Tweet
RELATIONS ARE THE BEST WAY TO CREATE TRUST
Lusine Petrosyan
A1+
[03:40 pm] 21 October, 2008
Something that makes any Armenian pleasantly surprised while coming
in touch with UK FCO - is the official information about Armenia
displayed on FCO website. Hardly elsewhere in Internet besides
Britannica it'll be easy to find similarly detailed, objective
and complete article on Armenian history starting with Urartu
and Artashesyan Royal House and reflecting 3000 years of statehood
declines and re-establishments. Armenia is presented in unparalleled
depth at least in comparison with any neighboring country, something
that naturally speaks for itself.
The only lacking point in FCO article on Armenia is the Sevres
Treaty. Perhaps nowadays Turkey has a bit other perception in world
than in times of Sevres Treaties and UK PM Lloyd George who wrote
"Turkish a gentlemen? Oh, trouble", commenting the Sevres Treaty
review in Lausanne, but still Turkey is a theme impossible to leave
out while talking to HM Ambassador in Armenia. Since January 2008
the office is taken by Mr. Charles Lonsdale.
- Mr. Ambassador, I'd ask to start the interview with assessment of
on-going events in South Caucasus. Would you agree with idea that
map is changing here as EU and NATO enter into region?
- Is the map changing? In physical terms no - because the lines on
map stand where they were. In terms of interest - well, the move
started earlier. Actually EU, NATO, UK and other countries have been
interested in South Caucasus for many years. Obviously we're here
since 1991. Before that there was another state and it was rather
more difficult to get engaged.
So the UK and others' commitment in the region goes back for some
time. In the last couple of years the EU ENP agreement and NATO IPA
plan were launched. There have already been some concrete steps in that
framework and the engagement will certainly continue to develop. Of
course, the EU and NATO themselves have changed beyond recognition
in the last 15 years, with a massive of expansion. So work in the
South Caucasus is developing but is based on an already long-term
commitment. How far and how fast will it go obviously depend on
countries in the region.
- Mr. Miliband says "There is no ex-Soviet territory, but independent
states that must be respected". Still has Russia learned enough from
adventure in Georgia for not to try to repeat the story elsewhere?
- Well, I certainly hope there won't be any repetitions elsewhere. We
can at least say it's unlikely Russia will attack Armenia. Let's also
hope there won't be an attack on any other country.
Regarding lessons from the Georgian crisis, I think you should ask
the Russians what conclusions they are drawing. Of course I think
they have to recognize that events in Georgia had a serious impact
on their credibility internationally. They have ignored series of
international agreements and UN Security Council resolutions, even
from April this year, which they agreed to. The documents included
reference to sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia. So
it's evident the Russians have not respected these resolutions.
I think they also have to take into account the economic impact. The
events in Georgia have coincided with the wider global financial
crisis, but clearly the events in Georgia have brought some economic
consequences for Russia and it certainly wasn't a cost-free exercise.
- The British-Armenian relations gained shape in 19th century and
led to valuable result - Sevres Treaty. Nevertheless weren't these
relations heavily influenced by British approach to Ottoman Empire
as if somewhat an obstruction blocking the expansion of Russians?
- I don't pretend to be an expert on history of Ottoman Empire and
British relation with it. I really hesitate to go into any details.
Still this much I may say - of course, there was considerable interest
in Britain in the fate of the Ottoman Empire in second half of 19th
century and indeed in Armenians as part of that history. There was
considerable interest, commitment in Armenian issues as part of much
wider settlements and interactions. The history wasn't a happy one and
of course it became extremely complicated at the end of Ottoman Empire.
- Still wasn't this obstruction role preserved for Turkey later?
- Again I don't pretend to be an expert on history.
But there were clearly a range of factors - political, economic,
geopolitical and so on, taken into account in British relations with
Turkey through the 20th century, not least in the very complicated
period of world history when the Turkish Republic was being
established. And our own presence in the world changed through the
period of the two World Wars. So I hesitate to comment in any sort
of deep way on very, very complicated relationship.
