Foreign

Home page

Foreign

Associate Professor at North Dakota State University Thomas Ambrosio: The real problem is that the core elements to resolving the Nagorno Karabakh conflict are contradictory â€“ INTERVIEW

08 December 2010 10:35 (UTC +04:00)

Washington. Isabel Levine â€“ APA. APAâ€™s Washington DC correspondentâ€™s interview with Thomas Ambrosio, US analyst on South Caucasus issues, an Associate Professor of political science at North Dakota State University

-According to some analysts, the OSCE summit in Astana brought kind of hopelessness on Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. What is the OSCE’s role in the conflict resolution? What are the prospects of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue today?

- The OSCEâ€™s role in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been to support the â€˜peace processâ€™ through the Minsk Group. In a decade and a half, this has produced no substantive moves toward a peace treaty, despite numerous plans, meetings, and statements. One could argue that as long as Baku and Yerevan are talking to each other they are not fighting, and this alone is a reason to continue with what appears to be a futile process. That is fine. However, one should not expect any breakthroughs.

The real problem is that the core elements to resolving the conflict are contradictory. The three â€˜legsâ€™ of the Helsinki Principles emphasized by the summitâ€™s attendees â€“ territorial integrity, the non-use of force, and the right to self-determination â€“ cannot all be accepted by the parties. One cannot preserve Azerbaijanâ€™s territorial integrity without the Armenians believing that they are giving up the right to self-determination, since they define this as the right to independence. Similarly, one cannot allow the Armenians to legally secede without violating Azerbaijanâ€™s territorial integrity. Finally, given that Azeri territory is currently under occupation, a firm commitment to the non-use of force simply reinforces the status quo, which, of course, benefits the Armenian position. Thus, any â€˜solutionâ€™ to the conflict will be seen as unacceptable to one of the sides, given their current positions and interests.

- How does the publication of the US diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks influence international politics?

- The release will make US diplomacy more difficult. Thus far, the documents do not reveal dramatic wrongdoings by the United States â€“ any comparison to the Pentagon Papers is, simply put, nothing more than hype. While this has been incredibly embarrassing for the US -- having the private analysis by its embassies exposed will make certain relationships awkward â€“ the real impact will likely be seen on two fronts.

First, these documents do, in some cases, indicate that the public proclamations and the private statements of certain governments are not the same. Two quick examples, one regarding the US and one non-US case. The cables from Turkey show that those on the ground are not as comfortable with the policies and worldview of the government in Ankara as US officials are in public. The claim that Turkey is a close ally, a secular democracy, and â€˜on the path to Europeâ€™ is contradicted by the cables which express alarm at the growing Islamization of the government, an increasing shift away from the West, and the limited worldview of the top leadership. Similarly, but with a non-US case, the cables coming out of the Persian Gulf show that the Arab states are far more in favor of the US taking military actions against Iran than they are in public. Some of the statements were quite striking and could easily have been written by Israeli officials. This will not make life any easier for these regimes.

Second, the release of these cables will make it more difficult for the US to engage in effective diplomacy with their counterparts overseas. Rather than being candid with American diplomats, officials from other countries will always be worried about whether what they say will be released to the public.

While embarrassing, one needs to put some of these â€˜revelationsâ€™ in perspective. Governments know that their diplomatic cables, if released, could also be problematic. They, themselves, read their own cables and probably would not want them released. I think that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was correct when she related a conversation that she had with a counterpart: â€œWell, don’t worry about it, you should see what we say about you.â€

- What has caused the Wikileaks scandal and what are its possible implications for Azerbaijan?

- This is really two separate questions. What allowed this to happen as the information-sharing within the US government which has taken place since 9/11 and inadequate security procedures. However, the cause of the scandal is the policy preferences and worldview of Assange and his followers. They are clearly anti-American and seek to undermine American policy, power, and diplomacy throughout the world. Otherwise why release these documents? These documents are, as I said above, mostly embarrassing and do not show any real wrong-doings: they are nothing like cables that have been release (or have yet to be released) from US policy in Southeast Asia or Latin America. Diplomacy is kept secret for a reason. Governments need to have secure channels to each other to provide information, signal policy preferences, and conduct analysis. WikiLeaks appears to have as its mission to undermine this process. While sunlight can be used for good, sometimes it can be too much. What appears to be happening here is that Assange believes that the US is a force of evil around the world and these releases will weaken the prestige of the US, as well as make it more difficult for the different parts of its government to work effectively together.

The implications for Azerbaijan are unclear at the present time. Some news agencies, especially in Turkey, have seemingly overreacted to some of the cables. In terms of relations between Baku and Washington, I do not see much of a problem. Again, one needs to put it all in perspective:
The comments about the Azerbaijani President, though in some cases not very nice or polite.

Azerbaijan is in a precarious predicament: approximately one-seventh of its territory is under occupation; it has energy resources which need to be transmitted to the outside world and can be contested (e.g., in the Caspian Sea) by other states in the region; it is a relatively small country in a neighborhood with much larger countries (Turkey, Iran, and Russia), all of which it has either ethnic, religious, or historical ties; and it is allied with a power outside of the region (the US) which some within the region see as a threat to their interests.

The release of these documents, and the fact that they touch on Bakuâ€™s relations with Washington, Ankara, Tehran, and Moscow, will not make life easier for the diplomats abroad.