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
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)