- Is the Turkey's mission against Russian expansion still in agenda
anyhow? - I don't think so. We live in a very different world now. The
world has moved a very long way. And I think it's wrong to see it
still in black and white as Russia versus Europe. It's not like that.
Since 1991 the EU, European countries and NATO have been heavily
engaged in Russia, we provided a lot of support, a lot of investment
through some of the very difficult periods of 90-s. We are still there
and indeed, in future we'll continue to be engaged. There won't be
any cold war. There are shared interests - partly political, partly
economic, as well big global issues like climate change where we all
need to act together. So I don't think it'll be right to see it as
Europe versus Russia.
The example of Armenia itself shows that instead of confrontation you
can have actually productive and positive relations with different
groupings - with the CSTO, CIS, Russia and NATO. It's an interesting
example and it's good that at least one country does work at the
intersection of those structures. You hosted CSTO exercises here
recently and now NATO exercises are running. And while NATO exercises
are running the Russian Foreign Minister is coming here. That's a
positive example that these groupings are not mutually exclusive. It's
not a zero-sum game, where one wins and the other loses. That's not the
way the world works now. During the cold war that maybe sometimes was
the approach but now everything is much more complicated, integrated
and interdependent.
Beyond that, we are dealing with sovereign countries which possess the
right to choose their own future. Their choice must be respected. This
applies to Armenia, as well to Georgia, Ukraine, etc. The main thing
is that the choice should be freely made and not imposed from outside.
Of course, at the moment after events in Georgia we have to reassess
how to conduct further our business with Russia. To a certain extent
that depends on Russian readiness to engage and to share common values,
assumptions and ways of doing business. We can only operate on the
basis of those shared values.
- If the geopolitical confrontation with Russia is inherited to
history then what merits or deserves of Turkey persuade Britain to
support its aspirations for EU membership?
- Turkey is a key power in the region. It's an influential
country both politically and economically and that will grow in the
future. Different countries in Europe may have different approaches
to Turkish membership of the EU. We support Turkey's aspirations
because we see it as an example of an Islamic state that can play a
modernizing, democratic role - and we believe it would be good for
Armenia too.
- Just like Mr. Gul states? "Turkey is the only Muslim country in
the world open to European democracy".
-I think there might be some other countries that would dispute such
a claim.
But in the case of Turkey there is a natural process of continuing
integration. Turkey has been part of NATO for many years. Economically,
politically, and socially there are a lot of links already set between
Turkey and the rest of Europe. A lot of Turks for many years have
traveled and worked in and with Europe. So we have actually close
practical relationships already.
Also there are shared interests with partners and allies in NATO in a
whole range of other issues, e.g. in the context of counter-terrorism
measures or international crime. There are series of topics where
they are influential and they have positive role to play. So we
want to encourage that, to see them playing that role. Of course
that doesn't mean there aren't still steps they need to get there,
but that's the direction we certainly want to see them moving on.
- And you aren't bothered that Turkey has problems with nearly all its
neighbors? - I think it's clear there are set of issues that need to
be resolved. But those issues are more likely to be resolved if you
have a positive framework.
For example there has been some positive movement on Cyprus which shows
you can make a change. Surely, it takes time, but you have to start
somewhere. And the closer and more positive relations you have with
a country the more likely you'll find agreement on key issues. You
can't expect to solve all the issues and only then start positive
relations. Of course I mean as well Turkey and Armenia.
I think for Turkey and Armenia it's natural to resume relations. Then
you can start to build up confidence, to build trust. Afterwards
it should become much easier to resolve the complex issues. But you
have to start somewhere. If both sides simply say we don't trust you,
well, nothing is ever going to change.
- One of core problems here is that Turkey keeps our border closed
for nearly 1.5 decade. Why EU and NATO tolerate it?
