CIAO DATE: 02/02

Interview, Voice of America Armenian Service

Brenda Shaffer

April 16, 2001

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA)

 

Interview with Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Research Director of the Caspian Studies program at Harvard University, on the prospects of Peace for the Caucasus

Interview by Araxie Vann, Voice of America, Armenian Service Chief

(The translation of this interview, with voice actualities, was broadcast on the VOA Armenian show on April 16th 2001. Minor clarifications have been made to this version by Brenda Shaffer.)

Question: Dr. Shaffer, how do you assess the results of Key West negotiations?

Dr. Shaffer: I think that the chief negotiators assess the results as very positive. They are professional diplomats, and wouldn't want to create high expectations if they didn't feel it was grounded. Probably the best sign that something happened in Florida is the silence of the different participants. If there were some sort of failure we would be hearing everyone talking about their own role there and trying to explain what they did and how they fought for their country's interest. The fact that the negotiators have not let out any details and the Presidents themselves have been quiet about what happened there is a sign that there was significant progress.

Question: So you think that optimism was not expressed by Armenia either?

Dr. Shaffer: I think both sides are at a critical stage. Of course we all love democracy, who isn't for democracy but democracy can create very difficult conditions during negotiations. You could see it in the recent round of negotiations in the Middle East. Having to keep the Parliament together in Israel, in a sense a daily referendum, makes negotiations almost impossible. Leaders have to sell a peace plan. So now it's a crucial time, because they are realizing that both leaders [of Armenia and Azerbaijan] are getting into some very serious negotiations, and whatever has been decided upon has to be marketed to each of their peoples; and public participation probably will be heightened after the June meetings in Geneva.

Question: What role will the Parliaments in Azerbaijan and Armenia play in future negotiations on Karabagh conflict?

Dr. Shaffer: I think in terms of the parliaments, sometimes opposition automatically opposes the incumbent leaders' negotiations, for political gains, without thinking if the terms actually benefit the state and people or not. I think sometimes leaders have to make very difficult and unpopular decisions in order to create peace. For example what de Gaulle did in Algeria, or what Rabin did in the first stage of peace with the Palestinians had to be silent negotiations, because no matter what the details of the different peace plans are, a lot of different political segments have an interest in attacking it and breaking down the negotiations. Democracy and public debate is good, but sometimes there are very crucial moments, when leaders have to demonstrate leadership and make sometimes difficult, not necessarily popular decisions that for the long run are the best for their people, and for their regions.

In January I visited Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabagh. In terms of peace in this region you really have to break down a lot of perceptions of the other side in terms of how dangerous is war or peace to the opposite side. For instance in Armenia I kept hearing this idea that Azerbaijan is a "failed state," so Armenia does not really have to be under pressure for peace. I didn't find Azerbaijan in any state of failed state. I found the infrastructures there improving rapidly. There is wider and wider cooperation between the opposition and the government. On the other hand in Azerbaijan I heard a lot of people talking about "well if Armenia won't give in, in the negotiations, we have to think of the war option." They already explored the war option, and Azerbaijan lost a lot of territories, and even if you win a war a lot of lives will be lost: there is a price for war. And for both sides there is a price for the status quo. Armenia has lost a lot of its population to emigration during the last decade. A terrible price to pay. In Azerbaijan its development has been stifled and open to dictates from surrounding powers because of the status quo. The status quo is not an option for Armenia or Azerbaijan.

Question: Under President Putin's leadership Russia seems to show more interest in the peaceful settlement of the Karabagh conflict. In your recent article in the Miami Herald, Peace for the Caucasus, you indicate that Russia might be pursuing new interests in the Caucasus region. Can you talk about this?

Dr. Shaffer: One of the keys to peace in the South Caucasus is the cooperation between Russia and the U.S., and it is essential that this region does not continue to serve as a a zone of rivalry between the U.S. and Russia or other powers Turkey, Iran, other countries that are active in the region. All of the people in the region realize that Armenia and Azerbaijan have grievances against each other, but it probably would have remained a local conflict if it wasn't for the involvement of Russia at the time, I don't think it would have turned into all out regional war. At the time there was a lot of playing forces against each other, led to the escalation of the activities between Azerbaijan and Armenia regarding Karabagh. I think that now we are at the point where over these negotiations we have had significant cooperation between Russia and the U.S. and this is really a key to why they have succeeded so far and it's essential for their future success. And no matter what the various interests are, this has to be co-sponsored peace, both Russia and the U.S. having a stake in the peace arrangement. For Russia it may not be the best goal for the region, but Russia must say "This is not bad for us. We have a stake in preserving this." I think that if you look at the behaviors of the negotiators, and co-sponsors, U.S. and Russia this was a time of good cooperation between them. All the officials who have participated were very happy about that idea that they are united. It's important to the countries of the region to realize that the U.S. and Russia are very committed this time. So let's hope that the Caucasus will turn out to be sort of a turning point also for relations between Moscow and Washington in the coming years, which are now at a relative low point.