BEING A SATELLITE WILL NOT BRING SECURITY

Latvian President (1999-2007) Vaira Vike-Freiberga was an active participant in the first South Caucasus forum which was held from 6 to 8 May in Baku. She kindly shared with R+ her impressions of the forum, her visit to Azerbaijan and burning topics of the regional and world agenda

- First of all it would be interesting to know what you think of the results of the first South Caucasus forum that was held in Baku. What is the role of these kinds of events in solving urgent questions facing countries today?

- The leaders of different countries that are encountering problems specific to them individually gathered for the forum in Baku. The general view was that sometimes nothing can be done for years in difficult situations, but they keep trying. For example, we spoke about religion - we discussed such things as freedom of religious choice, freedom of conscience, how countries relate to the existence of various opinions, to ethnic diversity and all those things which by their very nature can divide people. There is no special magic formula which can be applied and produce a guaranteed result. I believe that a magic formula lies in the need to respect and recognize the fact that all people are born equal and have equal rights. It is also about accepting the principles that in a democratic state all citizens have equal rights whatever their individual differences such as ethnic origin, appearance and religious convictions. This is a universal formula but it is not always applied in practice. We have been discussing here the fact that various countries, proceeding from different starting points, are trying to achieve a given objective - to build a state, a country, a nation, where there is supremacy of the law and human rights are respected and where everyone has equal opportunities. This need not be confused with communist ideology, which is something quite different. But we must think about such problems as poverty and the differences between the very rich and the very poor. These problems exist all over the world, even in the developed countries.

In Azerbaijan, thanks to your natural wealth, you have been able to substantially reduce poverty and, of course, you have a plan about how to continue in this same vein. Other countries, like mine, for example, do not have natural resources, and we must rely completely on our imagination and knowledge and we must work hard. But our aims are the same. Also, such conferences help to develop a dialogue between those who are or have been leaders in various countries and representatives of NGOs, intellectuals, members of respected international groups, such as the UN and other international organizations, who have immense experience in tackling practical problems in various parts of the world with varying degrees of success. For example, we heard about situations which do not look very good but this is no reason to give up and not try to do anything to change them.

- At such forums you focus considerable attention on the problem of people who have become forced migrants as a result of wars. Azerbaijan has itself experienced all the gravity of this problem. What do you think is the main reason why the international community is not paying sufficient attention to the problem of hundreds of thousands of forced migrants, one which Azerbaijan has encountered?

- This is my personal opinion, and it is that the international community has not been very consistent in the question of trying to resolve international conflicts. Sometimes it intervenes in a very active way, ready to take tough measures, and sometimes, as happened in Rwanda and Srebrenica, it does virtually nothing, and mass murder is carried out virtually before the eyes of the international organizations. In this case it is difficult to reach international solutions because the international community is divided. And when there is a local conflict the friends of one side are lined up on one side of the barricades, and the friends of the other side on the other. And if they are too divided nothing happens and the situation is deadlocked. To be honest with you, the Minsk Group has been a disappointment. It was created so that the OSCE would delegate a small group of countries that would work actively towards resolving a conflict. I think, perhaps, that these countries were not the best choice in the sense of their ability to preserve real neutrality in regard to the situation. This is totally my own personal opinion and I am not representing anyone when I express it. My personal opinion is why not entrust mediatory functions to neutral countries?

I think that the best solution is to have mediators who have no obligations to either of the sides. When countries express feelings for various reasons to one side or the other I start to suspect that the mediators are not quite neutral and are insufficiently active. And because everything is under control, no-one else can intervene. The Minsk Group was entrusted with tackling this problem, it must work on it, and no-one else has the power to interfere in this process in any way.

- Azerbaijan is a Muslim country which, by the way, sees European integration as its priority. At the same time, Azerbaijan has a complicated neighbourhood situation, with Russia to the north and Iran to the south and each has its own interests. And I am not even talking about the difficulties of its relationship with Armenia, with whom Azerbaijan has a military conflict. Do these factors complicate the prospects for Azerbaijan's European integration? And, incidentally, how is this integration affected by the fact that Azerbaijan is a Muslim state and there are certain phobias about Islam in Europe?

- I believe that in Europe the religious aspect has already disappeared from the picture. This has been a long process, with the exception, of course, of the Balkans and Northern Ireland. In the other parts of Europe the reasons for conflict lie in economic, territorial and ideological interests. It may be that the reason lies in the fact that Europe has a long history of religious wars which have caused great damage. But then we have seen countries like France talking about the inadmissibility of Turkey joining the EU because it is a Muslim country. And France does this because of its domestic situation with migrants from the Muslim countries that were former French colonies. This is not the general feeling in Europe.  Or, for example, Germany where after the war there were 7 million refugees who wanted to remain and work in Europe, but the UN forced them to leave Europe and scatter all over the world, except perhaps for the Antarctic. And then Germany was forced to import manpower from Turkey and Morocco, and so on. If we are talking about the uniformity of the Christian world, then they have gone the wrong way about it. But it was the decision of the UN at the time and no-one had the slightest idea how the situation would develop in the future.

Going back to the expansion of the EU, all its members, when there was a crisis in the eurozone, especially in France, and to a lesser degree in other countries, began saying that the expansion was too great and too quick. It is much more difficult to control a large group of countries. Speaking objectively, everything is just as involved as it was then. But these problems were not caused by the lowering of the "iron curtain" and the countries of Eastern Europe joining the EU. There are quite different reasons for the financial crisis. Now, people have started talking about Serbia joining the EU, and before that there was Croatia. And if you glance at the map and want to gradually enclose Europe's borders you will see that the entry of these countries is a priority. You could say that the Caucasus is too far from the EU and, perhaps, it should have its own alliance, but how can this be created between countries which have territorial differences?

- And, finally: Azerbaijan is pursuing an independent foreign policy. This is rather difficult when it has neighbours such as Russia and Iran who at times have regarded Azerbaijan as a part of their territory. Do you think that Baku will be able to maintain its independent policy?

- I don't think there is any alternative.  Being a satellite of Iran or Russia will not bring either stability or security. Perhaps even the opposite.  You tried to get independence after the collapse of the Russian Empire, then there was the Communist Empire, and it was only after the collapse of the USSR that you acquired stable independence. This is a most valuable acquisition and you must protect it from anyone who tries to approach you from the position of "Big Brother". Your country is mature and strong enough to determine its own destiny. What you really need are constructive and friendly relations in a climate of mutual respect with your neighbours.