-It's a decision for Turkey as a sovereign country. So it's not a
question of either NATO or EU being able to dictate to Turkey. In
terms of the European engagement, constructive, positive relations
with its neighbors will be part of what's expected of Turkey when it
comes towards (if it does come towards) joining the EU.
European partners and allies certainly encourage Turkey, particularly
at the moment, to some positive moves. Clearly we support and encourage
the moves towards some normalization of relations. It won't happen
overnight. But we certainly want to see distinct improvement. What we
have seen so far - it's positive, it's a change of the atmosphere,
but really we still hope to see rather more substantial changes in
Turkey's relationship with Armenia.
- After border there stands problem of reconciliation with past. What's
your opinion would Germany review it's conduct and history and so
largely contribute to creation of today peaceful and united Europe if
not the Nuremberg process? - That's a highly hypothetic and speculative
question. I'm not inclined to speculate on historical themes.
Still I think here the key thing is that Germany has itself come to
terms with history, with what happened. It didn't happen overnight. But
the key thing is I don't think you can impose a reassessment of the
past from outside. The public perception and mood change when the
country itself recognizes the facts and comes to terms with what
had happened.
- It's difficult to imagine for instance that not applying to Hague
ICC and waiting until the Serbs accept their history could be more
productive. If there is a permanent Int. Criminal Court then why not
to bring criminal causes before it, including the crimes committed
against Armenians? Is that simply because these events had predated
establishment of ICC?
- You said the International Criminal Court doesn't deal with
historical events. Even in theory it's difficult for me to see
circumstances under which they could start to deal with historical
cases, however significant, however grave they may be.
The specific problems between Armenia and Turkey must ultimately be
settled by Armenia and Turkey themselves. No one else can do it for
you. Turkey has to come into terms with history. And Armenia has to
relate with Turkey on that basis. It's a matter for politicians and
historians to contribute to building a mutual understanding over the
events of history and encourage coming to terms with it.
- There may be any politician or historian so professional in criminal
law to qualify crimes? For instance - was there committed ethnic
cleansing or genocide?
- Well, for now there isn't a legal system designed to take cases
for historical events.
- Then let's hope for a precedent to emerge once. And my last
question. From both historical and moral aspects UK is the country
traditionally involved and contributing to settlement of problems
in Middle East. So will UK assist to improve of Armenian-Turkish
relations?
- Of course. We already do. We support and encourage as much as we
can. I wouldn't expect to produce results overnight. But we work in
this direction and not only on the political level, but also at the
grass roots.
For example, just last week we brought over a group of Turkish students
to visit Armenia to meet with Armenian students, to hold discussions
and take part together in training on conflict resolution. The
Turkish students explained how, before coming to Armenia there
were a bit anxious; their friends had told them to be very careful
so they hesitated to talk in Turkish in a bus, fearing a hostile
reaction. Nothing happened. On the other hand an Armenian student said
that in a shop in Turkey he was asked where is he from and hesitated
what to reply. Finally he said he's from Armenia. The shopkeeper said:
"Oh the owner of the shop is an Armenian. Let me give him a call".
So both sides have psychological barriers because of what they have
heard, what they were told about history. There's a need to overcome
these barriers, to break down fears and suspicions and try to build
up instead of it trust and confidence and cooperation. There's a long
way to go but the move must start. Building trust and understanding
at the level of individuals is an important part of the foundation
for a wider reconciliation. Armenians already travel to Turkey. It
will be good for more Turks also to visit Armenia, to meet people,
to talk to them for those psychological barriers to be broken. The
easier it is for people to come into contact, the more space and
opportunities will appear for reconciliation.
Direct relations are the best way to build trust. Reopening of borders,
resumption of the relations across the region is in everybody's
interest. That's something crucial for long term stability, security
and prosperity for Turkey as much as Armenia, for Azerbaijan as much
as Armenia. Therefore this is the direction we encourage all sides
to move in.
