Karabakh conflict in focus at Oxford Conference

Armenian and Azerbaijani diplomats, academics and civil society activists, and counterparts from a number of European countries, met in Oxford on Tuesday, 11 November at a conference with the theme "The impact of international and regional developments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process."

The one-day conference was organised by LINKS and the Russia and Eurasia Studies Centre, St Antony's College, Oxford University.

Since the start of the conference co-incided with the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day of the eleventh month - the proceedings at the conference started with a two minute silence to remember all those who died in wars in the last century.

Speakers at the conference included, Professor Dan Healey, Director, Russia and Eurasia Studies Centre, St Antony's College, Oxford University; Dennis Sammut (LINKS and Oxford University); Dr Walter Kemp, (International Peace Institute, Vienna); Ambassador Herbert Salber, (European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the Conflict in Georgia). Professor Roy Allison (RESC, Oxford University)  Richard Giragosian (Regional Studies Centre Yerevan), Ambassador Khazar Ibrahim (Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to NATO), Amanda Paul (European Policy Centre, Brussels). Dr Sabine Freizer (Atlantic Council Eurasia Centre, Washington DC); Avaz Hasanov (Society for Humanitarian Research, Baku); Masis Mayilyan (Public Council for Foreign and Security Policy, Stepanakert); Professor Neil Macfarlane (International Relations Department, Oxford University); Dr Laurence Broers (Caucasus Program Associate, Conciliation Resources, London); Orkhan Akbarov, (Council of Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno-Karabakh, Baku); and Craig Oliphant (Saferworld, London).

source: commonspace.eu

photo: The openiong of the conference on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict held in Oxford on 11 November 2014.

 

 

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)