Interviews Konstanty Gebert, political observer, Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland).
Q: What are the chances of European integration for the countries participating in the EU's Eastern Partnership program?
A: 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.
Q: How long can the integration of the six former Soviet countries with the EU take?
A: 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.
Q: 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?
A: 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.
Q: There are still different interpretations of these principles in the world and these principles are applied in a different way in conflict resolution.
A: 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.
Q: 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?
A: 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.
Q: How soon can this happen?
A: 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.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