Lusine Petrosyan
A1+
[03:40 pm] 21 October, 2008
Something that makes any Armenian pleasantly surprised while coming
in touch with UK FCO - is the official information about Armenia
displayed on FCO website. Hardly elsewhere in Internet besides
Britannica it'll be easy to find similarly detailed, objective
and complete article on Armenian history starting with Urartu
and Artashesyan Royal House and reflecting 3000 years of statehood
declines and re-establishments. Armenia is presented in unparalleled
depth at least in comparison with any neighboring country, something
that naturally speaks for itself.
The only lacking point in FCO article on Armenia is the Sevres
Treaty. Perhaps nowadays Turkey has a bit other perception in world
than in times of Sevres Treaties and UK PM Lloyd George who wrote
"Turkish a gentlemen? Oh, trouble", commenting the Sevres Treaty
review in Lausanne, but still Turkey is a theme impossible to leave
out while talking to HM Ambassador in Armenia. Since January 2008
the office is taken by Mr. Charles Lonsdale.
- Mr. Ambassador, I'd ask to start the interview with assessment of
on-going events in South Caucasus. Would you agree with idea that
map is changing here as EU and NATO enter into region?
- Is the map changing? In physical terms no - because the lines on
map stand where they were. In terms of interest - well, the move
started earlier. Actually EU, NATO, UK and other countries have been
interested in South Caucasus for many years. Obviously we're here
since 1991. Before that there was another state and it was rather
more difficult to get engaged.
So the UK and others' commitment in the region goes back for some
time. In the last couple of years the EU ENP agreement and NATO IPA
plan were launched. There have already been some concrete steps in that
framework and the engagement will certainly continue to develop. Of
course, the EU and NATO themselves have changed beyond recognition
in the last 15 years, with a massive of expansion. So work in the
South Caucasus is developing but is based on an already long-term
commitment. How far and how fast will it go obviously depend on
countries in the region.
- Mr. Miliband says "There is no ex-Soviet territory, but independent
states that must be respected". Still has Russia learned enough from
adventure in Georgia for not to try to repeat the story elsewhere?
- Well, I certainly hope there won't be any repetitions elsewhere. We
can at least say it's unlikely Russia will attack Armenia. Let's also
hope there won't be an attack on any other country.
Regarding lessons from the Georgian crisis, I think you should ask
the Russians what conclusions they are drawing. Of course I think
they have to recognize that events in Georgia had a serious impact
on their credibility internationally. They have ignored series of
international agreements and UN Security Council resolutions, even
from April this year, which they agreed to. The documents included
reference to sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia. So
it's evident the Russians have not respected these resolutions.
I think they also have to take into account the economic impact. The
events in Georgia have coincided with the wider global financial
crisis, but clearly the events in Georgia have brought some economic
consequences for Russia and it certainly wasn't a cost-free exercise.
- The British-Armenian relations gained shape in 19th century and
led to valuable result - Sevres Treaty. Nevertheless weren't these
relations heavily influenced by British approach to Ottoman Empire
as if somewhat an obstruction blocking the expansion of Russians?
- I don't pretend to be an expert on history of Ottoman Empire and
British relation with it. I really hesitate to go into any details.
Still this much I may say - of course, there was considerable interest
in Britain in the fate of the Ottoman Empire in second half of 19th
century and indeed in Armenians as part of that history. There was
considerable interest, commitment in Armenian issues as part of much
wider settlements and interactions. The history wasn't a happy one and
of course it became extremely complicated at the end of Ottoman Empire.
- Still wasn't this obstruction role preserved for Turkey later?
- Again I don't pretend to be an expert on history.
But there were clearly a range of factors - political, economic,
geopolitical and so on, taken into account in British relations with
Turkey through the 20th century, not least in the very complicated
period of world history when the Turkish Republic was being
established. And our own presence in the world changed through the
period of the two World Wars. So I hesitate to comment in any sort
of deep way on very, very complicated relationship.
