Saxony celebrates a real première at the ITB Berlin 2021: The German state was appointed “Official Cultural Destination of the ITB Berlin 2021”, and one year later becomes the host country of the world’s largest travel trade fair. “The new concept of the cultural partnership is tailor-made for Saxony. This title is associated with a special opportunity to draw attention to Saxony as an outstanding world-class cultural and city travel destination in combination with unmistakable experiences of nature. In a way, we are offering the national and international trade public a foretaste of 2022, when Saxony will be the official ITB host country,” said Barbara Klepsch, Minister of State for Culture and Tourism in the Free State of Saxony. Originally, this status was already planned for 2021.
Next year, the Tourismus Marketing Gesellschaft Sachsen GmbH (TMGS) will present Saxony as the official cultural destination of the ITB Berlin and offer insights into Saxony’s rich cultural offerings with various events and activities.
“Whether on the big stage at the ITB Live Podcast Show in the Palais am Funkturm, in the closing show ‘Sinnesrausch’, or at various locations inside and outside the Berlin Exhibition Centre, we want to advertise for travel to our beautiful country under the motto “SAXONY – FEEL THE ART BEAT“. At the trade fair stand itself, the proximity of art and culture to nature will be palpable and the theme of water landscapes will create a flowing connection to the unmistakable cultural landscape.
State Counsellor Almut Möller and Ambassador Manori Premila Unambuwe – Picture by Hamburger Senatpressestelle.
Tuesday, 13 October 2020, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg’s State Counsellor Almut Möller, Plenipotentiary to the German Federation, the European Union and for Foreign Affairs received at the historic City Hall the recently accredited Ambassador of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Germany, Manori Premila Unambuwe, for a conversation on strengthening bilateral economic and cultural ties.
Ambassador Unambuwe likewise represents Sri Lanka as non-resident ambassador to Switzerland, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia with a chancellery located in Berlin, Germany. She holds an MBA in Business Administration and Management from the Australian Institute of Business headquartered in Adelaide, South Australia.
Previous to her ambassadorship Ambassador Manori Unambuwe was Director of Information and Communication at the Technology Agency of Sri Lanka in Colombo. On 20 August 2020, Ambassador Manori Unambuwe presented credentials to Federal President, Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier at Bellevue Palace located in Berlin-Tiergarten.
For further information Embassy of Sri Lanka to Germany, Switzerland, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia: https://www.srilanka-botschaft.de
On September 23 – H.E. Ms. Astrid Harz, Ambassador of Austria to the Kingdom of The Netherlands met H.E. Mr. Fernando Arias, for an inauguration visit with the Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)). She also presented him with the power of attorney by which she was appointed Permanent Representative of Austria at the OPCW and its Executive Board.
“International cooperation in the field of disarmament is one of Austria’s foreign policy priorities. Therefore, we will continue to fully support the important work of OPCW to achieve our common goal of a world without chemical weapons.” Said Ambassador Harz.
Poor and precarious working conditions of migrant workers in Dutch agriculture are not the exceptional result of rogue employers’ illegal practices, but sanctioned by legislation and collective labour agreements. This was a key message of the ISS study ‘Migrant Labour in Dutch Agriculture: Regulated Precarity’ presented during a public event on 8 October 2020 in Café UtopieOpens external, The Hague (and onlineOpens external).
Speakers from government, the trade union movement and the agricultural sector commented on the study presented by the authors Karin Astrid Siegmann and Julia Quaedvlieg.
The candid debate was opened by a keynote by Jaap Uijlenbroek, representing the Aanjaagteam Bescherming Arbeidsmigranten (Migrant Workers Protection Taskforce – established by the Dutch government in May 2020) and by reading out a letter by a Polish migrant farmworker. The worker described the poor working and living standards that he has endured since moving to the Netherlands. This opening reflected the central role of workers’ own perspectives in the study which are often missing in policy and media discourses.
