Interview with Elnur Aslanov, chief of the political analysis and information department of the presidential administration.
Q: The negotiation process, which was to result in a breakthrough in 2010, is idle for the reason of Armenia’s destructive position. Before the soon-expected trilateral meeting of the Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers (24 January-ed.), President Sargsyan again made a number of sharp statements regarding Nagorno Karabakh. How can you explain this position of Sargsyan and what should be expected from the negotiation process in the nearest future?
A: Armenia’s position is related to gradual, but still hardly admitted awareness of the deadlocked situation, into which they led themselves. On the one hand, President Sargsyan understands that the country is in an extremely complicated economic and political state. Armenia’s foreign debt is 50% of the country’s GDP and it continues to grow, the salaries at the lowest level in the South Caucasus, the constant outflow of the population of the country, oligarchic chaos, lawlessness within the army is just a short list of problems, facing Armenia today.
What else can be done in this situation? Naturally, they blame an external enemy. This is the best way for the Armenian leadership to shift the blame on others. However, the matter is that Armenia will not develop effectively as occupation of Azerbaijani lands continues and foreign policy remains short-sighted. The irrationalism of the Armenian leadership is that it rejects possible peaceful settlement of the situation, it refuses to settle the conflict to promote the economic development of Armenia. Sargsyan’s rhetoric is to distract the attention of the Armenian society from internal problems and concentrate on the Karabakh dispute. Thus, the so-called Karabakh clan at Armenian power is trying to extend the term of its ruling, though it is quite evident that the Armenian society hardly stands the policy of economic and political pressing of the current leadership.
Q: Armenian side is constantly trying to draw analogy between Nagorno Karabakh and other disputable regions. For example, earlier the Armenian leadership repeatedly tried to achieve recognition of the analogy between Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh. Nevertheless, almost all leading superpowers and international organizations pointed to the impossibility to view the Kosovo script as a precedent in Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Now Armenians are trying to hold frequent analogues between South Sudan and Nagorno Karabakh. How substantiated are these claims of Armenians?
A: The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh emerged in the result of occupation of Azerbaijani land by neighbor Armenia. This is a historical land of Azerbaijan, where Azerbaijanis lived for centuries. This territory belonged to Azerbaijanis for centuries and only the policy of Tsarist Russia changes the correlation of the population in this region. By results of the Gulustan, Turkmenchay and Adrianople treaties, more than 200,000 Armenians were moved to Azerbaijan from Persia and Turkey, in particular, to Nagorno Karabakh. Naturally, this had a great geopolitical importance. Thus, Tsarist Russia attempted to achieve two main goals. The first is the creation of buffer areas with Christian population between Iran and Azerbaijan and Turkey and Azerbaijan. Second, it was trying to change the ratio of the Christian and Muslim population of the South Caucasus in its favor. The events of 1920 showed than the plans of Tsarist Russia were further executed by Soviet Russia. In the result, mononational Armenia was created by periodical deportations. The initial point of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict lies in this historical paradigm.
The situation in Kosovo and Sudan is completely different from what we observe in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. These are quite different cases in both historical and legal point of views. The Dinka speaking population of South Sudan is self-determining. This is quite an acceptable legal precedent for an ethnic unit, a group and so on, which has no statehood, while Armenians have already self-determined within Armenia.
Second, the real religious confrontation and inacceptance of the stiff policy of one party by another is obvious here. As we know, the south of Sudan faced the problem of Islamization. In our case, no religious confrontation could be implied during the start of the conflict in 1988, since the attitude of the Soviet country to the religion was unambiguous. Though at the same time the fact of the presence of the current Armenian church, the Armenian settlement and the so-called Armenian market in the center of Baku was already a proof of tolerance in this issue. Even today despite the conflict in Azerbaijan there are 20,000 Armenians in Azerbaijan, there is a news agency in Armenian and there are programs on the television channel. Can Armenia provide something of this kind?
Third, some 2,000,000 southern residents died in a conflict between Khartoum and Juba. Most of them suffered from draught, famine and deportation. Over a million of Azerbaijani citizens, forced to flee their homes in Armenia, Karabakh and seven adjacent regions, were homeless and deprived of normal living conditions for a long time in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Azerbaijanis, not Armenians, were brutally and inhumanely killed in Khojaly and other Azerbaijani cities. Armenian terrorist organizations organized and committed terrorist acts in the public transport in Baku.
