The first event in a series of three Round Tables Discussions organised by LINKS on the theme “Prospects, benefits and perils of regional interaction in the South Caucasus was held at the International Press Club in Baku, Azerbaijan on Thursday, 29th of March 2007. The following is a summary of proceedings -
(1) The first event in a series of three Round Tables Discussions organised by LINKS on the theme “Prospects, benefits and perils of regional interaction in the South Caucasus was held in Baku, Azerbaijan on Thursday, 29th of March 2007. The meeting was attended by members of parliament from Azerbaijan, diplomats accredited to Baku, students, academics and media journalists as well as NGO representatives
(2) The Chairman of the meeting Marek Resich, South Caucasus Co-ordinator for LINKS, made the opening remarks and explained the work of LINKS in general and in Azerbaijan in particular. This work includes an important capacity building project with the parliament of Azerbaijan, as well as work with NGOs and think tanks. He than introduced the members of the first panel of the round table discussion, composed of Mr. Dennis Sammut, Executive Director of LINKS and Mr. Siyavoush Novruzov MP, Head of Delegation of the Parliament of Azerbaijan to the South Caucasus Parliamentary Initiative (SCPI) discussing the topic “Regional Interaction and the process of conflict resolution in the South Caucasus”.
(3) Mr. Dennis Sammut, Executive Director of LINKS, started his presentation by asking if it is possible to speak of the South Caucasus as a region. He cited arguments that tend to suggest that there is no appetite for a regional approach in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The speaker questioned however if these positions are sustainable and if they reflect the reality on the ground. Mr. Sammut listed some of the many ways the three countries were inter-dependent, and said that because of these daily interactions there was the need for regional mechanisms to be in place. He argued that it is important to articulate regional interaction in pragmatic terms that show that there are tangible benefits for all concerned. Mr. Sammut then gave an overview of the South Caucasus Parliamentary Initiative (SCPI) as a unique example of actual interaction, at one of the most important levels – that of parliaments. He stated that this process has shown since 2003 that it was possible for the three countries to interact with each other despite the current difficult situation. The process has not been easy and without problems. Yet it was important to also appreciate where it had succeeded. He cited Azerbaijan as participating fully and constructively in the SCPI process, and said that the adoption by SCPI of the expert’s group report on interactions in the fields of banking, environment and transport in December 2006 was a positive achievement. He stated that whilst co-operation may not be possible before the conflicts are resolved, particularly the Karabakh conflict, positive interaction is a necessary precondition for conflict resolution. Mr. Sammut concluded his presentation by saying that the South Caucasus needed ambitious plans for regional cooperation, like the creation of a large special economic zone with extraterritorial status on territory leased by the three countries. It was through such ambitious and creative initiatives that the region can be catapulted into a modern region able to deal with and benefit from the processes of globalisation. These ideas were currently being considered by a Commission of eminent persons under the presidency of the Foreign Minister of Slovenia Dimitrij Rupel. The Caucasus Caspian Commission will be publishing its report in November 2007 and will deal with many of the issues being discussed. He said that he understood very well that many of these ideas were impossible to achieve before there is a solution to the Karabakh conflict, but said that preparatory groundwork could and should start as the process of conflict resolution develops..
(4) After thanking LINKS for its efforts in facilitating SCPI, Mr. Siyavoush Novruzov MP, Head of the Azerbaijan Delegation to SCPI, said he wanted to add a few words on SCPI in order to reflect the position of the Parliament of Azerbaijan. He said that one of the main aims of SCPI was to contribute to a peaceful resolution to the conflicts with the participation of the three Parliaments. He said that the conflicts in Georgia about Abkhazia and South Ossetia were preventing indirectly the integration of the region into EU structures, while the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh was directly preventing regional co-operation and was even hindering the ability of the region to integrate with EU structures. Mr. Novruzov said that the Armenian position of wanting first to cooperate and only after to find a resolution to the conflict was not acceptable to Azerbaijan. He stated that the position of Azerbaijan was that first the conflict had to be resolved and only after could there be cooperation with Armenia. Mr. Novruzov said that the Expert’s report agreed in December 2006 in the framework of the SCPI process showed well how the three spheres of banking, the environment and transport are damaged by the ongoing non-resolution of the conflict. He said that in the case of Armenia, a lack of relation with Azerbaijan will only result in more negative effects in the future. In contrast, he stated that Azerbaijan was finding alternative ways of development. He hailed the relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia as exemplary. Mr. Novruzov concluded by referring to the ideas mentioned by Dennis. Sammut in his intervention, He referred to a decree signed by the President of Azerbaijan a few days before for the creation of free economic zones in Azerbaijan. Mr. Novruzov said that this kind of arrangements could foresee the participation of Armenia in the future, but only after the resolution of the conflict.
(5) After the presentations of the two speakers on this first panel, the floor was opened for questions and comments from other participants. Mrs Gular Akhmadova MP, commented on the idea of free economic zones. She said that this kind of idea was already implemented in the time of the Soviet Union and that Georgia and Armenia profited more that Azerbaijan from this scheme. Therefore, in the current situation she was against the idea of a free economic zone before Armenia released Azerbaijani occupied territories. In addition, she stated that as she could anticipate where such a zone could be located between Georgia and Azerbaijan, she could not foresee where it would be with Armenia. Mr. Sammut, answered to her comment by stating that for such a scheme to be successful, all sides should benefit from it. Mr. Novruzov also added that he agreed with many points cited by Mrs Akhmadova, but he said that Azerbaijan could not be isolated.
