American think tanks are one of the main factors influencing Washington’s foreign policy and they have predetermined the character of the activity of the US on the international arena. But analytical centers are given less consideration than confronting lobbyist groups, inter-partisan disagreements and competition between the wings of the authorities. Despite their comparative obscurity the American independent political institutes considerably influence US foreign policy in five different directions: promoting elaboration of unique ideas and options for policy, providing a stuff of experts for working in the government, organizing big forums for the discussion of the most topical issues of the foreign policy, elucidating issues of the foreign policy for the population of the US, rendering assistance to the state organizations in settling conflicts and mediatory missions1. Taking into consideration analyses and discussions carried out by the American analytical centers we distinguish those which refer to Armenia and global regional issues. Among them discussion on “Nagorno-Karabakh: Will the Frozen Conflict Turn Hot?” held by Woodrow Wilson Center on June 5, 2012, in which American experts specializing in the issues of South Caucasus Wayne Merry (Senior Associate at the American Foreign Relations Council), Thomas de Waal (Carnegie Foundation), Charles King (Professor of International Relations at the University of Georgetown)2 participated. The speakers expressed concern about frequent violations of the ceasefire being of the same mind that the next possible war in the Nagorno-Karabakh zone will have devastating effect. As a result they came to the conclusion that the super powers have to consolidate their efforts not to allow the war3. During the aforementioned discussion W. Merry once more presented his programs which he had stood for several years. A former diplomat has come out with rather remarkable publications (on June 26, 2012 the leader of Armenian National Congress L. Ter-Petrosyan highly appreciating W. Merry’s publication and characterized it as the deepest analysis on Karabakh conflict carried out by the American experts), profound analyses4 and interviews5 on settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict6 to which regional media referred periodically. Special attention to his works can be explained by several factors: Wayne Merry hold high positions at the US State Department, Pentagon, in 1980-1983 and 1991-1994 he worked in Moscow, in 1995 he was a Regional Director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia at the staff of the Secretary of Defence which developed and consolidated defence cooperation with the former USSR republics. Thereafter he was a Senior Advisor to the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and a bipartisan Congressional-Executive human rights monitoring body. He represents the American Foreign Relations Council which provides information and analytical reports on foreign and defence policy to members of US Congress, the Executive Branch, and the US policymaking community, as well as world leaders outside the US (particularly in the former USSR). In addition, AFPC publishes strategic reports and other reports monitoring the policy progress of Russia, China, countries in the Middle East and in Asia. Common topics include missile defense, arms control, energy security, espionage . Unlike many other “distant” regional experts W. Merry “taking into consideration concern of Washington’s informed experts’ opinion”7, visited NKR personally (in November 2011), met NKR government members and representatives of the civil sector, visited military units of the Army of Defence of NKR and “ghost” city Aghdam. And despite non-official character of the visit he received support of some official bodies in Washington which can be an indicator of the expectations of the US ruling circles. Threats of War According to the expert when there are ongoing wars in the world it is easy to overlook brewing wars. It is dangerous especially for the current US administration which has big plans in foreign policy. In this context the speaker paid special attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which contained a real war threat in itself. In his opinion this possible war, taking into consideration growing military potential of Azerbaijan and Armenia, will have drastic consequences for both conflicting parties and for their neigbours and United States which has its own interests in the region. In order to prevent development of such a scenario W. Merry believes that “Moscow and Washington should cast joint preventive diplomatic pressure”. Thus the policy of Azerbaijan directed to pumping out unilateral concessions from Armenia bears its “fruits”. Non-constructive stance of Azerbaijan at the negotiations, increasing number of military statements, constant ceasefire violations have become a serious signal of its policy of force and it looks like it is assessed in an appropriate way in serious expert circles. But this conclusions can hardly justify expectations of Azerbaijan and even more, they can initiate harsher stance of international community towards Baku. Possible war in the zone of Karabakh conflict will deliver a blow to the interests of Russia, which has treaties on strategic partnership with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to the agreements within the framework of the CSTO, Moscow has obligations to protect Armenia in case of any military incursions and one should not doubt that there will be such incursions in case of war in Karabakh. In case of war Russia will face a serious dilemma: if it protects Armenia it will bring to the deterioration of the relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey – the relations which Kremlin tries to