ONE STANCE FITS ALL

The European parliament has adopted a draft resolution on a European Neighbourhood Policy, in which it is mentioned that the occupation of a state participating in the "Eastern Partnership" programme by another participant state is a violation of the fundamental principles and aims of the "Eastern Partnership".

It has been expressly stressed that the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict should be settled on the basis of the resolutions and basic principles adopted by the UN Security Council, which require the complete, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from the territory of Azerbaijan and ensuring the territorial integrity, sovereignty and inviolability of Azerbaijan's borders.

We began our interview with Neil Macfarlane, [Lester B. Pearson] Professor of International relations and Fellow of St. Anne's College, Oxford University, by analysing this resolution.

- How would you comment on the European Parliament's latest resolution, which states the need to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh issue on the basis of the well-known UN Security Council resolutions and the AQUILA statement of the leaders of the mediating countries?

- There is nothing new in this document. The European structures, i.e. the European Parliament, the European Commission and the EU Council are taking a sufficiently consistent stand, and this is reflected in the common desire of European countries to preserve territorial integrity. If we were to change our minds about that, there would be numerous regions and groups that would put forward claims for self-determination by means of secession. This resolution also reflects the shared European sentiments about upholding the European Security Council resolutions.

At the same time, there is no specific mention of occupier countries. Moreover, the reference to the AQUILA statement and fundamental principles points to the fact that the European parliament is adopting a proposal that, in accordance with the agreement, Nagornyy Karabakh should assume an interim status with security guarantees and peace-keeping forces, in the expectation that a decision will be taken on the ultimate status of the region, based on the legally binding will of its residents and repatriates.

A positive moment here is that this decision of the European Parliament will not do much harm to the actual settlement process. The negative aspect is that the resolution does not have any real force to further promote the process.

Finally there is no mention in the document of the EU's wish to assume a more significant role in the peace process in the Caucasus.

Armenia's deputy foreign minister, Shavarsh Kocharyan, has moreover already stated that the formulation in the resolution on Nagornyy Karabakh is purportedly "in contradiction to the EU official stance and also to the approaches of the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group of the OSCE [Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe] and will have a damaging effect on the on-going talks. What do you think about this annoyed reaction to a simple statement of fact?

 I do not think that the European Parliament's resolution should have evoked such a response from Mr. Kocharyan. The principles of territorial integrity and self-determination defended by the EU are common ones and consequently apply in the case of Nagornyy Karabakh. This standpoint is neither pro-Azerbaijan nor pro-Armenia.

- Yerevan has decided to join the Customs Union proposed by Russia, hasn't it? What real benefits will Armenia gain from this, since it does not share frontiers with any of the member-states of the Customs Union?

- We'll wait and see. Remember how Mr Ivanishvili [Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili] said a little while ago that Georgia was thinking about joining the Customs Union. I personally think that borders are not really important. Russia has numerous levers (economic and military) for bringing pressure to bear on Armenia. Mr Sargsyan does not wish (or is not in a position) to undermine his relations with Russia. The Russians have given him a very clear choice. To all appearances, he has had to take a predictable decision. I do not think it is a matter of gaining major economic advantages. This decision is mostly likely being forced upon the [Armenian] government.

The decision to join the Customs Union caused protests among a considerable part of the Armenian population, who perceive this step by their authorities as a rejection of European integration. To what extent are their fears justified? The Armenian authorities, for example, are continuing to assert that the protesters are mistaken.

Yes, some people are not happy about it. But when did public protests ever have any effect in Armenia? As far as integration with Europe is concerned, everything depends on what is understood by this integration. In any case, Armenia did not have any prospects of joining the EU. In these circumstances, they will neither get an Association Agreement nor a Free Trade Agreement. But the Free Trade Agreement would make an insignificant impact on its economy. Armenia might possibly be able to continue to pursue political co-operation and enjoy a relaxing of the visa regime.

- According to the recent vote in the UN, in two years' time Lithuania will replace Azerbaijan in its non-permanent member seat at the UN Security Council. What do you think Azerbaijan has gained from its participation in this representative structure, including its two-month-long chairmanship? 

- Membership has been beneficial for Azerbaijan from the point of view of its image, although it did not make any marked impact on the specific issues facing Azerbaijan (the Nagornyy Karabakh issue, for example). Incidentally, the same will be true of Lithuania. This is owing to the fact that the Security Council is unable to function properly and the non-permanent members actually have little say.