The Italian portal Geopolitica.info has published Carlo Frappi's interview "The Nagorno Karabakh conflict has sparked again: Reportage with Professor Carlo Frappi". 

In his interview, Carlo Frappi, who is a researcher for Caucasus talked about the recent Armenian provocation against Azerbaijan starting from September 27 and Azerbaijan's military operations within the framework of the right of self-defense, the legal and political framework of the conflict and the role of the regional states. 

Answering the questions about the history of the Nagorno Karabakh and the current large-scale armed confrontations, the researcher stated that the present situation was not surprising. “Unfortunately, the resumption of the armed clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia was not unexpected. Despite the cessation of the short-term battles in July, one could clearly see the new spike in the clashes. I am not yet talking about the most advanced military technology and weapons. First of all, I want to refer to the situation around the clashes, Azerbaijani and Armenian civil societies, as well as waves of nationalism,” he added. 

Emphasizing that the inaction of the international community and the inefficiency of the mediators' activities was one of the main causes of the current situation, Frappi said: "If we consider the traditional inactivity of the international community and mediators in the face of the alarm that is constantly being sounded in the region, the expansion of the conflict is almost obvious.”

Responding to a journalist's question about the rationales for the current large-scale conflict, Frappi called Nikol Pashinyan a ‘fake reformer’, who met with the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Vienna on March 29 of last year, where two leaders promised to reduce the armed conflict along the border: "Personally, I would focus on two important and related dynamics that have arisen over the last two years. On the one hand, undoubtedly, 2018 was unfortunate for those in the region and those outside the region, who hoped that the so-called Armenian velvet revolution, Nikol Pashinyan's political statements, and the marginalization of the "Karabakh clan" could contribute to the peaceful settlement of the conflict. Despite the encouraging signs, Pashinyan's reformist platform did not move towards more open negotiations and compromise that could help resolve the diplomatic impasse. Sometimes even on the contrary, it became an obstacle. A number of international and domestic factors may affect this dynamic - from domestic institutional polarization to difficult relations with the diaspora. However, the Armenian PM’s rhetoric and initiatives do not change the fact that he is not different from his predecessors."

Drawing attention to the occupation of Azerbaijan’s sovereign territories and the tragedy of IDPs, Frappi continued: “I would like to remind you that the second element is related to the ‘frustration factor’. I am talking about the rising disappointment of the Azerbaijani authority regarding the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. For official Baku, reaffirming Azerbaijan's sovereignty over the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding regions is not a subject of discussion in accordance with the documents and statements adopted by the international organizations regarding the settlement of the conflict. Apart from that, there is no doubt about the right of the IDPs to return to those territories. In this respect, the explosive mixture of failure to meet expectations and the obvious disinterest of the international community has led to a situation where retaking the occupied territories by force has become the only alternative."

The researcher also mentioned that Azerbaijan constantly supported the peaceful settlement of the conflict but underlined the possibility of returning territories within the right of self-defense. “Despite their support to the peaceful solution of the conflict for years, President Aliyev and other representatives of the Azerbaijani leadership clearly reiterated the fact that the military solution was the last choice to return the territories. Anyone who is surprised or angry at the large-scale and openly planned military operation launched by Azerbaijan today is only hypocritical regardless of whether the Armenian provocation was answered."

In his answer to the question about the possibility of involvement of Turkiye, Russia, the US, as well as CSTO in the conflict, approaching the issue from the perspective of the role of those countries in the region, Frappe added: “ In the past, international actors had a more significant role in the current conflict than they do today. Among those, Russia remains the main player. Official Moscow, unlike others, has interests in the region, where internal and external dynamics take a mixed picture. Russia remains the only actor with real influence in this area. Russia's influence is not unambiguous. Thus, it establishes dialogue with both sides of the conflict, suggests Armenia to ensure its foreign security, and demonstrates itself as the main mediator of the conflict in the multilateral context of the OSCE and at the bilateral level. Apart from that, the other actors are related to Turkey, which has a more marginal role due to more limited sources of power compared to Moscow, or the United States, which does not want to play a more active role in the region. Since the start of the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, the US has been in another position. Since then, the EU has indicated itself as being uninterested or unable to influence the region in general, and particularly, in regard to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.” 

Reacting to the issue of CSTO, Frappe drew attention to the fact that there was no legal basis for the involvement of the members of this organization in the conflict since Azerbaijan carries out military operations in its sovereign territories. The professor said: “As for CSTO, I don't believe that the legal conditions for triggering the "mutual assistance clause" have arisen before the political issues. The government of Armenia is not under attack and probably it will never be. The conflict remains ‘limited’ within the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan does not have any interest in the expansion of military operations. In this sense, focusing on external actors carries a risk of distracting from the deepest core of the conflict. The essence of the conflict is the territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia.” 

In his answer to the question on the representation of conflict as a religious confrontation between Christian Armenia and Muslim Azerbaijan, he drew attention to the secularism and tolerance in Azerbaijan, stating that the conflict doesn’t have any religious causes. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict does not have any religious context. In the mid-90s of the last century, the Russia-Turkey conflict, which was formed in the background of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict at that time, also helped to create this approach. However, at that time it was pan-Turkic solidarity rather than Islamic solidarity that strengthened the Ankara-Baku axis. I would like to add another element to the above considerations, considering the latent Islamophobic instinct of a section of Western public opinion. Azerbaijan is a completely secular country, and the principles of its institutions are traditionally based on secularism. And they have been formed on the basis of identity and nation-building as well as the secularity of the past social, cultural, and political life. Therefore, there is no basis for the hypothesis of a religious context in this conflict. 

Regarding the role of the Minsk group, Frappi called it ‘outdated’ and ‘ineffective’ and mentioned the necessity of adapting its format to the balance of the new powers. “If we take a look at the future of the conflict, it is one of the main dilemmas, which is complex to resolve. The Minsk Group was an exhausted mechanism before being ineffective. Nevertheless, this group offers a ready-made negotiation format, insisting on principles for conflict resolution that have already been tested and approved by the warring parties. In this regard, it is hard to change a mechanism that inevitably remains a mandatory reference point for all actors involved in the game. In addition to the proven ineffectiveness of the Minsk Group, in my view, the weakness of the negotiation mechanism is primarily due to its outdatedness. In other words, we refer to a format in its current composition that reflects the logic of cooperation and power competition, which was defined in the mid-1990s, and which is completely different from the current one in the South Caucasus. The same composition of the group's co-chairmanship doesn’t make any sense in the current scenario. I believe that better adaptation to the existing regional balance of power and influence is a key condition for any mechanism to start the work of mediation here. “ 

Responding to the question about the possible deterioration of the balance as a result of the current clashes, Frappe added that the ‘disputed’ territory between Azerbaijan and Armenia is, mainly, of moral importance rather than material for the sides. “On the other hand, ongoing clashes and the reactions of the foreign actors may cause some changes in regional diplomatic and strategic games,” the professor also mentioned.