Confederation in South Caucasus unreal yet - Ali Hasanov

1news.az interviewed Ali Hasanov, Head of the public policy department of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan.

Creation of confederation of Azerbaijan-Turkey or Turkey-Azerbaijan-Georgia or even the Confederation Georgia-Azerbaijan has been discussed intensively lately. For example, in his recent statement to Georgian mass media, Deputy Foreign Minister of this country Nino Kalandadze stated readiness of her state to unite into a confederation with Azerbaijan. What do you think about it, as an official representative of the presidential administration?

You know, it is not an easy question. Certainly, such ideas exist, in different periods they were voiced by these or those politicians and it became the object of discussions. The example of confederation has been earlier in the South Caucasus. At that time, before three South Caucasus countries joined the USSR in separate, there was the South Caucasus confederation. Similar ideas were voiced in the next periods.

The European Union also voices ideas that after the South Caucasus countries settle all conflict situations between them and join into a single confederation, make the borders transparent and facilitate their customs issues, entry-exit issues and so on, the future integration of these countries to EU is quite possible.

Today the experience of confederations of interstate unions is either studied or applied in different parts of the Earth. Such issues are being discussed but they are not that simple. In case such issues became pressing, they will require serious discussion. This issue must become an object of serious discussions by the public, parliaments, sociopolitical circles of the state and it is necessary to define all of its positive and negative aspects. In this view, it is currently impossible to say clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this idea. There are ideas, discussions are underway, future will show whether this idea is true, whether the probability of its implementation is high and which positive or negative features it may have.

Do you think that if the process comes close to being realized, it may cause a stiff reaction and pressure of our northern and southern neighbors?


I do not want to give any predictions about what is inexistent yet. This issue is unreal so far and there is no serious reaction to it. Certainly, in case this idea is realized, some circles will take actions based on their interests.

For example, at the recent conference in Batumi, I stated existence of definite circles and powers that are not interested in peace, stability and international friendship between the South Caucasus and keen on constant conflicts between these peoples and states. But after peoples and nations and states define the clear circle of their interests and come to a definite solution, external powers will not be able to influence them. Therefore, I don’t want to comment on what does not exist. We’ll see.

By saying external powers, do you imply official circles or any power centers?

I wouldn’t like to specify them. Among them, there will be either states or sociopolitical circles and groups. For example, let’s say, in every country there are different communities. There are nationalists, internationalists and there are those who sacrifice the interests of separate countries in favor of their own.

There are also those who offer to occupy the whole world and again divide it between 3-4 powers of influence. There may be different powers, but I wouldn’t specify them.

1news.az

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Borrell tells the European Parliament that the situation in Afghanistan was critical, but the EU will remain engaged

Borrell tells the European Parliament that the situation in Afghanistan was critical, but the EU will remain engaged

Borrell underlined that the European Union will make every effort to support the peace process and to remain a committed partner to the Afghan people. "Of course, we will have to take into account the evolving situation, but disengagement is not an option.  We are clear on that: there is no alternative to a negotiated political settlement, through inclusive peace talks.
Editor's choice
News
G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met under Canada’s G7 Presidency, in Niagara, on November 11-12, 2025. The Foreign Ministers of Brazil, India, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Ukraine, also joined the meeting for discussions on maritime security and prosperity, critical minerals, economic resilience and energy security. At the end of their meeting the G7 foreign ministers said: We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty, and independence. We reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed. We agreed that the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. We are increasing the economic costs to Russia, and exploring measures against countries and entities that are helping finance Russia’s war efforts. We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war. We acknowledged the ongoing discussions on a wide range of financing options, including further leveraging immobilised Russian Sovereign Assets in our jurisdictions in a coordinated way to support Ukraine. We strongly condemned Russia’s recent direct attacks on energy infrastructure and reaffirmed our support for Ukraine’s energy security. We reiterated our strong support for President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict. We welcomed the ceasefire and the release of hostages. We stressed the urgency of returning the remains of deceased hostages. We also welcomed the increased flows of aid, but expressed concern about restrictions that remain in place. We called on all parties to allow for humanitarian assistance without interference at scale, through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions and INGOs, as stipulated in President Trump’s plan. It is vital that all parties continue to engage constructively on the next steps outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, in pursuit of a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples that advances comprehensive Middle East peace and stability. We will also continue to maintain attention on the situation in the West Bank. (click headline to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
News
G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met under Canada’s G7 Presidency, in Niagara, on November 11-12, 2025. The Foreign Ministers of Brazil, India, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Ukraine, also joined the meeting for discussions on maritime security and prosperity, critical minerals, economic resilience and energy security. At the end of their meeting the G7 foreign ministers said: We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty, and independence. We reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed. We agreed that the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. We are increasing the economic costs to Russia, and exploring measures against countries and entities that are helping finance Russia’s war efforts. We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war. We acknowledged the ongoing discussions on a wide range of financing options, including further leveraging immobilised Russian Sovereign Assets in our jurisdictions in a coordinated way to support Ukraine. We strongly condemned Russia’s recent direct attacks on energy infrastructure and reaffirmed our support for Ukraine’s energy security. We reiterated our strong support for President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict. We welcomed the ceasefire and the release of hostages. We stressed the urgency of returning the remains of deceased hostages. We also welcomed the increased flows of aid, but expressed concern about restrictions that remain in place. We called on all parties to allow for humanitarian assistance without interference at scale, through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions and INGOs, as stipulated in President Trump’s plan. It is vital that all parties continue to engage constructively on the next steps outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, in pursuit of a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples that advances comprehensive Middle East peace and stability. We will also continue to maintain attention on the situation in the West Bank. (click headline to read more)