- Is the Turkey's mission against Russian expansion still in agenda
anyhow? - I don't think so. We live in a very different world now. The
world has moved a very long way. And I think it's wrong to see it
still in black and white as Russia versus Europe. It's not like that.
Since 1991 the EU, European countries and NATO have been heavily
engaged in Russia, we provided a lot of support, a lot of investment
through some of the very difficult periods of 90-s. We are still there
and indeed, in future we'll continue to be engaged. There won't be
any cold war. There are shared interests - partly political, partly
economic, as well big global issues like climate change where we all
need to act together. So I don't think it'll be right to see it as
Europe versus Russia.
The example of Armenia itself shows that instead of confrontation you
can have actually productive and positive relations with different
groupings - with the CSTO, CIS, Russia and NATO. It's an interesting
example and it's good that at least one country does work at the
intersection of those structures. You hosted CSTO exercises here
recently and now NATO exercises are running. And while NATO exercises
are running the Russian Foreign Minister is coming here. That's a
positive example that these groupings are not mutually exclusive. It's
not a zero-sum game, where one wins and the other loses. That's not the
way the world works now. During the cold war that maybe sometimes was
the approach but now everything is much more complicated, integrated
and interdependent.
Beyond that, we are dealing with sovereign countries which possess the
right to choose their own future. Their choice must be respected. This
applies to Armenia, as well to Georgia, Ukraine, etc. The main thing
is that the choice should be freely made and not imposed from outside.
Of course, at the moment after events in Georgia we have to reassess
how to conduct further our business with Russia. To a certain extent
that depends on Russian readiness to engage and to share common values,
assumptions and ways of doing business. We can only operate on the
basis of those shared values.
- If the geopolitical confrontation with Russia is inherited to
history then what merits or deserves of Turkey persuade Britain to
support its aspirations for EU membership?
- Turkey is a key power in the region. It's an influential
country both politically and economically and that will grow in the
future. Different countries in Europe may have different approaches
to Turkish membership of the EU. We support Turkey's aspirations
because we see it as an example of an Islamic state that can play a
modernizing, democratic role - and we believe it would be good for
Armenia too.
- Just like Mr. Gul states? "Turkey is the only Muslim country in
the world open to European democracy".
-I think there might be some other countries that would dispute such
a claim.
But in the case of Turkey there is a natural process of continuing
integration. Turkey has been part of NATO for many years. Economically,
politically, and socially there are a lot of links already set between
Turkey and the rest of Europe. A lot of Turks for many years have
traveled and worked in and with Europe. So we have actually close
practical relationships already.
Also there are shared interests with partners and allies in NATO in a
whole range of other issues, e.g. in the context of counter-terrorism
measures or international crime. There are series of topics where
they are influential and they have positive role to play. So we
want to encourage that, to see them playing that role. Of course
that doesn't mean there aren't still steps they need to get there,
but that's the direction we certainly want to see them moving on.
- And you aren't bothered that Turkey has problems with nearly all its
neighbors? - I think it's clear there are set of issues that need to
be resolved. But those issues are more likely to be resolved if you
have a positive framework.
For example there has been some positive movement on Cyprus which shows
you can make a change. Surely, it takes time, but you have to start
somewhere. And the closer and more positive relations you have with
a country the more likely you'll find agreement on key issues. You
can't expect to solve all the issues and only then start positive
relations. Of course I mean as well Turkey and Armenia.
I think for Turkey and Armenia it's natural to resume relations. Then
you can start to build up confidence, to build trust. Afterwards
it should become much easier to resolve the complex issues. But you
have to start somewhere. If both sides simply say we don't trust you,
well, nothing is ever going to change.
- One of core problems here is that Turkey keeps our border closed
for nearly 1.5 decade. Why EU and NATO tolerate it?