And the last. The referendum in Sudan is held by the central government, rather than a criminal grouping, which initiated the secession and incited ethnoseparatism for this purpose. The conflict in Sudan is not between the states, it is an inner state confrontation of ethnic groups from North and South. Meanwhile, the conflict around Nagorno Karabakh is between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which occupied 20% of Azerbaijani lands.
This is the list of both historical and legal profound differences between these conflicts.
Q: A number of political and religious figures of Iran started commenting actively on the completely internal affairs of Azerbaijan in connection with the recent events. How would you comment on these statements?
A: The relations between Iran and Azerbaijan are forming with respect to the history of the two nations, linked with historical, religious, cultural and to some extent, lingual ties. The territories of historical Iran and Azerbaijan were parts of a single state for centuries and our nations shared common values, fought and defended from common enemies. Azerbaijani and Iranian dynasties replaced each others in such states. In the early 20th century, when Kajars recognized independence of the People’s Republic of Azerbaijan, created diplomatic relations with it, Iran confirmed the fact that Azerbaijan and Iran are two independent states. Now, each country has chosen its own path of development.
Sometimes, we hear the speeches of some unofficial representatives of Iran about the processes related to Azerbaijan. Naturally, unless these statements come from different people or religious figures, who do not represent official Tehran, this can be viewed as a pluralism of opinions. Though it does not always respond to the spirit of historical relations which must be present between our states.
The relations between Azerbaijan and Iran are largely formed also thanks to the relations between the heads of the states. The Iranian president has repeatedly spoken positive about both the personality of President Ilham Aliyev and his policy.
Today Azerbaijan implements not only the multidirectional foreign policy but also an open, predictable policy towards its neighbors. This is an important segment of international relations. In turn, Azerbaijan always expects the same approach from its neighbors.
Q: US nongovernmental organization Freedom House has recently published the next report ‘on freedom in the world’. How can you explain the biased attitude of this NGO to Azerbaijan?
A: I do not think it expedient to discuss the activity of those who are paid to release the ordered reports. I have repeatedly spoken about this structure. I have not changed my mind and even further consolidated it. Freedom House has discredited itself. They live with the categories of ‘cold war’ and let then further do so. If it is easier for them to earn money this way, let them criticize as much as they want still they have to earn their living on something.
Certainly, this does not mean we are used to these mere words. But not seeing the changes occurring in Azerbaijan every year clearly evidences the mercantile interests, prevailing in the activity of this organization. Their methodology is completely wrong and does not work in current conditions. It is already clear to everyone that this organization works at the order and criticizes only those who hold effective and independent policy. Until recently, a number of countries, which were suitable for various western donors, considered to be the so-called ‘free’, while after elections and shift of powers, they ceased to be so.
Q: In the same report from Freedom House Nagorno Karabakh is represented as a disputable area, which shows the lack of respect to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, Freedom House’s assessment has changed unlike previous years. This formation was shifted from the category of ‘partially free’ into the ‘not free’ category… What has caused such a change in the opinion of this organization?
A: First of all, Nagorno Karabakh is not a disputable area. This is an occupied area. This is a historical land of Azerbaijan. President Ilham Aliyev holds peaceful negotiations to return all occupied lands under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Thus, this approach of Freedom House is completely erroneous.
Second, only militaries and elderly people live in Karabakh today. Which categories can be implied in conditions, controlled only by militaries? Which can be the conditions in the territory ruled by the criminal regime of separatists, criminals, regulated by Yerevan? What can be said if this zone is further growing into an area for transporting drugs to Europe via Armenia and farther? Freedom House just stated what Azerbaijan spoke of at all levels for long years. Freedom House’s donors started to realize that tomorrow these drugs will be given to their children.
On the other hand, the change in opinion within just a year seems strange. However, considering the methods of this organization, it becomes clear that the long-term military and political agreements signed in the region last year were the main reason that Yerevan representatives in Karabakh were called not free.
Q: European Commission president Barroso has recently paid an official visit to Baku. A memo on energy South Corridor paving the way for the Caspian gas to the European markets was signed during the visit. How do you assess the outcomes of this visit for Azerbaijan?