The renewed attention to migrant workers’ precarious conditions under the COVID-19 pandemic has opened a window of opportunity for intervention to move from precarity towards decent migrant work in Dutch agriculture. The authors introduced concrete policy recommendations arguing, among others, that innovative models of outreach to and organizing of migrant farmworkers through cultural mediators form the basis to strengthen migrant workers’ economic, legal and social position.
Remembering Mahatma Gandhi and his tireless spirit for bringing about positive change through non-violent resistance.
On the 2nd of October 2020, the Stichting Standbeeld Mahatma Gandhi, with the support of the Embassy of Indiaand the Municipality of The Hague, observed the International Day of Non- Violence, which coincides with Gandhi’s 151st birthday, through broadcasting online a compilation of live and pre-recorded speeches made by various dignitaries, among those a speech was given by the Dutch Minister of Justice & Security, Mr. Ferdinand Grapperhaus, by the newly appointed Mayor of The Hague Mr. Jan Van Zanen and by the Ambassadors of India’s neighbouring countries, Afghanistan H.E. Mr. Mohammad Asif Rahimi and Bangladesh, H.E. Mr. Riaz Hamidullah.
This year’s modest celebration is a striking difference compared to last year’s celebration at the Peace Palace and the Grote Kerk, which gathered hundreds of people of different nationalities (including many diplomatic representatives and hundreds of school children), who participated in the memorable “Gandhi March for Non-Violence” throughout The Hague.
The message however, remains clear and urgent in the particularly challenging circumstances the world finds itself in. The UN Secretary-General Mr. António Guterres called for a global ceasefire in his annual address to the international community: “On this year’s observance, we have a special duty: stop the fighting to focus on our common enemy: COVID-19. There is only one winner of conflict during a pandemic: the virus itself. As the pandemic took hold, I called for a global ceasefire. Today we need a new push by the international community to make this a reality by the end of this year .”
The Chairman of the Stichting Standbeeld Mahatma Gandhi, Mr. Ram Lakhina reiterated the enduring relevance of the “Ghandian” philosophy and the work of his foundation: “Conflicts are an inevitable part of the human condition. Gandhi taught us that that the best way to resolve conflicts is through dialogue and peaceful means. Our purpose in organizing this program is to create greater awareness in resolving social and political conflicts. The Stichting Standbeeld Mahatma Gandhi was established 30 years ago to highlight Gandhi’s contribution to the world and to create awareness about his philosophy about non-violence resistance against oppression and for social and political change through peaceful means .”
Perhaps the most resonating, personal speech was given by Minister Grapperhaus, who gave this year’s keynote address. He opened his speech by quoting “Across the Universe” released by The Beatles in 1969:
“Jai guru deva om”, (…) this Sanskrit phrase means something like glory to the shining remover of darkness or simply “hail to the divine guru .” If I would sing those words, many of you would recognize them straight away. It is the mantra that is repeated in the Beatles’ song, “Across the Universe .” I am a big fan of the Beatles, and as a 10 year old, I sang along enthusiastically, without knowing what the words meant. It was only until much later that I realized what richness laid behind them. I am not especially religious, but now, 50 years on, I find that the philosophy at the heart of Hinduism largely matches my own world view. The way I approach my work and my outlook on life.
Today is Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday and the International Day of Non-Violence. (…) Freedom is not worth having if it doesn’t include the freedom to make mistakes, so said Gandhi, but he added, significantly, the important thing is to learn from them. I learned about Gandhi’s ideas towards the end of my primary school. I was brought up a Roman Catholic but was always taught to be open to other beliefs. I liked the fact that Gandhi took the same approach. You can only grow as a person, if you put yourself in other people’s shoes. Gandhi was a striking individual. Small, fragile-looking, with those iconic glasses. And the man who brought the British Empire to its knees. He showed that you could defeat a violent oppressor by means of peaceful protest, patience and dialogue. Since his death, the world has changed.
