Tweet
CHARLES LONSDALE: WE WANT TO SEE A STABLE, PROSPEROUS AND SECURE ARMENIA
News.am
11:45 / 08/20/2009
Charles Lonsdale, British Ambassador to Armenia answers NEWS.am
questions. Below is the full text of the interview.
Q.: Mr. Lonsdale, what is the UK's policy in Armenia? What are your
priorities in our region?
A.: We want to see a stable, prosperous and secure Armenia. And
that applies to the region as a whole. So supporting efforts to
resolve regional conflicts is a top priority. Apart from high-level
negotiations between the parties to the conflict we think it is
vital to encourage contacts between people and civil society, not
least between Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Direct contacts, and
greater information about each other will help, in time, to build
the confidence and trust needed to underpin a sustainable political
settlement.
We also want to encourage and support Armenia's engagement with
European structures, particularly the EU and NATO. We think that this
will be good for Armenia's long-term development, economic, social
and political. It will support the reform process across a wide range
of areas, including defence. But it is obviously important that it
is driven by Armenia's own judgment of its interests.
We also want to support the development of a stable, democratic
political system founded on respect for human rights and the rule
of law. In practice that means everything from promoting greater
participation by women in public life, to running our long-standing
programme of scholarships and fellowships for Armenians to study and
visit the UK.
Q.: They say France is Armenia's friend, Georgia's - US, and
Azerbaijan's - the UK. What's your opinion on this, particularly that
your country is often led by oil interests?
A.: Two preliminary remarks. First, there is a persistent but,
I think, misguided assumption in this region, as in some others,
that international relations is a "zero sum game" - that if you have
interests in one country, you must be hostile to others. I don't
believe that is how international relations work and it certainly
doesn't reflect our work. We have good relations with Armenia and
value them as much as our relations with other countries. Secondly,
energy security is a priority for all countries around the world
now, including Armenia. Britain is no more led by oil interests than
anyone else.
It's certainly true that British companies have significant investments
in Azerbaijan. But even the logic of pure self-interest means that
we would therefore want to see stability in all countries of the
region. We certainly want to see a stable, secure and prosperous
Armenia. We therefore work with Armenia in a range of areas from
defence to education, from climate change to the rights of people
with disabilities. We also see the development of democracy and
good governance, and respect for human rights and the rule of law
as essential for the healthy development of any society, including
Armenia. And so we raise concerns where we have them, both bilaterally
and with our EU partners. That obviously includes a range of familiar
issues, including the continued detention and prosecution of people
in connection with the events of 1-2 March 2008 and their political
activities; the need for a transparent, independent and effective
inquiry into those events; restrictions on the media and freedom of
assembly; and the development of democratic institutions and free
and fair elections.
We also support projects in a range of areas to help address some
of these issues and to encourage the development of an effective and
vigorous civil society. That is perhaps the most important part; to
develop a political culture where ordinary people can effectively
protect their rights and hold the government accountable without
looking for outside intervention.
Q.: Your country is not a Minsk Group member. What is your evaluation
of the Minsk Group activity and the Madrid principles? What would be
different if the UK was also a co-chair?
A.: We support the efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs to reach
a negotiated settlement of the conflict on the basis of international
norms and principles, including the principle of self-determination
of peoples. And we would support any mechanism for resolution of the
dispute which the parties can accept and which has a realistic chance
of delivering a lasting political settlement.
We understand that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have had
useful and constructive meetings in recent months within the framework
of the Minsk Group process. So I remain hopeful that both parties
will continue to make progress. We are concerned by the continuing
deaths along the Line of Contact and the international border between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. We believe the parties should make renewed
efforts to resolve this conflict and urge them to engage in good
faith in working towards a negotiated settlement.
It is also vital to have an open and constructive public debate
about the resolution of the conflict and we have supported a number
of projects to encourage that and to build confidence through direct
contacts. In particular, compromises will be necessary on both sides
to achieve a lasting settlement. Here again there still seems to be
the idea that this is a "zero sum game", where only one side can "win"
and any compromise represents failure. But resolution of this conflict
will bring huge gains for both countries in economic development,
stability and security.
Q.: In Madrid Principles there is a part about voting in NKR years
later. Do you think it's possible that as a result of voting or in
any way Karabakh becomes an independent state?
A.: The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh will obviously be for the
parties to the negotiations, and in due course, the inhabitants,
to decide; it's not helpful for us to speculate on what the choices
might be.
Q.: The developments in Armenian-Turkish relations seem to have
stopped since Turkey continues to set preconditions. What should be
done in order to reopen the border? Do you plan to pressure on Turkey
to move the issue forward?
We welcomed the Armenian President's initiative last year to invite
President Gul to visit, and the progress that has been made in
discussions over normalisation of relations. We believe that the
opening of the border between Turkey and Armenia will lead to positive
economic development of the region and closer ties between communities
on both sides of the border. We do encourage Turkey - and Armenia -
to continue to look for ways to move this process forward.
