lobby has a big influence in the US.
-There are two opinions about the meaning of geopolitics. First – nothing depends on conflicting parties, and it will be settled by the time it is favorable for the power states. Second – the settlement is exclusively up to the states in conflict, and the complicated geopolitical processes are just opportune reservations for them. Which of these opinions is better founded to your mind?
-In case of Krabakh conflict both of the opinions are grounded. However, I’d suggest the third one (as the synthesis of both): the conflict settlement is manly up to the power states and is not possible without consent of the conflicting parties. They are sure to be interconnected.
- What do you think, what is there to be common among Karabakh, Abkhazian, South Ossetian, Chechen and Trans-Dnestr conflicts and are there any differences among them?
-The main difference is that Karabakh conflict has “the mother country” in the face of Armenia representing the interests of Karabakh to the international community. It’s a plus for Karabakh. No newly formed not-recognized state, be it Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Transnistria, has its “Armenia.” The difference is that in the military phase the Karabakh conflict settlement took more victims than the other conflicts did. As a common thing I can mention that all the parties separated and aspire at establishing their state.
“Region” Research Center of investigative journalists www.hetq.am
The material is prepare in the framework of the program carried out by the instrumentality of the British Organization «Conciliation Resources»
Return