Two countries where Gandhi lived, India and South Africa had been transformed beyond recognition. Europe meanwhile has enjoyed an incredibly long period of peace. The Soviet Union has fallen apart and China has become an economic powerhouse. In most places but not everywhere alas, the world has become undeniably more prosperous, more democratic and more humane. At the same time, we are seeing greater self-assurance among people who although they live in freedom, feel discriminated against, who feel they don’t get a fair chance when they apply for jobs, who feel they are singled out for rougher treatment by the police, who question traditions, and there is growing unease in society, a new polarization, amplified by social media.
Organizing a protest was never so easy, the distance between ordinary people and authority has never been so small. I am curious about how Gandhi would have viewed all of this. Would he have applauded it or condemned it? Would he have been on Twitter? Would he have been described as “woke” or a “snowflake”? In fact, Gandhi is not immune to the upheaval of the modern world. We saw that this year, 72 years after his death when his statue in Amsterdam was dogged with graffiti. This act shocked the Indian community, and not only you. For many Dutch people, the attack on the statue amounted to an attack on the principles of peace and non-violence. (…) Not long after the statue was vandalized, I spoke with members of the Indian community and shared my concerns. Just like Gandhi, a large section of your community has literally come a long way.
The Indian community is one of the best-integrated communities in the country. Partly thanks to your approach in life. Modest, positive and forward- looking. Not looking back with feelings of jealousy and resentment. As Gandhi said, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Paradoxically, the incident with the statue shows that Gandhi’s teachings are still alive and well. The outgrow that followed shows how firmly the principles of non- violence is anchored in our society. It also reminds us that we must cherish that principle. And on a special day like today, celebrate it (…) .”
Gandhi statue in Amsterdam.
H.E. Mr. Venu Rajamony, the Ambassador of India, spoke about the many efforts made by the Government of India to promote the message of Mahatma Gandhi, as referred to by the Ambassador as “the Greatest of Apostel of Peace and Non-Violence the world has seen”, through outreach programs and events.
The Ambassador also compared the current global pandemic with the Spanish Flu in 1918, which had severely affected India back then, including Gandhi and his family: “What the Pandemic has taught all of us in today’s world, is how mistaken we have been in neglecting the importance of health. We do not have vaccines, we do not have medicines, we do not have medical equipment in many of our countries while millions and millions of dollars and wealth of all kinds have been wasted on building arms, on building armies, on creating monuments to boost the egos of leaders, while the most important, most basic requirement of health has been neglected by governments all over the world. If Mahatma Gandhi would have been alive this would have been something he would have spoken most loudly about. This was something he held very close to his heart all along.”
Moreover, the Mayor of the Hague, Mr. Jan van Zanen underlined his commitment to preserving the Hague’s reputation as Multicultural City of Peace and Justice: “The Hague has for centuries been a home for people of all the lands. (…) Men and women, believers and non-believers, Christians and Muslims, Hindus and Jews. As Mayor, I want to do to everything in my power to encourage contact between all these different people and groups in the city. (…) Many people are working in The Hague (who are) working to build bridges .”
The Ambassador of Bangladesh, H.E. Mr. Riaz Hamidullah, mentioned the relevance of Gandhi’s philosophy to the contemporary Sustainable Development Goals: “Through all that he spoke about or did, or stood for throughout his life, he actually laboured to in calculating in the mind of the individuals a culture of peace through education, sustainable economic and social development, respect for all human rights, equality between women and men, democratic participation at every possible tier, harmony, tolerance and solidarity.
Last year I had the privilege to be witness to the deliberation on the Culture of Peace Manifesto in New York. They ask every individual anywhere to pledge: “in my daily life, in my family, my work, my community, my country and my region, to respect the life and dignity of each human being without discrimination or prejudice. Practice active non-violence, rejecting violence in all its forms. Share my time and material resources, in the spirit of generosity to put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic oppression. Defend freedom of expression and cultural diversity. I believe this is where Gandhi’s philosophy connects eminently with the 18 Sustainable Development Goals Charter, which all leaders have signed in 2015.”
