EurasiaNet Recaps - US Diplomat Defends Minsk Group's Role in Nagorno-Karabakh Talks

RECAPS

US DIPLOMAT DEFENDS MINSK GROUP’S ROLE IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH TALKS

Konul Khalilova 4/24/02
A Q&A with US Ambassador Rudolf Perina

Authorities in Georgia are working hard to prevent separatists in Abkhazia from forming a separate country. Among other things, Georgians may be remembering the bloody history of Nagorno-Karabakh. Disputes over this self-proclaimed republic inside Azerbaijan sparked a two-year war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1992, which lasted until Russia brokered a cease-fire in 1994. Armenia and Azerbaijan have each insisted ever since that the region is lawfully theirs. Residents, meanwhile, have continued speaking for themselves: on April 17, Karabakh parliament chairman Oleg Yesayan proposed permanent representation for the region in the Armenian parliament.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which facilitates negotiations on the schism, has proposed a supplemental layer of negotiations on the countries’ claims to the territory. Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan agreed to this idea and will send personal representatives to a meeting in Prague in May. Rudolf Perina, the United States’ top diplomat responsible for promoting a settlement [for background see the Eurasia Insight archive], has defended the OSCE’s efforts, which some politicians have derided as slow. He spoke to EurasiaNet contributor Konul Khalilova at the State Department in March.

EurasiaNet: What necessitated the appointment of special envoys of the presidents for negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem?
Perina: As you know, talks previously were conducted in two levels: direct talks held between the Presidents of the two countries and mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. The co-chairs regularly mediate between the Presidents. Now we think the third level in the negotiation process will be useful because, frankly, it is almost impossible to organize the Minsk Group co-chairs every time desired. So, we proposed to arrange meetings between special envoys every 60 or 90 days, with the envoys acting as deputy foreign ministers.

EurasiaNet: Do you think talks at such a level are positioned to bring any changes to the peace process?
Perina: To my mind, it is very important for promoting the peace process. We hope the meetings will bring dynamism to the peace process. Obviously, we consider all the ideas discussed over the past few years. I’d like to say that the meetings will not replace direct dialogue between the Presidents or OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs’ visits to the region. They will simply have a positive impact on the negotiation process.

EurasiaNet: Mr. Perina, how do you regard the idea, voiced by some analysts, that the conflict could again turn violent?
Perina: I do hope the conflict will not get excited anew. The people are well aware from history that this conflict cannot be settled in an armed way. Armed resolution to the conflict will certainly destabilize the region as a whole. I am pleased that, during the meeting with the co-chairs, President Aliyev stated that he gives priority to peaceful resolution of the conflict and that the conflict should be settled in a diplomatic way.

EurasiaNet: Nevertheless, there are supporters of armed resolution of the conflict, too. Are you familiar with their viewpoints?
Perina: There exist such threats. We raised this question during our trip to the region. We are also aware of Azerbaijani officials’ comments invoking armed resolution of the conflict. However, OSCE Minsk Group well understands that the nation will find a lack of settlement disappointing. To my mind, after the Key West meeting [between Aliyev and Kocharyan in summer 2001 ended without a settlement], dejection spread among the population, as they had pinned great hopes on changes after these talks. The Minsk Group co-chairs were also disappointed. However, I think the work we started last year was very effective, though no success has been gained in the resolution of the conflict, yet. The fact is that the parties were more than once very near to peace, but unfortunately did not seize the opportunity.

EurasiaNet: Why?
Perina: The negotiation process is very difficult, and leaders are often obliged to take difficult decisions. Based on the achievements of the past few years, I can state that if the presidents of the two countries heartily want it, resolution to the problem is possible. I have no doubts. The international community and Minsk Group will render every assistance to the parties. After the September 11 terror attacks on the United States, settlement of the conflict became a priority for the world community.

EurasiaNet: You have been to Khankendi [the Azerbaijani name for the capital of the unrecognized republic, which Armenians call Stepanakert], as well. How does the local population of this city see the conflict?
Perina: Of course, they also want resolution of this problem. The US, as well as international organizations, does not recognize the independence of Nagorno Karabakh. We regard this area as part of Azerbaijan. The reality is that they have undetermined Azerbaijani status. To my mind, they want agreement with Azerbaijan. Besides, all people in the region are keen for resolution of the [larger] conflict.

EurasiaNet: How does official Washington regard the idea of dispatching US trainers to Azerbaijan for fighting terrorists in Nagorno-Karabakh?
Perina: I know the notion "terrorism" has been used in a wide sense. By "terrorism," the US means specific problems, for instance, [terrorist] organizations and persons supporting these organizations. We know very well what we mean by "terrorism".

EurasiaNet: There are people in Azerbaijan and Armenia who do not assess the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group as satisfactory. How do you regard this assessment?
Perina: We are aware of such ideas. They come out of disappointment. During our last meeting with President Aliyev, he expressed his confidence in us. The OSCE Minsk Group is not guilty of perpetuating the conflict. The Minsk Group has done so much over the past ten years to present options to the parties. Nevertheless, the Minsk Group cannot make a decision instead of the Presidents. The conflicting parties themselves should take a decision. We only suggest proposals. If there is political will, I don’t doubt that there will be resolution.

Editor�s Note: Konul Khalilova is a freelance journalist based in Baku.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.