THE EUROPEAN UNION WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CHOICE OF COMPROMISE AND PEACE

The European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton addressed the European Parliament on 6 July 2011 on the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.

 

This is the full text of Baroness Ashton's speech:

 

Honourable Members, Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I am grateful to have this opportunity to exchange views on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict.

 

When I – along with Presidents Van Rompuy and Barroso – met with President Medvedev at the EU-Russia summit in Nizhny – Novgorod on 9 June, he was optimistic about the possibilities for a breakthrough at the Kazan meeting.

 

Much work had been done by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs and the parties to make progress towards an agreement on the Basic Principles, the first step in a process leading to the drafting of a formal peace agreement, and then its implementation.

 

We made clear to President Medvedev that we fully support his personal mediation efforts, and the work of the Minsk Group.

 

The Deauville statement of Presidents Obama, Medvedev and Sarkozy made clear that the time had now come for an agreement, failing which the parties’ commitment to a solution would be questioned.

 

Regrettably, despite strong messages at the highest level, the expected breakthrough at Kazan on 24 June did not materialise.

 

President Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Sargisyan of Armenia did not take this opportunity to reach a compromise.

 

Admittedly, relations between the two countries are difficult. I recently met the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Bratislava, and I have no illusions about the complexity of the negotiations. The Co-Chairs keep me and the EEAS fully informed of their work and the many difficulties they face.

 

I was also briefed in Vilnius last Friday by the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Audronius Azubalis, who is now the Chairman in Office of the OSCE.

 

Nevertheless, efforts to find an agreement on the Basic Principles must continue, and I welcome the fact that both parties have re-committed themselves to the diplomatic process and to finding a peaceful solution.

 

But we need to see more than that in the coming months. The parties need to redouble their efforts to find an agreement before the end of this year. This would then happen before domestic priorities take over in 2012: elections in Armenia in 2012, and in Azerbaijan in 2013.

 

Indeed, a continuation of the status quo is unacceptable, as is any effort to resolve the conflict or influence the negotiations by using force, or even the threat of force.

 

The peaceful settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict is a key strategic interest of the European Union.

 

A settlement of the conflict would transform the South Caucasus region.

 

It would pave the way towards political and regional stability, and new economic opportunities.

 

Borders could open not only between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also between Armenia and Turkey.

 

Roads, railways and pipelines could take the shortest route, and tie the countries of the region more closely together.

 

And the South Caucasus could finally become what it should have been already – a gateway between Europe and Asia.

 

All of this is clearly in the interest of the European Union, too.

 

The EU is ready and committed to step up its efforts in support of the work of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

 

The negotiations have been going on since 1994 in the current format. An agreement on the Basic Principles is within reach.

 

The nature of the additional support that we can provide is of course a matter for consultation with the Minsk Group Co-Chairs and the parties.

 

And I can assure you that we are holding regular consultations with them on this subject.

 

Let me be very clear, however. What happens in these final negotiations matters greatly to the European Union, and will play a role in the way we shape our policy towards the two countries concerned.

 

On my behalf, Miroslav Lajcak travelled to both countries last month, and made this point very clearly.

 

We hope to see progress by the time of the planned Eastern Partnership Summit in September in Warsaw.

 

I also see clear possibilities for enhanced EU engagement outside the negotiations themselves.

 

We are already supporting confidence building and outreach activities to people on both sides, often through civil society organisations who promote people-to-people contacts, including in the framework of the Council of Europe. But we can do more here.

 

I also believe that the European Union should be prepared to take on significant responsibilities in the implementation of a settlement, once we reach this stage, in close co-operation with other parts of the international community.

 

There will much to do, from reconstruction, mine clearance and refugee and IDP returns to the promotion of economic recovery and security support.

 

I also recognize that there are other partners who play a significant role in the South Caucasus region. For instance, the EU needs to work closely with regional actors like Turkey.

 

I have proposed the appointment of a new Special Representative for the South Caucasus to take these different work strands forward, in close consultation with the Minsk Group co-chairs.

 

Perhaps our most important contribution, however, will be to continue strengthen our bilateral relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

 

The new European Neighbourhood Policy communication that we just discussed sets out an ambitious agenda for the countries of the South Caucasus:

 

New Association Agreements,

 

Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, including improved access to the EU’s internal market;

 

  • Increased and facilitated mobility, especially for students and business;

  • Increased sectoral co-operation and participation in EU programmes;

  • increased support for civil society and the open society.

 

Our overall objective is to help our neighbouring countries build a comprehensive reform agenda.

 

In this context, we will of course be looking at ways in which our bilateral co-operation can be geared to support conflict settlement.

 

Stefan Füle recently visited Armenia to discuss how to take our relationship forward and build a common, positive and forward-looking agenda together.

 

More generally, I also believe more confident, attractive and modern countries with ambitious reform agendas are in a stronger position to overcome the difficult legacies of the past.

 

Ultimately this is a choice that the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan need to make themselves, in the best interests of the people they represent.

 

We know which choice we would like them to make: it is the choice of compromise and peace.

 


 

source: www.europa.eu

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)