A: Barroso’s visit was of extreme importance. Primarily, this is the reflection of the important role and place of Azerbaijan as a regional actor, involved in provision of energy security in the European space.
Second, the diversification of energy routes, initiated by President Ilham Aliyev, opens new prospects for Azerbaijan in both economic and political aspects. Azerbaijan is already not merely a bridge linking East and West, this is a center of regional policy. Without taking into account the opinion, position and policies of Azerbaijan, it is impossible to execute initiatives in the region. EU’s high ranking officials understand this.
Third, Azerbaijan is accelerating integration in mutual relations with EU within the framework of Eastern Partnership initiative and this visit will serve an additional impulse to execute partnership points.
Fourth, the European Parliament, and Barroso, personally, twice reaffirmed the priority of the territorial integrity of the state in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, during the visit to Baku. I have to disappoint Armenian mass media who have been discussing this issue for a couple of days and remind them for the future that the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is recognized by the world community, despite the chants of Armenian “analytical gryphons”
Q: Immediately after publication of the content of outcomes of negotiations, several opposition and western mass media released publications criticizing EU’s friendly position on Azerbaijan. I remember that similar materials filled the same mass media before Clinton’s visit to Azerbaijan. Who do you think is behind those publications and what do they want?
A: Whoever attempted to attain something, Azerbaijan is building an open and democratic society. The economic policy of President Ilham Aliyev promotes significant changes in the living conditions of the citizens. The cities and regions are changing. New jobs are being opened. Town building and new infrastructural facilities promote new economic indicators including in tourism, services, information and communication technologies, industrial production, agriculture…
People’s lifestyles are changing gradually, new standards, new sociocultural factors are emerging. This is sometimes unnoticed for one, who is accustomed, but the deep analysis of separate parts of our social reality and unification into a single whole can help realize the scale of initiatives implemented in the country from environmental projects up to industrial and geoeconomic initiatives. Therefore, if someone writes something, this is just another bright proof that the policy implemented by the president is true and Azerbaijan’s democratic development is improving day by day. Democracy requires pluralism both in politics and media. It is on the due level in the country though we understand that, unfortunately, such publications are sometimes backed by forces that are unable to realize that Azerbaijan will not give away its independence.
Q: In one of his speeches President Ilham Aliyev especially noted that Azerbaijan is winning over Armenia in the information warfare thanks to the successful consistent diplomacy and active diaspora and Azerbaijani media. How do you assess the current state in this issue and which priority trends should the Azerbaijani side develop to further strengthen in the information warfare?
A: In the past years Azerbaijani diplomacy managed to attain the overbalance in raising the truth about the Armenian –Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh. This is a daily huge work aimed at informing of the truth. We hold information warfare for liberation of our own lands, while an Armenian diplomat or official initially works on disinformation and lie. Armenian representatives have been facing many unpleasant questions asked by foreign journalists and officials in the past years. Armenia enters the conscience of foreign colleagues as an aggressor country, where elements of independence are sacrificed for the internal usurpation of powers and where oligarchy has crossed all possible borders.
The success in information warfare is that the Azerbaijani society is developing while Armenia is regressing. We concentrate all our efforts, while Armenian society is in an internal chaos. We are raising the welfare of our citizens, while tens of families escape from Armenia, some even run away to Azerbaijan.
The consistent foreign policy, initiated by President Ilham Aliyev, is already giving effects. Tens of internet resources, disclosing the essence of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, have opened in the past years. The film about the tragedy in Khojaly has already been completed with foreign filmmakers and it will soon be presented in European cities. This is a life history of a refugee from Khojaly who managed to survive. This is a life of a boy, who survived and lives with the only goal to return home. A huge work is held by the general coordinator of the OIC youth forum Leyla Aliyeva within the framework of the campaign of Justice for Khojaly. This has become a national movement in the past years and it involves the whole Azerbaijani youth.
Tens of international conferences have been held in recent years about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and many books have been published. The work in this direction will continue. The information warfare against Azerbaijan involves every Azerbaijani regardless of his citizenship, since this is a national idea for us, while being a genetic hatred for Armenians.
W.W.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