-It's a decision for Turkey as a sovereign country. So it's not a
question of either NATO or EU being able to dictate to Turkey. In
terms of the European engagement, constructive, positive relations
with its neighbors will be part of what's expected of Turkey when it
comes towards (if it does come towards) joining the EU.
European partners and allies certainly encourage Turkey, particularly
at the moment, to some positive moves. Clearly we support and encourage
the moves towards some normalization of relations. It won't happen
overnight. But we certainly want to see distinct improvement. What we
have seen so far - it's positive, it's a change of the atmosphere,
but really we still hope to see rather more substantial changes in
Turkey's relationship with Armenia.
- After border there stands problem of reconciliation with past. What's
your opinion would Germany review it's conduct and history and so
largely contribute to creation of today peaceful and united Europe if
not the Nuremberg process? - That's a highly hypothetic and speculative
question. I'm not inclined to speculate on historical themes.
Still I think here the key thing is that Germany has itself come to
terms with history, with what happened. It didn't happen overnight. But
the key thing is I don't think you can impose a reassessment of the
past from outside. The public perception and mood change when the
country itself recognizes the facts and comes to terms with what
had happened.
- It's difficult to imagine for instance that not applying to Hague
ICC and waiting until the Serbs accept their history could be more
productive. If there is a permanent Int. Criminal Court then why not
to bring criminal causes before it, including the crimes committed
against Armenians? Is that simply because these events had predated
establishment of ICC?
- You said the International Criminal Court doesn't deal with
historical events. Even in theory it's difficult for me to see
circumstances under which they could start to deal with historical
cases, however significant, however grave they may be.
The specific problems between Armenia and Turkey must ultimately be
settled by Armenia and Turkey themselves. No one else can do it for
you. Turkey has to come into terms with history. And Armenia has to
relate with Turkey on that basis. It's a matter for politicians and
historians to contribute to building a mutual understanding over the
events of history and encourage coming to terms with it.
- There may be any politician or historian so professional in criminal
law to qualify crimes? For instance - was there committed ethnic
cleansing or genocide?
- Well, for now there isn't a legal system designed to take cases
for historical events.
- Then let's hope for a precedent to emerge once. And my last
question. From both historical and moral aspects UK is the country
traditionally involved and contributing to settlement of problems
in Middle East. So will UK assist to improve of Armenian-Turkish
relations?
- Of course. We already do. We support and encourage as much as we
can. I wouldn't expect to produce results overnight. But we work in
this direction and not only on the political level, but also at the
grass roots.
For example, just last week we brought over a group of Turkish students
to visit Armenia to meet with Armenian students, to hold discussions
and take part together in training on conflict resolution. The
Turkish students explained how, before coming to Armenia there
were a bit anxious; their friends had told them to be very careful
so they hesitated to talk in Turkish in a bus, fearing a hostile
reaction. Nothing happened. On the other hand an Armenian student said
that in a shop in Turkey he was asked where is he from and hesitated
what to reply. Finally he said he's from Armenia. The shopkeeper said:
"Oh the owner of the shop is an Armenian. Let me give him a call".
So both sides have psychological barriers because of what they have
heard, what they were told about history. There's a need to overcome
these barriers, to break down fears and suspicions and try to build
up instead of it trust and confidence and cooperation. There's a long
way to go but the move must start. Building trust and understanding
at the level of individuals is an important part of the foundation
for a wider reconciliation. Armenians already travel to Turkey. It
will be good for more Turks also to visit Armenia, to meet people,
to talk to them for those psychological barriers to be broken. The
easier it is for people to come into contact, the more space and
opportunities will appear for reconciliation.
Direct relations are the best way to build trust. Reopening of borders,
resumption of the relations across the region is in everybody's
interest. That's something crucial for long term stability, security
and prosperity for Turkey as much as Armenia, for Azerbaijan as much
as Armenia. Therefore this is the direction we encourage all sides
to move in.