Interview with Lord Laird, a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and chairman of the advisory board of The European Azerbaijan Society.
Q: The United Kingdom has always had its own interests in the South Caucasus and Azerbaijan in particular. There is even a memorial in Baku to British soldiers who died fighting in Azerbaijan in 1917. Is the UK now not as active as it used to be and what are the main British interests in Azerbaijan, other than oil?
A: On many levels the UK involvement is as strong as it has ever been, for example in terms of trade and investment. This was underlined by President Ilham Aliyev’s state visit to the UK in July 2009. The economic ties between the two countries are particularly strong with the UK continuing to be the biggest foreign investor in Azerbaijan. There are over 5,000 British expatriates working in Azerbaijan – mainly in and around Baku – and over 170 UK firms operate in the country. Azerbaijan’s rapid development also creates a tremendous opportunity for further growth, both in investment from the UK and also with Azerbaijan as a market for British goods and services.
On his recent visit to Azerbaijan Europe Minister David Lidington commented: "The overall benefit of such a partnership is obvious: in the period when the global withdrawal from the economic crisis is still fragile, an economy like Azerbaijan's is an engine for development." This illustrates Azerbaijan’s growing influence in the region and Britain will be well placed to continue expanding on this mutually beneficial relationship.
Q: An event on Interfaith Dialogue, Azerbaijan and Conflict Resolution was held last summer in London. Do you thing that there is a need for more propaganda of religious tolerance in Azerbaijan and what else should be done in this regard?
A: Propaganda is a word that carries negative connotations here in the West so I would not use that specific language to describe this kind of event. However, I think it is of real importance for people here in the UK and Europe to understand the secular and religiously tolerant nature of Azerbaijan. Firstly because the country in this regard is almost unique within the region, and secondly to counter Armenian claims of historic mistreatment of ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. The latter is obviously designed to try to justify Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories and it is for this reason that it is important to make people in the West aware of Azerbaijan’s true nature, so that these claims can be exposed as false.
Q: It's clear that the OSCE Minsk group co-chairs cannot achieve progress in the Karabakh settlement. Is there any place for Britain as a mediator and what kind of role might Britain have?
A: It is clear that in 17 years the Minsk Group has not achieved the level of progress we would have liked to have seen, so it would seem necessary to re-evaluate the formula. It seems to me that one of the flaws of this process is that all three of the Minsk Group co-chairs have a large Armenian diaspora, which renders them susceptible to their lobbying and skews their impartiality. Indeed, Russia for example is an unashamed ally of Armenia to which it offered active support during the war. This makes it more difficult for balanced negotiations to evolve. I would like to see more active involvement from UK mediators and perhaps the best way to achieve that would be for them to work within an EU team that could substitute France as one of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group. This in my view would give a more balanced platform for talks on a negotiated settlement.
Q: There is much talk of the need for a more active EU role in the South Caucasus. How successful could this be, given the Russian military presence in Georgia (Abkhazia and the South Ossetia) and Armenia?
A: The Russian military obviously has a strong presence in the region, particularly though its presence in Armenia, but this should not mean that the EU can’t perform a constructive role in helping resolve these conflicts. I do believe that there should be increased involvement by the EU in the South Caucasus. One way for that to happen, as I mentioned previously, is for the EU to substitute France as a co-chair of the Minsk Group. I think the EU should also offer to supply peacekeepers to help implement and monitor any peace deal, thus giving Armenia space for its withdrawal from Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.
Q: The Azerbaijani authorities say that they will never give independence to Karabakh's Armenians and offer instead the highest level of autonomy which they say is the only way to settle the Karabakh conflict. What is your personal opinion on this problem? May the right to self-determination justify ethnic cleansing and occupation, as happened during the Armenian military invasion of Azerbaijan?
A: There is never any justification for the invasion and occupation of another country’s sovereign territory nor for ethnic cleansing; the most terrible evidence of this being the massacre of Azerbaijani citizens in the town of Khojaly in Nagorno-Karabakh. There are four UN Security Council resolutions that stipulate that Armenia must withdraw from the territories that it has occupied illegally and that the ethnic Azerbaijani population must be allowed to return to their homes. In my view a resolution of the conflict will require compromise by both sides but any solution must be based on the principle of territorial integrity as recognized by international law.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