The newly-accredited Ambassador of Afghanistan, H.E. Mr. Mohammed Asif Rahimi, expressed his strong desire for sustainable peace in Afghanistan through international co-operation and partnerships. Afghanistan is currently facing multiple crises, among those the effects of global warming and climate change, deep-seated terrorism and the COVID-19 pandemic: “Though we are indeed facing multiple drivers of turmoil, all at once in our country and region, above all, our most urgent and important priority is peace. The role of the global community and our international partners and allies will continue to be extremely important, as the delegation of the Government of Afghanistan now negotiates with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar .” (…)
The people of Afghanistan already expressed a clear and urgent priority: a ceasefire. I would like to take this opportunity to call for the help of the international community, to achieve the result of a sovereign, united and democratic Afghanistan. A country that will be at peace with itself in the region, and will be capable to preserve and expand the gains of the last 19 years, and become an example of how unity can overcome the turmoil and uncertainty that defines our world today.”
Following the speech of the Afghan ambassador, the Deputy Mayor of The Hague and the city’s Alderman for Social Affairs, Mr. Bert van Alphen recited a fitting poem about the sense of urgency to respect fellow humans, to preserve the planet, learn about peace instead of violence and to “risk one’s neck for another era and new morals .”
The final part of the event included the inauguration of a Mahatma Gandhi Room at the Faculty of Public Management, Law and Safety of The Hague University of Applied Sciences, adorned with quotes by Gandhi to inspire the students. The initiative was taken by Ms. Elizabeth Betlehem, International Public Management lecturer and Mr. Ram Lakhina.
H.E. Mr. Eric Niehe, former Ambassador of The Netherlands to India offered his closing remarks, thanking the esteemed speakers and the viewers for attending this very first virtual commemoration.
Premier Bodo Ramelow and Ambassador Per Thöresson – Picture by TSK, Jacob Schröter.
Tuesday, 13 October 2020, Erfurt, Free State of Thuringia, Germany: At the Thuringian State Chancellery Sweden’s Ambassador to Germany, Per Thöresson, partook in a session of the state cabinet meeting chaired as usual by Premier Bodo Ramelow. The joint meeting and the deliberations are intended as a prelude to further events and cooperation on the topic of sustainability.
Later that day, Ambassador Thöresson was welcomed to the Thuringian State Diet by its Speaker, Mrs Birgit Keller, before the new exhibition “Facing up to Challenges – Sweden and Agenda 2030” was opened.
In a concluding panel discussion entitled “Shaping a sustainable future – taking people with you”, the participants jointly debated various ways of overcoming social conflicts from an environmental policy perspective. The topics “Fridays For Future”, energy system transformation and sustainable concepts of politics were of central importance.
Motto: “When the game is over, both the king and the pawn end up in the same box.”Italian proverb
ByCorneliu Pivariu.
The conflict in the South Caucasus – Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke out forcefully especially after the beginning of the USSR’s collapse in 1990 worried regularly the great powers and the regional powers – especially when the military actions resulted in important loss of life and material destruction yet no permanent resolution was reached. This situation facilitated the outbreak of the September/October 2020 conflict which is still ongoing.
The situation in South Caucasus is not a singular one at the periphery of the former Soviet empire as it is part of the model Moscow created in order to secure, through the creation of would be conflict zones, the control of the zones at the USSR’s periphery and not only. Here there are some examples: Transdnistria, Abhazia and Osetia.
