AVOIDING INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE

The unresolved status of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict over the past 20 years and the ineffectiveness of the OSCE Minsk Group are making the situation in the South Caucasus increasingly dangerous. Azerbaijan demands that its occupied territories be liberated and the rights of the million refugees and internally displaced persons be ensured, and is ready to settle the conflict within the framework of territorial integrity. However, this position is perceived with hostility in Yerevan, which undermines all attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. In these circumstances, Azerbaijan has to spend a lot of money on weapons for its army. The director of the British NGO LINKS, Dennis Sammut, shared his views on the situation in the region with R+.

- There is great concern in Armenia about the sale of $ 1 billion worth of arms by Russia to Azerbaijan. Many Armenian experts see this deal as a sign of a shift in the position of Armenia's "strategic ally" (Russia) in regional policy. It's interesting to know your opinion about the situation.

- I think Russia is being very cynical. It has flooded the region with arms, selling them to Azerbaijan, and giving them in compensation for the Russian base to Armenia. This is whilst also being co-chair of the Minsk process which is supposed to work for a peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict between the two countries. There is an arms race in the South Caucasus, and Russia is one of the key providers, probably the main provider, of these weapons. Sooner or later these weapons are going to be used in the killing of many innocent Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Russia knows the South Caucasus well and understands better than anybody else how dangerous it is to turn the region into a military arsenal. For this reason, the Russian action can only be described as cynical.

- Could this be Russia's response to the proposed Association Agreement between Armenia and the EU?

- There are some in Armenia, and in Russia, and even in Azerbaijan, who do not want Armenia and the European Union to sign an Association Agreement. Some are saying that as a result Russia will turn against Armenia. This is very simplistic. Russia and Armenia have a military and political relationship that is mutually convenient, and the Association Agreement with the EU, at least in the short-term, does not affect that. It will however do one thing. It will make Armenia less dependent on Russia in the long-term. Maybe some in Russia do not want that. Last week in Yerevan European Commissioner Stefan Fule made it clear that the EU is not asking Armenia to change its relationship with Russia, before or after signing the Association Agreement. I think to link the issue of the arms sales to Azerbaijan with that is not realistic.

- What do you think about the incident with the Moldovan ombudsman Aurelia Grigoriu after her speech in the Armenian Parliament? Is it a sign that Armenian society is not ready to accept an alternative opinion about the Karabakh conflict?

- There is general intolerance in the South Caucasus to people who have different opinions. Aurelia Grigoriu had every right to say what she said. Whether or not she said it in the most diplomatic or sensitive way possible - or even if she was trying to be provocative on purpose is another issue, but she still had a right for her opinion. I think there was an over-reaction in Armenia on this.

- What should be done to enhance mutual trust between Azerbaijani and Armenian societies?

- It is now clearer than ever that there needs to be an honest discussion within the two societies first about the whole issue of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. These discussions should not be based on emotions but about how to create the best conditions for future generations. This then needs to be followed by more intensive discussions between different communities. This process cannot be top down. It needs to be bottom-up, and there needs to be a genuine demand for it if it is to succeed. In the meantime, there is big responsibility on the media and on leaders of society. They must lead by example in this by avoiding inflammatory language. Unless the atmosphere within the two countries and in the conflict zone changes there is very little hope that the peace negotiations will succeed.

- Azerbaijan says that the Minsk Group co-chairs should work more for the actual settlement of the Karabakh conflict itself rather than focus on the situation on the line of contact. Baku is also concerned that the co-chair countries do not refer in their statements to the four UN Security Council resolutions on the conflict. What are your views on the settlement process?

- I also agree that the first priority of the Minsk process needs to be the settlement of the conflict, and that in working to stabilize the situation on the front line they should not contribute to freezing the situation as it is. The status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable. However the situation on the line of contact remains tense and dangerous so it is to be expected that the Minsk Group diplomats are concerned about this and try to manage the situation to avoid misperception and to reduce tension. As long as they do the first, they should not be criticized for doing also the second.

With regards to the four UN Security Council Resolutions they are non-binding resolutions. However even so they offer a position of the international community on the conflict and should not be ignored.