Tweet
ARBITRATION 'BEST WAY' TO SETTLE KARABAKH CONFLICT
news.az
Oct 20 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Konstanty Gebert, political observer, Gazeta
Wyborcza (Poland).
What are the chances of European integration for the countries
participating in the EU's Eastern Partnership program?
Integration prospects depend not only on Europe itself, but also on
the countries taking part in the Eastern Partnership. The results
of the last summit in Warsaw are known - the participating countries
did not sign a declaration on Belarus, which quite clearly shows that
European prospects are not what's most important for these countries.
This, of course, hinders their integration. On the other hand, this
process is always dynamic. Today Europe has its own problems, and
even if the neighbouring countries were totally ready, I'm not quite
sure that Europe would accept them with joy. Well, let's wait and
see what changes occur in the Partnership countries and see whether
Europe will have time to normalize things at home.
How long can the integration of the six former Soviet countries with
the EU take?
I think that this integration is necessary in the historical
perspective. But this may take 15 or 20 years. This primarily depends
on the participating countries themselves.
European sources are reported as saying that differences between
Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue hindered
the signing of a document in Warsaw on the admission of the Eastern
Partnership countries to the EU. How accurate are these reports?
Yes, but these differences started earlier in Strasbourg in Euronest,
at the meeting of parliamentarians from the Eastern Partnership
countries. At that time they wanted to include the provision on Belarus
I mentioned above in the declaration of basic principles. If I am
not mistaken, Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed on the possible signing
of the declaration on Belarus only if this document referred to the
inviolability of borders, as stated by Baku, or the right of peoples
to self-determination, as stated by the representatives of Yerevan.
Of course, these are interrelated principles of international law and
one principle cannot exist without the other. As you know, Azerbaijan
and Armenia have different views on these principles, and in the end,
this conflict led to the political declaration not being signed during
the Euronest meeting.
There are still different interpretations of these principles in
the world and these principles are applied in a different way in
conflict resolution.
It is very difficult to separate these concepts, since they are both
reflected in international law. Of course, borders are inviolable,
and only when a national minority lives under pressure of another
nation and has no prospects - as in the case of Kosovo - can the
right of peoples to self-determination be considered more important
than the right to the inviolability of borders.
But if there is a separatist movement, which lacks the support of
majority of the population - as in the case of the Spanish Basque
country, where the terrorists are supported only by 15-20% of the
area - their right to self-determination is less important than the
principle of territorial integrity. This is a matter of a case by
case principle.
But how can you say that Karabakh Armenians have a legitimate right to
self-determination after the Azerbaijanis living there were expelled
from this region?
I understand your arguments. The counter-argument of the Armenian
community of Nagorno-Karabakh is that they were pressured by the
Azerbaijani government and this led to a change in the geopolitical
situation. It is extremely difficult to apply international law in
similar situations, in particular, because of the need to combine
two mutually exclusive principles - the right of nations to
self-determination and territorial integrity.
All this complicates the solution of the conflict. I believe that
arbitration is the best way. The Minsk process has got nowhere, and
the status quo suits Armenia more than Azerbaijan. And the status
quo will certainly hurt the already negative relationship between
the two countries; therefore the question must be addressed.
How soon can this happen?
The proposal of one of the parties is not accepted by the other. This
has led the Minsk process to deadlock. One of the parties needs to give
way in circumstances, when the parties rely on different principles
of international law. But it takes a long time, long years for any
of the options. It is impossible to predict exactly.
news.az
Oct 20 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Konstanty Gebert, political observer, Gazeta
Wyborcza (Poland).
What are the chances of European integration for the countries
participating in the EU's Eastern Partnership program?
Integration prospects depend not only on Europe itself, but also on
the countries taking part in the Eastern Partnership. The results
of the last summit in Warsaw are known - the participating countries
did not sign a declaration on Belarus, which quite clearly shows that
European prospects are not what's most important for these countries.
This, of course, hinders their integration. On the other hand, this
process is always dynamic. Today Europe has its own problems, and
even if the neighbouring countries were totally ready, I'm not quite
sure that Europe would accept them with joy. Well, let's wait and
see what changes occur in the Partnership countries and see whether
Europe will have time to normalize things at home.
How long can the integration of the six former Soviet countries with
the EU take?
I think that this integration is necessary in the historical
perspective. But this may take 15 or 20 years. This primarily depends
on the participating countries themselves.
European sources are reported as saying that differences between
Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue hindered
the signing of a document in Warsaw on the admission of the Eastern
Partnership countries to the EU. How accurate are these reports?
Yes, but these differences started earlier in Strasbourg in Euronest,
at the meeting of parliamentarians from the Eastern Partnership
countries. At that time they wanted to include the provision on Belarus
I mentioned above in the declaration of basic principles. If I am
not mistaken, Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed on the possible signing
of the declaration on Belarus only if this document referred to the
inviolability of borders, as stated by Baku, or the right of peoples
to self-determination, as stated by the representatives of Yerevan.
Of course, these are interrelated principles of international law and
one principle cannot exist without the other. As you know, Azerbaijan
and Armenia have different views on these principles, and in the end,
this conflict led to the political declaration not being signed during
the Euronest meeting.
There are still different interpretations of these principles in
the world and these principles are applied in a different way in
conflict resolution.
It is very difficult to separate these concepts, since they are both
reflected in international law. Of course, borders are inviolable,
and only when a national minority lives under pressure of another
nation and has no prospects - as in the case of Kosovo - can the
right of peoples to self-determination be considered more important
than the right to the inviolability of borders.
But if there is a separatist movement, which lacks the support of
majority of the population - as in the case of the Spanish Basque
country, where the terrorists are supported only by 15-20% of the
area - their right to self-determination is less important than the
principle of territorial integrity. This is a matter of a case by
case principle.
But how can you say that Karabakh Armenians have a legitimate right to
self-determination after the Azerbaijanis living there were expelled
from this region?
I understand your arguments. The counter-argument of the Armenian
community of Nagorno-Karabakh is that they were pressured by the
Azerbaijani government and this led to a change in the geopolitical
situation. It is extremely difficult to apply international law in
similar situations, in particular, because of the need to combine
two mutually exclusive principles - the right of nations to
self-determination and territorial integrity.
All this complicates the solution of the conflict. I believe that
arbitration is the best way. The Minsk process has got nowhere, and
the status quo suits Armenia more than Azerbaijan. And the status
quo will certainly hurt the already negative relationship between
the two countries; therefore the question must be addressed.
How soon can this happen?
The proposal of one of the parties is not accepted by the other. This
has led the Minsk process to deadlock. One of the parties needs to give
way in circumstances, when the parties rely on different principles
of international law. But it takes a long time, long years for any
of the options. It is impossible to predict exactly.