In the four volumes of geopolitical analyses published during the last 10 years I provided room for the developments in the South Caucasus, too. This is why the present conflict drew my attention as well especially through the development and likely consequences and I try to present based on interviews with important personalities the situation and the evolutions seen by the two sides. As always, the positions and information are rather contradictory. I will publish an ampler personal analysis after this new military clash will end with a …temporary agreement as I think that the sides do not want yet a comprehensive solution. Right now, I start with two interviews made with the two sides hoping that the human loss and material destruction will stop as soon as possible.
On October 9, in Moscow after ten hours of negotiations, the delegations of the two countries headed by the ministers of foreign affairs Zohran Mnatsakanyan – Armenia and Azeri Jeyhun Bayramov mediated by the Russian minister for foreign affairs Sergei Lavrov agreed upon a ceasefire. I do welcome this understanding and express my hope that it will represent a new beginning towards a more durable peace and not an opportunity to replentish and restrengthen the military machines in order to resume the conflict more forcefully.
No conflict resolution is possible unless there is not truth between people
Interview exclusive for Geopolitica, granted by Hrant Mikaelian, Senior Researcher at Caucasus Institute – Yerevan
Hrant Mikaelian, Senior Researcher at Caucasus Institute – Yerevan
Corneliu Pivariu (C.P.): Dear Mr. Hrant Mikaelian, I thank you for your readiness of granting an interview for my blog Geopolitica.The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has a more than 30 year-long history.
Question:What is the historical evolution of Armenia’s position during the mandates of the four Armenian presidents: LevonTer-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan and Armen Sarkissian?
– Does Armenia still believe in a diplomatic solution for solving this conflict? – Why (not)?
– Do you consider Azerbaijan preferes a military solution for solving this conflict? – Why (not)?
Hrant Mikaelian (H.M.): Levon Ter-Petrosyan believed in solution based on bold concessions from Armenian side. His conflict resolution philosophy was based on the alleged possibility to resolve Armenian-Turkish conflict and become good neighbors. Ter-Petrosyan was sure development in terms of conflict is not possible and hoped for resolution to achieve economic prosperity. Robert Kocharyan did not support one-sided concessions but if NKR independence was recognized was ready for territorial compromise. He believed that Armenia could develop economically without resolution of the conflict and proved it.
Serzh Sargsyan was president during period of high oil prices and more aggressive Azerbaijan. He tried to resolve conflict generally based on the same principle as Kocharyan, but he understood (especially after 2016) that this conflict will not be resolved quickly and started preparations toward long-term controversy.
Armen Sarkissian does not make decisions on Armenia’s position, now it’s PM Pashinyan. Pashinyan does not have connection to Karabakh movement (as LTP) or Karabakh war (RK and SS) and he does not have own shaped position. He said he will approve the decision that will be acceptable for majority and it is basically “no concessions.” He held negotiations with Azerbaijan based on compromises but probably he knew that there will be no agreement signed, and if signed – accepted by the society. So, it was more time waste than actual try to achieve agreement which was already obviously not achievable.
– In Armenia the voices against any talks to Azerbaijan are strong as ever, but still majority would prefer diplomatic solution. Same refers to the political class of the country.
– I think yes. Because Azerbaijan’s diplomatic position is “all or nothing.” It wants to restore territorial integrity. None of Armenian leaders will agree to this. So diplomatic solution will not be achieved. And statements by Azerbaijan that they might start a war instead were so many that in some periods they were repeated weekly. Main reason for that is unacceptance of Armenian factor in the region, another is alleged resource superiority based on population and economy size, oil and Turkish support.
C.P.: What is this time different or new in the military escalation of this conflict aside from the general mobilization decreed by both sides?
There is intel (information) according to which Turkey would have transfered fighters from the Free Syrian Army (north of Syria) and Libya to Azerbaijan for fighting the separatists. What is your comment on this intel (information)?
There are also speculations according to which Armenia would have transfered YPG-PKK fighters in order to occupy the territory in Nagorno-Karabakh and train militias to fight Azerbaijan. Can you comment on this claim?
