Although the Karabakh war is over, diplomatic tensions continue. Thus, Russia, which created an image of neutrality during the war, has now become an absolute power in Karabakh. The Azerbaijani society and the country's leadership have already stated that the Russian peacekeepers have not properly fulfilled their duties and are engaged in activities that do not relate to them.
The strengthening of Moscow in the region, the fact that Russia's military presence in Azerbaijan under the guise of peacekeepers in Karabakh has become a fact is also of serious concern to Western countries. Russia's arbitrary actions in the region necessitate the emergence of a new political strategy.
In fact, Russia's position can be seen as an opportunity. The OSCE Minsk Group, which has been a symbol of failure in negotiations for nearly three decades, is the main reason for the West's exclusion from the Karabakh issue. Russia took the opportunity to play a decisive role in the region.
On the other hand, the position taken by the pro-Armenian French state during the war and the sharp relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey distanced the Western representatives represented by Paris from the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Both Europe and the United States are well aware that nothing can be achieved by supporting France's pro-Armenian position. Moreover, both sides of the ocean do not intend to turn a blind eye to Russia's autocracy over Karabakh. For this reason, the emerging new strategy makes it necessary for new forces to enter the game. Such a force could be London, which has close relations with Azerbaijan, as well as normal relations with Armenia. The situation has even reached the point where some circles are talking about bringing a new breath with Great Britain to the leadership of the collapsed Minsk Group.
British journalist and political expert Neil Watson made a detailed comments on the issue in his exlusive interview with Eurasia Diary.
- With the exception of Turkey, the fact that Russia currently has the sole authority in Karabakh, and on the other hand, the fact that the Minsk Group is excluded from all issues, is of serious concern to the West. What steps do you think the West can take in this sphere in the near future?
- In my view, the West left itself open to this situation, in which Russia regains its dominance in the region and Russian forces are stationed on Azerbaijani land. The OSCE Minsk Group proved to be a completely toothless organisation during the 28 years of so-called ‘negotiations’. This was wholly attributable to the fact that three Co-Chair countries are Russia, France and US, all of which are home to extensive rich and politically powerful Armenian diaspora groups. Furthermore, all three countries had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation, and Russia in particular, as it thrived on a divide-and-rule situation that enabled it to maintain its hegemony. As Armenia and Azerbaijan are both former Soviet Republics, it was natural that Russia would broker the peace and use the situation to its own advantage.
The more ideal solution would have been for the UN to station peacekeeping forces in the region but, other than passing four UN Security Council Resolutions against the Armenian occupation in 1993, the UN has demonstrated complete apathy regarding their implementation and maintenance of peace. The same can be said of the Council of Europe and other international bodies.
Russian dominance in the region is now established as a peacekeeping force in the region for at least an initial term of five years. If the West seriously wishes to temper its hegemonical position, it needs to replace the OSCE Minsk Group with an effective body comprising Co-Chairs that are acceptable to all sides that can be overseeing the reassertion of peace and reconstruction in the liberated regions and offering real solutions. Furthermore, it needs to put together a peacekeeping force that will be acceptable to all three parties – Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Russian Federation – either serving alongside Russian Peacekeepers when the peacekeeping agreement is renewed, or possibly replacing them.
- Matthew Bryza, a former diplomat, stressed that after France lost its reputation due to being biased during the war. Now there is talk in some circles that the West will use the British model to interfere in the Karabakh issue. How real is this?
- I would agree that Ambassador Bryza is absolutely correct in his assertion. The overwhelmingly pro-Armenian, anti-Azerbaijani and also Islamophobic stance of President Macron and the French hierarchy in general has been largely responsible for the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group and the impasse for 28 years. The UK, on the other hand, has always worked with Azerbaijan in business and in terms of its stance to the war. Unlike France, where the state has never achieved true multiculturalism and the integration into French society of Maghribienne Muslims from the former French colonies, the UK is home to around 300 nationalities. There is no state-led discrimination against any ethnic or religious group, and this very much mirrors the inherent tolerance of the Azerbaijani government and people. Throughout the conflict, the UK recognised the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding and is now planning to use its experience to rebuild and reconstruct the liberated territories.
- British Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas Wendy Morton first visited Azerbaijan and then Armenia. Let me note that Britain is a state that recognises Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, and it is not an enemy of Armenia. Do you think this will lead to Britain becoming more active in the Karabakh issue in the future?
- UK, as with all other countries, has never recognised the sovereignty of the illegal regime in Karabakh. Certainly, Mrs Morton visited Armenia immediately after visiting Azerbaijan and this saw her open the new British Embassy in Yerevan after a hiatus of some time. I believe that Mrs Morton, as a representative of the UK government, approaches the situation from a purely humanitarian and economic perspective. One of the reasons for this is that, to achieve lasting peace, mutual understanding and to undertake reconstruction in the liberated territories, the UK has to have a diplomatic presence in both countries. Furthermore, a British presence in Armenia should assist with development of the Armenian economy, which has previously resulted in an overreliance on support from Russia and the Armenian diaspora.
By Elnur Enveroglu