preserve so carefully, and if it renders assistance to Azerbaijan it will cause inevitable disappointment of Yerevan with all the ensuing consequences. Mutual aspiration to suppress unwilling consequences of possible war may serve as a ground for combining efforts of Moscow and Washington and non-admission of war by means of preventive diplomacy. Issues demanding resolution from the point of view of comprehensive settlement of the conflict Besides the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the main point of argument, special attention is paid to the necessity of coming to agreement on two other issues – territories adjoining Karabakh and issue of the Azerbaijani refugees. The former diplomat singles out issues which demand solution from all-balancing conflict settlement and indirectly points out the field of mutual concessions. His vision of the settlement of the conflict is the continuation of this logic. Outline of possible concord and its substantiation and inevitability According to the speaker the outline of possible concord was obvious 15 years ago and it reflected both the reality of war and necessity of peace. He offers “to find a solution outside the plane of the negotiations going around the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and a right of nation to self-determination: peace should reflect the outcome of the war, as it has always happende. In consequence de-facto and finally de-jure the international borders are changed, most of the refugees will be re-populated, peacemaking forces will be deployed in the region. By this agreement Armenia would get Karabakh and corridor joining it, and Azerbaijan will get adjoining territories. It is not either about justice or wrong or right decisions, it is about necessary and inevitable formula of peace. Diplomacy cannot change the grounds of realities formed”. As for the illusions of Azerbaijan that super powers will compel Armenia to make unilateral concessions the expert said: “There has been cases in history when super powers combined their efforts to make the party which won the war renounce its achievements but in this case such a possibility (that US, Russia, EU (particularly France), Turkey and possibly Iran are united against Armenia) is equal to zero”. “Thus, Azerbaijan indulge a vain hope that the mediators will compel Armenia to renounce its victory. Azerbaijan will have to accept the bitter truth”. Possible detrimental consequences for Azerbaijan and forms of compulsory settlement “Unfortunately Azerbaijan is inclined to restart the war and does not want to agree with an unacceptable peace. If it unfolds a war Azerbaijan will be defeated again and this time the consequences will be even more drastic and even if it has a favourable outcome the condition of Azerbaijan will even worsen”. The expert does not even exclude extinction of Azerbaijan as a state in consequence of war, which can be implemented by Armenia, Russia and Iran. “An agreement between Moscow and Washington is necessary. Today they do not have many common interests but there are people in both capitals who share the same point of view in regard to Karabakh. If a new US administration approaches this issue intelligently and in coordination it will be possible to avoid contradictions and to succeed in preserving peace in the Caucasus which will become a history of restoration of cooperation between two super powers”. In order to draw parallels between the official stance of the Republic of Armenia and opinion of the member of the American Foreign Policy Council on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict we would like to bring principles which, according to Armenia, should lie in the root of the settlement of the conflict: Recognition of the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination must be the basis of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Nagorno-Karabakh must have unbroken land communications with Armenia which must be under the direct authority of the Armenian party, Security of the Nagorno-Karabakh should be guaranteed by the international community. At the same time Armenia seeks for exclusively peaceful ways of resolution of the problem. Attempts of Azerbaijan to obtain unilateral concessions by means of threat of use of force are not only doomed but still remain the main obstacle on the way of settlement of the issue by means of compromise. It can be stated that the arguments brought by W. Merry and conclusions made by him substantiate the correctness of the postulates of the Armenian policy directed to the provision of regional stability. Such conclusions, generated by the American think tanks may even more consolidate the political component of the deterrence policy of Armenia and further purposeful actions of the Armenian lobby can make them more audible for the authorities of the United States. 1 ????? ?.?., «???????? ??????» ? ???????????? ??????? ????????: ????? ?????? ????????. ??????????? ?????? ???????????????? ???????????? ??? — eJournal USA. ??? 7, ? 3, ?????? 2002 ???? (Richard Nathan Haass – former American diplomat; he has been a head of the Council of Foreign Relations since 2003. 2 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/nagorno-karabakh-will-the-frozen-conflict-turn-hot#field_speakers 3 http://www.regnum.ru/news/1539066.html 4 http://www.polit.ru:8021/article/2009/06/02/karabkh/ 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jSkw1ywlcc 6 Wayne Merry, Karabakh: 'frozen' conflict nears melting point, http://www.afpc.org/publication_listings/viewArticle/1518 7 Words and ideas brought in the quotation marks belong to W. Merry made in the aforementioned statements. Anushavan Barseghyan Expert-consultant, Center for Information Studies, “Noravank” Foundation “Globus” analytical journal, #9, 2012

---