H.M.: There are some differences. The scale of fire, number of victims (overall as of now number could be close to 5,000), but generally nothing new. Turkey directly supported Azerbaijan in 1992-4, 2016 and 2020. It’s Armenia speaking out more about that. This time it was not unexpected at all. BBC reported about mass mobilization in Azerbaijan on September 24, 2020.
Concerning foreign fighters, this is anything but new. In 1992-4, Azerbaijan used Afghani, Chechen and Ukrainian fighters. Generally, Azerbaijan widely uses imported human resources. In sport, in healthcare (in July, 115 Cuban doctors arrived to combat covid) and now Syrians (mainly Turkmen, who’s language is close to Azerbaijani). Those coming from Lybia are still Syrians. There were official statements by French, Iranians, Russians, Syria itself and other countries, as well as media reports in US and UK top level press.
Concerning Kurds. Turkey always used this allegation to attack Armenia; same it did to attack Syria. Armenia is open and transparent country. If in Azerbaijan it is impossible to hide Syrians, then in Armenia it would be even harder to hide Kurds. What’s logistics? (flights from Turkey and Lybia have been tracked by FlightRadar). Who are they? There are Armenian Yazidis, who basically share same language with Kurds, who do actively participate in the war from Armenian side, but they do not have any connection to the PKK.
C.P.: In the Nagorno-Karabah conflict Azerbaijan enjoys an open backing/support from Turkey. – What is this backing/support exactly?
H.M.: On the first instance it is political support and Armenia’s deterrance. Also there is a lot of military help.
Turkey warned Armenia not to use “Iskander” or Turkey will attack Armenia directly. Turkey keeps it’s armed units in Nakhichevan, which became Turkish-Azerbaijani stronghold near Yerevan. Turkey helps Azerbaijan on the diplomatic level, providing aid from many Islamic countries including Pakistan and Afghanistan. Turkey is providing Azerbaijan with the bold support on the surveillance and intelligence data. Turkey is arming Azerbaijan with some of its best weapons including Bayraktar UAVs.
In 2010 they had an agreement with Azerbaijan on military issues and according to it, Turkey is protecting Azerbaijan, while in February 2020 Erdogan declared himself side of the conflict, saying: “Karabakh issue is Turkish issue as much as Azerbaijan’s”. Turkey is providing Azerbaijan with institutional support especially in Army, Azerbaijani Army is being built copying Turkey. Turkey is providing Azerbaijan with instructors in the place, which have been captured by local media. Turkey is holding joint military exercise with Azerbaijan: in 2019 about 10 times. Turkey has sent foreign fighters and guerilla to Azerbaijan in 1990s and in 2020. Turkey is keeping Armenia isolated, border closed allegedly because of NK’s capture of some Azeri territories. And, in 2020 they shot down Armenian plane with F-16 and NYT journalist has found satellite picture proving F-16 was in Ganja in the beginning of October 2020.
Basically – anything except direct invasion to Armenia. So, in Armenia it is considered that although majority of the fighters on the ground are Azeris, generally Armenia is fighting with Turkish expansionism, also noting that if not hard Turkish support and even pressure to do so.
C.P.: What is the limit of the backing/support granted to Azerbaijan which the Russian Federation will not tolerate?
H.M.: Russia would not never accept two things: permanent Turkish military presence and Jihadi fighters. However, generally Russia is not happy with the fact of the war occurring and Turkish activities in its backyard. Also, Russia would never accept direct Turkish invasion to Armenia.
C.P.: What is the backing/support you think Russia could grant Armenia in this conflict? How would things change in such a scenario?
H.M.: Russia tries to stay neutral in it but it is hard in the light of active destabilizing efforts of Turkey’s Erdogan. So, for stabilization of the situation, Russia has to neutralize Turkish influence in the region. In the second instance, to stabilize, Russia needs to restore status-quo. Currently, Armenia’s only major problem on the field of war are Azerbaijani UAVs, in the mid-term it’s supply of the weapons.
