ambassador rudolf v. perina - Association for Diplomatic Studies and ...

were more in the role of facilitators, helping to come up with ideas but not in a position to
impose them on either side. We were there to be helpful but we could not force a
solution.
Q: Was there a problem for you and for the French rep because there are such large
Armenian communities and lobbies in the U.S. and France? Was this a problem for
Azerbaijan?
PERINA: The largest group of Armenians outside of Armenia is probably in Russia. The
Azeris knew all this and probably were not happy with it, but they trusted us. They knew
they had their own sources of influence, which included their strategic location and their
oil. The Armenians in fact believed that the international community tended to favor
Azerbaijan because of the oil factor. The Azeris also felt that international law was on
their side. Nagorno-Karabakh was considered legally a part of Azerbaijan by all three Co-
Chairs. So the Azeris argued sovereignty, while the Armenians argued the right of self
determination and self-defense for Nagorno-Karabakh. Each side had different assets and
a different approach, but the Co-Chairs tried to be fair to both. Our position was that any
solution that the two sides could agree upon would be acceptable to us. We were there to
help the two sides find such a solution.
Q: What pressures were on Armenia and Azerbaijan to find a solution?
PERINA: The Armenian side was holding all the land so they were much more a status
quo power than Azerbaijan. The problem for the Armenians was that they were
landlocked and surrounded on most of their border by Turkey and Azerbaijan, who had
closed borders and imposed a trade blockade as a result of the war. There was a real
economic cost from this for the Armenians. For Azerbaijan, the main problem was that
about 15% of what they saw as their land was under foreign occupation. They wanted the
land back. The refugee problem also put political pressure on Baku. There were about
half a million refugees from each side as a result of the war. The Armenians had largely
integrated their refugee population, but the Azeris had not. They still claimed they had
several hundred thousand living in camps. At one point, we the Co-Chairs visited an
Azeri refugee camp, and it was really appalling to see the conditions under which these
families lived ten years after the war. They were living under terrible conditions in these
crowded refugee compounds. Of course, the fact is that the Azerbaijani government
purposely kept them so for political reasons. They wanted them as evidence of what an
injustice had been done to the Azeri side. So after a decade they had not integrated them,
even though Azerbaijan certainly had the resources from oil revenues to do so.
Q: What was happening on the ground in the disputed territory?
PERINA: Nagorno-Karabakh is a dangerous conflict because it’s one of the few
stalemated conflicts where there are no peacekeeping troops to separate the sides. What
separates the two armies are enormous mine fields and trenches and snipers. There are
still a few soldiers on both sides killed almost monthly by sniper fire. Obviously, this is
an uneasy truce that can easily break down. The first time I visited Nagorno-Karabakh,
108