(6) Mr Zahid Oruc MP stated that cooperation between Azerbaijan and Armenia would not help solve the conflict. In addition, in his opinion, Azerbaijan has nothing to gain from cooperation with Armenia at this stage. He also said that he was suspicious of foreign countries advocating cooperation between Azerbaijan and Armenia. He said that these countries were doing it because they had an interest in it, but he as an MP, would have great troubles explaining to the people in his constituency how this cooperation is benefiting Azerbaijan. Therefore, he is against cooperation with Armenia before the resolution of the conflict.
(7) Mr. Aydin Mirzazadeh MP, said that the national interest of Azerbaijan was evolving over the years. He said that in the years 1992 to 1995, the national interest was to draw the attention of the world to the events happening in Nagorno-Karabakh. But in 2007, he said, the national interest has evolved. Azerbaijan succeeded with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku rail link in integrating its economic future with the world community. He said that currently the national interest of Azerbaijan was to have its full territorial integrity restored. Therefore, he also stated that he was against any cooperation with Armenia, before the resolution of the conflict.
(8) Mr. Sammut, in his concluding remarks said that there are different ways of dealing with the current situation and all these ways needed to be explored and none discarded. A strategy that was useful ten years ago, may be less useful today. Azerbaijan has therefore to consider its options carefully. Mr. Novruvoz in his concluding remarks said that he did not fully agree with the idea that Armenia would not be an interesting partner in future cooperation. He said that the region needed to be at peace in order to realise its full potential.
(9) After a short coffee break the Chairman convened the round table meeting for the second panel discussion entitled “In what spheres is regional interaction in the South Caucasus necessary and desirable?”. The panel was composed of four experts who helped draft the “Report of the expert Group on regional interaction in the spheres of Banking, the Environment and Transport in the South Caucasus” in the framework of the SCPI process, namely Mr Ruhulla Aliev (Azerbaijan), Mr Elshad Askerov (Azerbaijan) Mr Afil Hajiyev (Azerbaijan) and Mr George Geguchadze (Georgia). All panellists started by making short opening remarks.
(10) Mr Ruhulla Aliev, an expert on the banking sphere, said that the Banking sector was the second largest economic sector in Azerbaijan after energy. The country last year changed its currency and introduced for the first time mortgage laws. He said that within the SCPI working group the experts from the three countries had exchanged views and information on the sector. Azerbaijan had not suffered unduly from the lack of regional co-operation in this sphere because it had enough liquidity and financial means. However in global terms the Azerbaijan banking sector was small so in a situation where it could be looked at from a regional perspective it could be more interesting for foreign investors. Ruhulla Aliev said that Azerbaijan was part of an international banking and financial arrangement called FAT and so was Georgia. Armenia was not because it was in violation of FAT procedures because it allowed banks to be established on Azerbaijani occupied territory.
(11) Mr Elshad Asgerov, Azerbaijani expert on environment, said that the report evaluated the situation in the South Caucasus. He said that for Azerbaijan there was an urgent issue arising out of the fact that most of Azerbaijan forests was in territory currently controlled by Armenia and there was a need for an agreement on the safeguard of this natural heritage. He referred to the suggestions arising out of the report for an action plan involving the three countries and to the need for a Caucasus Ecological Convention that would regulate the safeguard of the environment by all three countries.
(12) Mr Afil Haciyev, Azerbaijani expert on Transport referred to new projects such as the Baku – Tbilisi – Kars transport corridor and a new railway connecting Nachichevan to Turkey. These will greatly reduce Azerbaijani dependence on Armenia. He said that good work was done by the experts group in the framework of SCPI on ideas for the future. These plans were more important for Armenia than for Azerbaijan but Azerbaijan will be ready to participate also once the conflict is resolved.
(13) Mr Giorgi Geguchadze, Georgian Expert on the banking sphere said that the South Caucasus region had for too long been known for its problems but for the first time now it is being known for its successes and this was an important change of perception. He agreed that many more success could be achieved if the conflicts in the region are resolved and said that we must all work for that. He referred to a recent opinion poll in Georgia that put the issue of territorial integrity as being the one of most concern to people. Mr Geguchadze said the report presented in the SCPI framework was an important document. All the data was reliably collected. Relations in the banking sphere were slowly developing, for example the International bank of Azerbaijan would shortly open a branch in Georgia. It was important that the three countries worked together to solve the problems they face in all spheres concluded mr Geguchadze.
(14) The four experts answered questions from the audience regarding their presentations. Replying to questions Mr Asgerov said that the three South Caucasus countries were already members of several conventions on environment, for example the 1992 convention on biodiversity and it was important that they adhere to their obligations under these conventions.
(15) Mr Siyavoush Novruzov MP asked what were the possibilities for international support for the continuation of the type of positive interaction as had been experienced through the SCPI process and the experts report on banking, environment and transport. He indicated that there was readiness for the experts to continue to do their work but it was not clear if support would be forthcoming for this to happen. In response Mr Sammut said that discussions were on going with a number of international organisations, particularly the European Union who had shown an interest in the work being done.
(16) Concluding the meeting, the Chairman, Mr Marek Resich thanked the participants and the panellists for their contribution and said that LINKS will be organising similar roundtables shortly also in Tbilisi and in Yerevan.