C.P.: Why do you think the mediation efforts of the international community – UN, the OSCE Minsk Group and the states of the region have failed – and what each of those could/should do for an amiable and lasting solution to the conflict?
H.M.: In my opinion, international community has to make more addressed statements. If Azerbaijan violates terms of ceasefire, international community must stop it and not stating that „Armenia says Azerbaijan has started the war, Azerbaijan says it was Armenia.” Both sides will always do. But we need effective mechanism of control of ceasefire, effective measures to identify, who began and bolder dialog on what is acceptable and what is inacceptable on the negotiations table. For example, Aliyev’s statements that conflict should be resolved in the frame of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan mean that he does not want any solution.
Also sides should be prepared to long-term peace. That mediators do understand. But they usually expect it only on Armenian side, while growing hatred in Azerbaijan, sponsored, promoted and spread by the government is not area of their concern. In 2005, Julfa Armenian medieval semetery with many historical monuments was completely destroyed, which lead to no reaction. There were many cases of cultural monuments destruction in Azerbaijan, while in Shushi the mosque is being restored (and not only there). In 2004 (and many times on) Azeri officer beheaded Armenian officer and in 2012 he was heroized in Azerbaijan. Again, no reaction.
Unless there is no trust between people, unless the borders are open, unless people can trade, unless all hatred is removed from the school textbooks, no conflict resolution is possible. Even the best agreement will fail if people hate each other. Even ordinary people might start fighting in the streets the very next day they will be in contact and war will restart. So the international community failed to understand that the nature of the conflict is unacceptance of Azerbaijan of the rights of Armenians to live in the region. Ilham Aliyev was claiming not only Artsakh (Karabakh), but Syunik (Zangezur), Sevan (Goycha) and Yerevan (Erivan) are Azerbaijani.
C.P.: Ethnic autonomy (Armenia) vs. Territorial independence (Azerbaijan). – What do you think are the actual compromises Armenia can make, on the opne hand, and Azerbaijan, on the other, for an amiable and lasting solution of the conflict?
H.M.: First of all, hatred, closed borders, external players should be off the table. When that is done, many options can appear and bring the resolution of the conflict based on reasonable compromises. But discussing compromise while military solution is not completely excluded is a blackmail.
C.P.:The lessons taught show that any unsolved conflict risks during global turbulences to go into resonance with the conflictual situations in the region and is mutually influenced by other regional conflicts and entails in accordance with the domino principle more and more players if the conflict is made permanent and turns into a full-fledged large scale war. – How would you comment on the evolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in this context?
H.M.: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict possesses such risk because there is great interest from many sides, but at the same time, there are several mechanism which decrease this chance: Iran and Russia are strictly against any wider involvement to the bordering area and the Caucasus region in general.
C.P.: I do thank you verry much.
_______________________
Hrant Mikaelian, PhD in Economy and Governance at Yerevan State University since 2017. From September 2010 Senior Researcher in social sciences- Caucasus Institute Yerevan.
Involved in many research projects as a team leader, researcher or research assistant. Prepared reports, articles and books summarizing the research results. Preparing consultancy papers for the customers. Topics of research: economic development, informal economy, IT and labour market, assessment of quality of state institutions and statistical measure of social trends (including demographics, migration, inequality). Contributed to Institute’s organizational activities. He published two books and several articles.
Conducted research for “Armenia” section of Nations in Transit report by Freedom House (years 2010-2016) and Varieties of Democracy (2020).
Corneliu Pivariu:exclusive interview for Geopolitica blog made through on-line correspondence. The emphasis belongs to the author and the titles and subtitles are given by the blog.
About the author:
Corneliu Pivariu. Photographer: Ionus Paraschiv.
Corneliu Pivariu Military Intelligence and International Relations Senior Expert
A highly decorated retired two-star general of the Romanian army, during two decades he has led one of the most influential magazines on geopolitics and international relations in Eastern Europe, the bilingual journal Geostrategic Pulse.
