Tweet
RESTORING TRUST BETWEEN ARMENIANS AND AZERBAIJANIS WILL TAKE DECADES
news.az
Nov 17 2009
Azerbaijan
Zardusht Alizade News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist
Zardusht Alizade.
An article by MP Aydin Mirzazade looking at what both Armenia and
Azerbaijan have lost as a result of the Karabakh conflict has been
widely published in Azerbaijan. The article revived debate about the
cost of occupation for Armenia. What can you say about it?
First of all, I think this article is remarkable. For the first time
a member of the ruling team has written an article in the spirit
of world culture. He does not advocate hatred for Armenians or
curse them, he merely attempts to analyse what would have happened
had it not been for the war. Much has been said about this. I have
repeatedly told Armenians about it and suggested that they weigh up
the advantages they could have had, had it not been for the current
claims. Now they think that they won the war and gained Karabakh. What
does Karabakh give them? And what did they lose? They have driven all
the Azerbaijanis out of Armenia, Karabakh and adjacent regions. But
at the same time, they have lost the land where Armenians lived in
other parts of Azerbaijan; they lost a strong Armenian influence in
Baku, they lost Armenian-settled villages in very favourable zones
of Azerbaijan including Shamakhi, Agsu, Agdash and Ganja. In other
words, they lost the chance to live in Azerbaijan and influence the
development of Azerbaijani-Armenian relations.
Armenians have lost very favourable areas of activity in Azerbaijan,
including oil and gas, science, administration and law-enforcement
where Armenians were traditionally well-represented.
Moreover, we both lost a great deal in the rate of development. The
modern world is a world of competition. Countries compete in science,
industry and technology. We have lost everything and have become a
purely oil country and what is most important is that we have lost
democratic potential. Compare the living conditions and potential of
our country and the Baltic states that started democratic advancement
at the same time as us. The national movement in the South Caucasus
was also strong, but we turned out to be weaker in the intellectual
sense. The empire managed to impose these conflicts on us and we lost
a great deal.
Do you think we will manage to make up leeway after a peace agreement
is concluded?
People's lives have been lost and they will never be returned. One
can return something material but not the dead. We can never return
a lost hand or leg or lost vision.
As for material losses, certainly, we can restore houses, roads and
bridges. But it will take us a long time to return the trust between
peoples, between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. It will take decades.
We will also have to make serious reforms in our systems of public
health, education and social provision. At least a century will
be needed to raise wages in Armenia and Azerbaijan to meet western
standards. The same goes for democratic development.
Is it true that had it not been for the conflict, all the current
energy pipelines from Azerbaijan would cross Armenia, not Georgia?
Yes, that's right, they would all have gone through Armenia, as this
is the direct, shortest way. In fact, it is Georgia that benefits from
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The pipelines became longer and more
expensive. They cross Georgia and give it many advantages including
the provision of fuel and transit fees.
If the land is liberated peacefully, Azerbaijan promises economic
benefits to Armenia which is isolated from regional projects. It's
clear that the projects that have already been built cannot be
diverted. What new projects might involve Armenia?
The only new projects left are transport projects. These include a
railway and highways. Armenia could have received serious transit fees
from the trade turnover between Russia, Turkey and Iran. In this case,
Azerbaijan could also have gained a great deal from the railway via
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia. The same goes for the Iranian route.
Perhaps Armenia would have been less dependent on Russia in such
a case?
I wouldn't say that Armenia's dependence on Russia would have fallen
dramatically, but the ratio would have changed. Turkey's role would
have grown. Armenia would not have been fully dependent on Russia,
but Russia would have continued to be Armenia's important partner in
all spheres. Do not forget the large and influential Armenian diaspora
in Russia.
news.az
Nov 17 2009
Azerbaijan
Zardusht Alizade News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist
Zardusht Alizade.
An article by MP Aydin Mirzazade looking at what both Armenia and
Azerbaijan have lost as a result of the Karabakh conflict has been
widely published in Azerbaijan. The article revived debate about the
cost of occupation for Armenia. What can you say about it?
First of all, I think this article is remarkable. For the first time
a member of the ruling team has written an article in the spirit
of world culture. He does not advocate hatred for Armenians or
curse them, he merely attempts to analyse what would have happened
had it not been for the war. Much has been said about this. I have
repeatedly told Armenians about it and suggested that they weigh up
the advantages they could have had, had it not been for the current
claims. Now they think that they won the war and gained Karabakh. What
does Karabakh give them? And what did they lose? They have driven all
the Azerbaijanis out of Armenia, Karabakh and adjacent regions. But
at the same time, they have lost the land where Armenians lived in
other parts of Azerbaijan; they lost a strong Armenian influence in
Baku, they lost Armenian-settled villages in very favourable zones
of Azerbaijan including Shamakhi, Agsu, Agdash and Ganja. In other
words, they lost the chance to live in Azerbaijan and influence the
development of Azerbaijani-Armenian relations.
Armenians have lost very favourable areas of activity in Azerbaijan,
including oil and gas, science, administration and law-enforcement
where Armenians were traditionally well-represented.
Moreover, we both lost a great deal in the rate of development. The
modern world is a world of competition. Countries compete in science,
industry and technology. We have lost everything and have become a
purely oil country and what is most important is that we have lost
democratic potential. Compare the living conditions and potential of
our country and the Baltic states that started democratic advancement
at the same time as us. The national movement in the South Caucasus
was also strong, but we turned out to be weaker in the intellectual
sense. The empire managed to impose these conflicts on us and we lost
a great deal.
Do you think we will manage to make up leeway after a peace agreement
is concluded?
People's lives have been lost and they will never be returned. One
can return something material but not the dead. We can never return
a lost hand or leg or lost vision.
As for material losses, certainly, we can restore houses, roads and
bridges. But it will take us a long time to return the trust between
peoples, between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. It will take decades.
We will also have to make serious reforms in our systems of public
health, education and social provision. At least a century will
be needed to raise wages in Armenia and Azerbaijan to meet western
standards. The same goes for democratic development.
Is it true that had it not been for the conflict, all the current
energy pipelines from Azerbaijan would cross Armenia, not Georgia?
Yes, that's right, they would all have gone through Armenia, as this
is the direct, shortest way. In fact, it is Georgia that benefits from
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The pipelines became longer and more
expensive. They cross Georgia and give it many advantages including
the provision of fuel and transit fees.
If the land is liberated peacefully, Azerbaijan promises economic
benefits to Armenia which is isolated from regional projects. It's
clear that the projects that have already been built cannot be
diverted. What new projects might involve Armenia?
The only new projects left are transport projects. These include a
railway and highways. Armenia could have received serious transit fees
from the trade turnover between Russia, Turkey and Iran. In this case,
Azerbaijan could also have gained a great deal from the railway via
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia. The same goes for the Iranian route.
Perhaps Armenia would have been less dependent on Russia in such
a case?
I wouldn't say that Armenia's dependence on Russia would have fallen
dramatically, but the ratio would have changed. Turkey's role would
have grown. Armenia would not have been fully dependent on Russia,
but Russia would have continued to be Armenia's important partner in
all spheres. Do not forget the large and influential Armenian diaspora
in Russia.