Karabakh Settlement

Thomas de Waal:

Karabakh Settlement "Lucky" in a Way

PanARMENIAN.Net - Today British journalist Thomas de Waal is one of those people, who are well informed about the Karabakh issue. His latest book titled "Black Garden" published in Russian has become the topic of discussions by all the parties to conflict. At PanARMENIAN.Net's request Thomas de Waal commented on some questions that emerged after the regular meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents in Rambouillet.
In "Black Garden" you white about the return of Azeri refugees. But why no one speaks of the fate of half million Armenian community of Azerbaijan, who are refugees as well?

I want to say that is the first attempt to give a complete picture of the Karabakh conflict. As a neutral part but worried about the Caucasus, I tried to write about the tragedies of the peoples that happened during these years. Now the book is being read in the region and I hear complaints like "Why didn't you write more about this or that?" the journalist said. In his words, the book was written to make people think about the grief of others. As for the refugees, I write about Armenians, who were expelled from Sumgait, Baku and Shahumyan and about Azeris expelled from Armenia, Karabakh and the territories adjacent to it.

The future peaceful treaty on the Nagorno Karabakh problem should provide for the right of refugees to return home. Practically everything is very complicated. It's more real to speak of return of Azeris to Aghdam and Fizuli where nobody lives. It's more difficult but still possible to speak of return of people to Lachin and Shushi. But it's quite unlikely that Armenians can return to Shahumyan or Baku and Azeris can return to Armenia in the near future. If they cannot return compensation should be negotiated

Nevertheless, why the Azeri army fought so badly and surrendered the inhabited settlements without combat?

Permanent political instability in Azerbaijan was an important factor in the Karabakh war. During the critical battles for Shushi and Lachin the Azeri troops left for Baku to meddle in the internal political disorders. The greatest territorial surrenders were Aghdam and Fizuli and they occurred in 1994.
In your opinion, when will the Armenian and Azeri societies ready for the negotiations and where is the limit of compromise the parties can make?

Anyone knows that the geographical map cannot be changed. Armenians and Azeris will always have to live as neighbors and it's painful to see that the two societies abide by the slogan "Karabakh is ours and it's inseparable". Neither of the parties is ready for compromise that is why it's hard to achieve complete peace. The leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan is responsible for it. The peaceful plan is generally outlined. Karabakh will de-facto maintain the present status with the corridor to Armenia; Azerbaijan will receive its lands back and refugees will be allowed to return… However the settlement process cannot be started without dialogue and mutual trust.

Statements on the readiness to settle the conflict by force have become very frequent in Azerbaijan recently. In your opinion, what are they conditioned by?

The young people in Azerbaijan are growing more radical than their parents. When the elder generation watch the propaganda on TV they still remember their Armenian friends and they know that not all Armenians are invaders. The young generation lacks this experience what conveys a greater impulse to the calls for war and impedes the negotiation process. I think Armenia doesn't fully understand the pain that Azeris suffer over the loss of the territories. I am not speaking about Karabakh. I am speaking about the big territories and towns which are completely ruined and empty now - Aghdam, Fizuli, Jabrail, Kabatly… But it's known that any peaceful agreement will provide for the return of these territories. Armenians should openly speak of it to make Azerbaijani radicals think what they want to fight for. As a matter of fact, 90% of the issues are settled and the negotiation process stumbles over the Karabakh status only.

How do you assess the Rambouillet and Washington talks?

I do not reproach the mediators of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement. I think the Karabakh settlement is "lucky" in a way, since experienced diplomats from three powers - the U.S., Russia and France - deal with it. It's very hard to make peace between two new semi-democratic states, which grew up and formed due to this conflict and which are still afraid of each other. The Rambouillet talks proved it once again.

The Co-chairs wish to settle the conflict in 2006. Is the settlement directly connected with the forthcoming elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan?

The internal political processes, first of all elections, impede the negotiation process. I doubt there will be a breakthrough this year. Though I think the discussion of the stepwise settlement of the conflict is a positive sign. Possibly it will promote the process.

What's your attitude about the idea of referendum in Karabakh?

I support any idea, which bases on democratic will of the people. The referendum in 1991 was held without the participation of the Azeri population and is consequently illegitimate. It's clear that the referendum will end in favor of Armenians. But there should be a mechanism that will restore the rights of Karabakh Azeris. We can watch the sad example of North Ireland where the majority used democratic processes to suppress the minority.
 At focus
Azerbaijani President travels to Moscow

Azerbaijani President travels to Moscow Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev arrived in Moscow on April 22 to hold talks with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

---