Who stands in the way of the conflict settlement?

09/08/2006 Irina SARGSYAN

Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the Karabakh conflict settlement have been and are still the reason for the ups and downs of Armenia’s internal and foreign politics.

I interviewed politician, sociologist and head of the European Academy of Berlin Ekart Shtratenshulte regarding these two issues.

– The international community demands to see the Karabakh conflict settled in 2006. What do you have to say about the current situation?

– I believe that the Karabakh conflict settlement depends on whether or not the “current players”, which play a major role in the region, are really interested in seeing the conflict settled. This especially concerns Russia. There are always ways in politics if, of course, the sides want to find those ways. The question is whether or not there are people among Armenian and Azeri authorities who actually want to settle the conflict, or if there are a number of people who get something out of that. After all, the conflict is a good excuse to prolong the planned social reforms. It’s hard to predict how long the Karabakh conflict settlement will take all the way from Berlin. I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan can give a more precise answer, taking into consideration the fact that Russia is not interested in settling regional conflicts due to the fact that it’s able to keep a firm hold on the region through the means of its “frozen conflict”. So, the first thing that should be on the minds of the Armenian and Azeri authorities is to come to terms with Russia. I don’t really know if that will work out. Either it will be quick, or it will take many years because as soon as Russia starts thinking about its upcoming presidential elections, it will no longer care about similar issues. As I see it, Karabakh has two issues: first, the problem with rights belonging to the state, when Azerbaijan demands territorial integrity and Armenia demands the autonomy right. If you look at both sides, there are hundreds of thousands of refugees. Question: what’s going to happen to those refugees? I get the impression that those refugees are going to turn into a plaything for the sides to pressure one another, just like in Palestine. The Palestinian conflict could have been settled a long time ago if the Arabic countries integrated them into their society. But of course, they wouldn’t benefit from losing that loop. What I’m trying to say is that it’s important to pay attention to the human factor. This plays a very decisive role.

– What do you think about Turkey’s possible admission to the European Union (EU)?

– That’s a new challenge both for Turkey and the EU. The EU has decided to start negotiations with Turkey and it’s already in the process. But there is no real consensus for Turkey’s admission to the EU. This situation may change within the next 10-15 years. It depends on how much Turkey will change. But what’s also important is how the EU will develop in the years to come, or whether the EU will manage to include more countries because Turkey’s admission may change the tectonics and structure of the EU. If admitted, Turkey will be the most populated and poorest country of the EU. If you look at geographically, it’s going to be the outskirt of Europe. Besides that, Turkey is a country that differs from the other member countries with its culture and religious orientation. These are crucial factors. It’s important to change the EU as an institution. In other words, not only Turkey, but also the U.S. must “do their homework”.

– Do you think that Turkey will be admitted to the EU without recognizing the Armenian Genocide?

– Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not a standard or prerequisite for Turkey to get admitted. I can even say that the two are incoherent. However, as to how Turkey looks at the matter says a lot about the issues concerning Turkey’s political culture, which make it difficult to enter the EU. But let’s just wait and see because perhaps there will be changes. It seems as though Turkish historians slowly want to analyze history. Of course, it’s difficult to make Turkey accept our point of views and force them to recognize the Armenian Genocide from different corners of the world. Turkey must analyze its history. We Germans know it very well. For the time being, I don’t believe that this is a standard or prerequisite, but it is something standing in the way. Might I add that Turkey’s EU admission issue won’t be solved anytime soon and there’s still time. One thing that remains unclear is if Turkish society wants to take that step and make reforms, or if there’s some kind of political agreement. After all, this means to let go of sovereignty. Here is where we will see the participation of different countries in solving this issue and they can’t say that foreigners are getting involved in internal affairs because there will no longer be internal affairs. The EU stands for peace and values and consists of countries that have rejected their sovereignty. This entire system has turned into a big machine, trying to create and keep a consensus between the countries. So, this is a big compromise, which will lead to the peaceful development of Europe.

– How can you explain the failure of accepting the EU Constitution?

– The Constitution is currently going through rough times because it hasn’t been validated by two sides-France and Holland. It has been validated by the rest of the 18 countries, including Romania and Bulgaria. Both are going to join the EU in 2007. France and Holland must make a final decision on this. The state and government officials have decided to postpone the approval of the Constitution until 2008. That year is tied to the end of French president Zhak Shirak’s term. Let me put it to you this way-the Constitution is not dead, it’s simply in a “coma”. This means that it can come back to life and flourish, but it depends on the future reforms in France and Holland.

– Is there a need to have a Constitution?

– The problem is that the European Union is currently functioning like a union consisting of six countries, when there are really 27 countries. It’s like having a store with no management turn into a mall. The Constitution was aimed towards changing this structure. It’s very important from this perspective. As to what the name of that Constitution will be or if it will be considered the law for everyone, that’s a different story. The important thing is the structure, which will help govern the 27 or more countries in a way so that citizens of the countries feel that they can help build the EU democratically and see the results. The Constitution is a big step towards that.