Internet Press Conference with Thomas de Waal

How will Ramil Safarov’s extradition affect the negotiation process over Karabakh resolution?

How do you think R. Safarov’s extradition will affect the negotiations process over Karabakh?

Can we say that peaceful negotiations will be interrupted for at least some time and in the public format.We can hardly expect the official Yerevan to come down to demonstratively sitting back at table of negotiations in the near future? What will happen next?

Don’t you think that the maximal politicization of the legal procedure with regard to Ramil Safarov’s release and the desire to turn this against Azerbaijan are used to bring the negotiations between Baku and Yerevan into a deadlock?

Do you think we should expect any progress in the Karabkh conflict resolution process, taking into consideration the sensation that came forth in Armenia because of Ramil Safarov’s extradition and remission?

What do you think the remission and the factual acquittal of the murderer R. Safarov by the authorities of Azerbaijan are conditioned at this stage in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?

The peace process was in trouble anyway. There has been no progress since the failure to achieve agreement in Kazan in June 2011. The events of the last week have now dealt the process a deadly blow. I cannot see, at least for the short term, the possibility of Serzh Sarkisian agreeing to negotiate face-to-face with Ilham Aliev. And there is the danger that the Armenian side will recognize Nagorno Karabakh as an independent state. From my conversations with the US State Department, I understand that they believe that would mark the end of the Minsk Process—there would be nothing left for Baku and Yerevan to egotiate over.

Do you consider the official substantiation of Hungary (on why the country agreed to R. Safarov’s extradition) and the official assertions of Azerbaijan (that R. Safarov’s remission does not contradict the legislation of the Azerbaijan Republic) as satisfactory and convincing?

1.Do you think Ramil Safarov’s extradition from Hungary to Azerbaijan complied with international norms?

2.What do you think of the acquittal by the president of Azerbaijan?

How can you assess the bargain between the authorities in Hungary and Azerbaijan with regard to Ramil Safarov’s extradition and his instantaneous acquittal and promotion to a higher rank?

I am not a legal expert. It is quite possible that Ramil Safarov’s transfer to Azerbaijan was technically legal. What concerns me is the moral and political side of it. Morally, it is distasteful to see how a man can be given the status of hero for having killed another man with an axe. That is all that can be said on this side of the issue – I can see no justification for the Azerbaijani government’s actions. Politically, I see this as a big miscalculation by the Azerbaijani side. They may have won some support at home for playing the nationalist card. But this episode has done great damage to Azerbaijan’s international reputation. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on projecting the image of a new modern Azerbaijan, staging occasions like the Eurovision Song Contest, winning membership of the UN Security Council. Now the pictures we see from Azerbaijan are those of a convicted murdered being greeted with flowers.

Why don’t international non-governmental organizations interfere with the OSCE Minsk Group to accelerate the resolution of the conflict? Why not?

Moscow thinks that the actions of the Azerbaijani and Hungarian authorities which led to the release and acquittal of the Azerbaijani military Rmil Safarov contradict the international efforts targeted at lowering the tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Do you agree to this?

1. Isn’t the situation with Ramil Safarov another vivid proof of the failure of the OSCE Minsk group as a format for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict? For had the official Baku at least minimum confidence in the probability of any progress in resolution of the conflict, we would hardly ever witness such a situation today.

2. Do you think the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk group who have geopolitical interests in the region and who are currently accusing the official Baku bear any responsibility for the acute aggravation of the situation? For tying the liberation of the occupied territories around Nagorno Karabakh with the determination of the legal status of Nagorno Karabakh itself they have brought the negotiation into an deadlock themselves…

What corrections do you think will be introduced into the negotiations process after the scandal around Safarov?

After Ramil Safarov’s remission hasn’t yet time come to change the format of karabkh negotiations, in particular hasn’t yet time come for Nagorno Karabakh to act as a full member in the negotiation process?

It is much too easy to blame the Minsk Group format or the co-chairs for the lack of progress on achieving a settlement for the Karabakh conflict. But changing the format will not change the fundamental issue, which is the gap between the conflict sides and their unwillingness to compromise. A mediating team consisting of Richard Holbrooke, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lamacould not change that. The two presidents, of Armenia and Azerbaijani, are the conductors of this process and it is they who decide what is acceptable to them and what is not.

I can only see this changing if the threat of conflict grows to such an extent that the international players see the need to impose a settlement on Armenia and Azerbaijan, which neither side wants. Those who ask for greater international involvement should be a little conflict about what they ask for: they could get something they do not desire.

Do you agree that this demarche by Azerbaijan negates the former rhetoric of the Azerbaijani side on the peaceful coexistence with the Artsakh population and automatically nullifies Azerbaijan’s demands for the return of Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs to the former areas of their residence before the determination of Nagorno Karabakh’s status?

Don’t you think that the Ramil Safarov’s remission and factual “sacralization” is an argument that proves the impossibility of Nagorno Karabakh being as a part of Azerbaijan with any status. In other words, don’t you think that the hypothetical restoration of former borders of Soviet Azerbaijan will bear a mortal threat to Karabakh population?

Can the Nagorno Karabakh Republic exist within the frames of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan in case this country acquits and encourages the murder of an Armenian officer who was taking part in a seminar organized by NATO, that is to say of someone who was not killed on the front line?

After the pardoning of Ramil Safarov, questions are being asked if it is possible for Armenians and Azerbaijanis to co-exist peacefully. Some Armenians use the episode as proof that there is no way that Armenians of Karabakh can live together with Azerbaijanis again. I would not be in such a hurry to make this kind of conclusion. Armenians and Azerbaijanis live together in Moscow, in Tbilisi, in Iran, in the same villages in Georgia. They can live together in the future in and around Karabakh as well. The important thing is for there to be a trusted and powerful policeman who can provide protection and security. To my mind, that has to be an international policeman.

The attention focused only on Ramil Safarov has made to forget of thousands of Azerbaijani prisoners of war, who are in Armenia. Let’s bear in mind that there is no single Armenian in Azerbaijan. Why don’t international organizations act in relation with the Azerbaijani prisoners of war who are now in Armenia?

This is clearly a misunderstanding. The Red Cross and Red Crescent are informed about this issue and do not give any such information. There are still thousands of missing Armenians and Azerbaijanis from the conflict, but sadly these are obviously lying in graves somewhere and their fate will probably be only determined when the conflict is over).

I see this conflict as being complicated by two unacceptable positions. The first (Azerbaijani) position: Armenians are occupying Azerbaijani land and therefore any measure taken to change this is acceptable, be it snipers shooting across the Line of Contact or pardoning a man who has murdered an Armenian. I reject this because although it is true that Armenians are occupying Azerbaijani land, both sides are responsible for this state of affairs. Both sides fought a conflict, killed the other, tried to destroy the other and bear moral responsibility for what happened. The Armenians were just more successful in winning the conflict.

The second (Armenian) unacceptable position is: The conflict has ended, we must accept the status quo. I reject this in the name of justice for those who have suffered. A fair settlement of the Karabakh issue will see justice both for the Armenians of Karabakh and for the maximum number of refugees (both Armenian and Azerbaijani, but more of them Azerbaijani) who were deported from their homes. To achieve that situation means changing the status quo. To call for the continuation of the status quo is a kind of quiet aggression (“passive aggressive behavior” as we say in English.)