OPINION: Arman Melikyan "Release of Budapest murderer Ramil Safarov is aimed at separating South Caucasus from Europe"

ARMINFO News Agency Interview with former Foreign Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Arman Melikyan

In the Ramil Safarov case Hungary's motive is more or less clear, but what was the motive of Azerbaijan, who has in fact got involved in an international scandal as a result?

To a large extent, Safarov's case is just a supplement to the economic deal of Baku and Budapest. Actually, economic motives were what the Hungarian-Azerbaijan deal was based on. As for Safarov, he became a sweet dessert for Aliyev. After all, Azerbaijan has successfully placed its funds receiving additional external assets, which is very important from the economic point of view. It is favorable for Azerbaijan to have an open door to the EU economy and investments in foreign countries, in particular, in a EU member-state - Hungary, and receive dividends. Union of the political elite of Azerbaijan and the European elite will be just in favor of Baku. Armenia lacks such foreign economic relations, though, there were reports that someone bought a chocolate producer company, Gagik Tsarukyan acquired a company of mineral waters in Bulgaria, and another private has made investments in Georgia. However, the attitude of the Armenian public to such reports is negative, which is absurd. To balance the domestic economic situation, foreign investments and presence in foreign economies is a necessity. From this point of view, Baku's actions are quite reasonable and politically grounded. It is not surprising either that Aliyev tried to gain also political dividends through that deal.

Who of the big external players was most interested in such a turn in the Armenian-Azeri conflict?

Russia might be one of those interested in the release of Ramil Safarov as by releasing the murderer Azerbaijan has shown that it ignores Europe's values. Azerbaijan's values are incompatible with those of Europe, and the only reason why the Europeans are still cooperating with such a regime is their material needs. So, for the time being President Aliyev is on a roll, but at some moment he may signal to President Putin that having no common values with Europe, his country has ones with Russia. In this light, Moscow's late response to Safarov's release might mean that Putin's men might have a hand in it. Even though not all people in Azerbaijan support Aliyev in the matter, Safarov's image will certainly be used by Aliyev's regime to bring up a generation that will be easy to control.

Although Aliyev's step has made him more popular in his country, it is contrary to any principle of international diplomacy and law. Can we say that for Aliyev reproduction of power is more important that the interests of his country?

Should Europe display discontent, say, in 3 months and suddenly suspend relations with Azerbaijan, Aliyev will immediately go over the Russians' side. Consequently, one should understand that the action around Safarov was planned for these purposes. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have probably entered into collusion on division of the spheres of influence, and according to that collusion the South Caucasus will be returned" to Russia. Today the initiator in the international policy is the American-British tandem. In this context, if Aliyev goes over to Russia's side without any scandal, this will happen in accordance with this collusion. But if a scandal arises and the West tries to keep Azerbaijan in the sphere of its influence, the West may also try to change the regime in Baku. Time will show which of these two scenarios will be launched in the game with Aliyev, because much will depend on when and how the civil war in Syria will be over.

What role does Armenia have in this scenario?

Armenia has done its best for the Russian presence in the South Caucasus to be restored. All the steps Yerevan has taken and is taking in the Karabakh peace process demonstrate that Armenia's leadership is preparing its people for the fact that if Azerbaijan agrees to recognize the independence of the NKR, Armenia will cede the territories. However, I consider that this bargain is going on between Azerbaijan and Russia, not Armenia and Azerbaijan. And the Russian politicians have repeatedly said that the only real formula of the conflict settlement is the formula of recognition of the NKR's independence in exchange for the territories. This exchange implies Russia's return to Azerbaijan and the deployment of the Russian military bases in Azerbaijan. This is the price of the deal based on the compromise. Very soon a lot of people will feel the negative consequences of implementation of this plan.

What consequences?

The intensification of the political pressure on Armenia and its political isolation from the West. The West may strengthen the pressure on Armenia in order to keep Azerbaijan in the sphere of its influence. I do not even rule out intensification of the pressure on Russia and Iran, speed-up of developments in Syria through the West's larger aid to the Syrian rebels. That is to say, the capacities of Russia and Iran will be reduced in the Middle East.

Russian experts keep saying that status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh benefits Russia. But your concept is contrary to what they say...

Yes, you are right, Russia is for preserving of status-quo around Nagornyy Karabakh or offers a compromising option of settlement, which is the only possible one for this conflict from its point of view. The status-quo does not suppose resolving of the conflict. It may be resolved on the basis of exchange of territories for the Karabakh status. However, this formula will not act, as it is dead. Unfortunately, since split of the USSR the Russian policy in South Caucasus has ended in a full fiasco. Russia lost Georgia and Azerbaijan and due to the way it has been acting in Armenia, there is a risk to lose our republic too. As for the Middle East, in case of losing Syria, Moscow will lose the whole region for a long period of time.

Then what is Aliyev's reason for taking Russia's side?  

Transference of certain territories of Karabakh to Azerbaijan will not hinder Aliyev, especially if we take into consideration that time is running out and the Russians may use transitional options for the Karabakh conflict settlement. In this context, Aliyev has resources to go on buying time in the relations with the Russians so that to force them to impose pressure upon the Armenian parties to the conflict. However, there is a border for the Russians, crossing which they will lose their influence and presence in Armenia. As for Azerbaijan, they are not going to suffer the presence of the Russians there. For this reason, the Russians also have a certain resource of compromises on Karabakh. But taking in consideration the corruption of many functionaries, I think that the Russian corruption may play a part in the matter of the Karabakh conflict settlement too.

Summing up our conversation, who might be interested in the revival of the Ramil Safarov case?

Conceptually Ramil Safarov's release is aimed at separating the South Caucasus from Europe and at showing that the European values are not good for this region. Armenia has also spoiled its relations with Europe: it has not only cut its diplomatic ties with Hungary but has even reproached NATO and the European Union. This all will certainly separate Armenia and Azerbaijan from Europe, which will be good news for Russia.

What might the constant sabotage attacks on the border and the demarches like the release of a murderer be leading to?

I don't think that this may result in a new war in Nagorno-Karabakh but I do not rule out the possibility of bigger concessions on Armenia's part. In any case, they in Armenia keep scaring their people with war. For what purpose they are doing it will become known soon. One such purpose may be the entry of foreign peacekeepers.

by David Stepanyan

Wednesday, September 12 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)