News.am
11:45 / 08/20/2009
Charles Lonsdale, British Ambassador to Armenia answers NEWS.am
questions. Below is the full text of the interview.
Q.: Mr. Lonsdale, what is the UK's policy in Armenia? What are your
priorities in our region?
A.: We want to see a stable, prosperous and secure Armenia. And
that applies to the region as a whole. So supporting efforts to
resolve regional conflicts is a top priority. Apart from high-level
negotiations between the parties to the conflict we think it is
vital to encourage contacts between people and civil society, not
least between Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Direct contacts, and
greater information about each other will help, in time, to build
the confidence and trust needed to underpin a sustainable political
settlement.
We also want to encourage and support Armenia's engagement with
European structures, particularly the EU and NATO. We think that this
will be good for Armenia's long-term development, economic, social
and political. It will support the reform process across a wide range
of areas, including defence. But it is obviously important that it
is driven by Armenia's own judgment of its interests.
We also want to support the development of a stable, democratic
political system founded on respect for human rights and the rule
of law. In practice that means everything from promoting greater
participation by women in public life, to running our long-standing
programme of scholarships and fellowships for Armenians to study and
visit the UK.
Q.: They say France is Armenia's friend, Georgia's - US, and
Azerbaijan's - the UK. What's your opinion on this, particularly that
your country is often led by oil interests?
A.: Two preliminary remarks. First, there is a persistent but,
I think, misguided assumption in this region, as in some others,
that international relations is a "zero sum game" - that if you have
interests in one country, you must be hostile to others. I don't
believe that is how international relations work and it certainly
doesn't reflect our work. We have good relations with Armenia and
value them as much as our relations with other countries. Secondly,
energy security is a priority for all countries around the world
now, including Armenia. Britain is no more led by oil interests than
anyone else.
It's certainly true that British companies have significant investments
in Azerbaijan. But even the logic of pure self-interest means that
we would therefore want to see stability in all countries of the
region. We certainly want to see a stable, secure and prosperous
Armenia. We therefore work with Armenia in a range of areas from
defence to education, from climate change to the rights of people
with disabilities. We also see the development of democracy and
good governance, and respect for human rights and the rule of law
as essential for the healthy development of any society, including
Armenia. And so we raise concerns where we have them, both bilaterally
and with our EU partners. That obviously includes a range of familiar
issues, including the continued detention and prosecution of people
in connection with the events of 1-2 March 2008 and their political
activities; the need for a transparent, independent and effective
inquiry into those events; restrictions on the media and freedom of
assembly; and the development of democratic institutions and free
and fair elections.
We also support projects in a range of areas to help address some
of these issues and to encourage the development of an effective and
vigorous civil society. That is perhaps the most important part; to
develop a political culture where ordinary people can effectively
protect their rights and hold the government accountable without
looking for outside intervention.
Q.: Your country is not a Minsk Group member. What is your evaluation
of the Minsk Group activity and the Madrid principles? What would be
different if the UK was also a co-chair?
A.: We support the efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs to reach
a negotiated settlement of the conflict on the basis of international
norms and principles, including the principle of self-determination
of peoples. And we would support any mechanism for resolution of the
dispute which the parties can accept and which has a realistic chance
of delivering a lasting political settlement.
We understand that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have had
useful and constructive meetings in recent months within the framework
of the Minsk Group process. So I remain hopeful that both parties
will continue to make progress. We are concerned by the continuing
deaths along the Line of Contact and the international border between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. We believe the parties should make renewed
efforts to resolve this conflict and urge them to engage in good
faith in working towards a negotiated settlement.
It is also vital to have an open and constructive public debate
about the resolution of the conflict and we have supported a number
of projects to encourage that and to build confidence through direct
contacts. In particular, compromises will be necessary on both sides
to achieve a lasting settlement. Here again there still seems to be
the idea that this is a "zero sum game", where only one side can "win"
and any compromise represents failure. But resolution of this conflict
will bring huge gains for both countries in economic development,
stability and security.
Q.: In Madrid Principles there is a part about voting in NKR years
later. Do you think it's possible that as a result of voting or in
any way Karabakh becomes an independent state?
A.: The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh will obviously be for the
parties to the negotiations, and in due course, the inhabitants,
to decide; it's not helpful for us to speculate on what the choices
might be.
Q.: The developments in Armenian-Turkish relations seem to have
stopped since Turkey continues to set preconditions. What should be
done in order to reopen the border? Do you plan to pressure on Turkey
to move the issue forward?
We welcomed the Armenian President's initiative last year to invite
President Gul to visit, and the progress that has been made in
discussions over normalisation of relations. We believe that the
opening of the border between Turkey and Armenia will lead to positive
economic development of the region and closer ties between communities
on both sides of the border. We do encourage Turkey - and Armenia -
to continue to look for ways to move this process forward.