Motto: “When the game is over, both the king and the pawn end up in the same box.”Italian proverb
ByCorneliu Pivariu.
The conflict in the South Caucasus – Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke out forcefully especially after the beginning of the USSR’s collapse in 1990 worried regularly the great powers and the regional powers – especially when the military actions resulted in important loss of life and material destruction yet no permanent resolution was reached. This situation facilitated the outbreak of the September/October 2020 conflict which is still ongoing.
The situation in South Caucasus is not a singular one at the periphery of the former Soviet empire as it is part of the model Moscow created in order to secure, through the creation of would be conflict zones, the control of the zones at the USSR’s periphery and not only. Here there are some examples: Transdnistria, Abhazia and Osetia.
In the four volumes of geopolitical analyses published during the last 10 years I provided room for the developments in the South Caucasus, too. This is why the present conflict drew my attention as well especially through the development and likely consequences and I try to present based on interviews with important personalities the situation and the evolutions seen by the two sides. As always, the positions and information are rather contradictory. I will publish an ampler personal analysis after this new military clash will end with a …temporary agreement as I think that the sides do not want yet a comprehensive solution. Right now, I start with two interviews made with the two sides hoping that the human loss and material destruction will stop as soon as possible.
On October 9, in Moscow after ten hours of negotiations, the delegations of the two countries headed by the ministers of foreign affairs Zohran Mnatsakanyan – Armenia and Azeri Jeyhun Bayramov mediated by the Russian minister for foreign affairs Sergei Lavrov agreed upon a ceasefire. I do welcome this understanding and express my hope that it will represent a new beginning towards a more durable peace and not an opportunity to replentish and restrengthen the military machines in order to resume the conflict more forcefully.
It Is Unthinkable That People of Different Nationalities and Religions Die on the Field of Nagorno-Karabakh In the 21st Century.
Exclusive interview for Geopolitica granted by His Excellency Azer Khudiev, former Ambassador of Azerbaijan in Ukraine.
His Excellency Azer Khudiev, former Ambassador of Azerbaijan in Ukraine.
Corneliu Pivariu (C.P.): Excellency, I am much obliged for your kindness of granting an interview for my blog Geopolitica. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has a history of more than 30 years.
What is the historical evolution of Azerbaijan’s position during the mandates af the two Azerbaijani presidents: Heydar Aliyev and Ilham Aliyev? Does Azerbaijan still believe in a diplomatic solution for solving this conflict? –Why (not)? Do you consider Armenia preferes a military solution for for solving this conflictt? –Why (not)?
His Excellency former Ambassador Azer Khudiyev (H.E.A. Kh.): Taking this opportunity, I would like to express my gratitude for the interest to the problem that Azerbaijan has faced for decades, and for giving me the opportunity to talk about the realities in my country.
I would like to start with the fact that, by the will of fate, in 1996-2003, I had the opportunity to work with the national leader of Azerbaijan, President Heydar Aliyev; he was a person of large-scale political caliber, a person who had a good life experience and a special political school.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Azerbaijan, along with some former republics, inherited such a difficult legal legacy as the loss of territorial integrity: the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Azerbaijan, the Transnistrian conflict in Moldova and the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict in Georgia.
Neighboring Armenia occupied 20 percent of our historical and legal lands, and as a result of ethnic cleansing, more than a million Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their homes and homeland. In those difficult times for Azerbaijan, when the economy and social situation in the country was in a ruined state, and the country was cut off from communications with the outside world, Heydar Aliyev led the country and achieved the suspension of bloodshed. In the shortest possible time he was able to organize the settlement of refugees throughout the territory of Azerbaijan. He had formed the state vertical of power, established relations with outer world. Having established stability, he managed to attract huge investments, primarily in the oil sector.
He has always been committed to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict exclusively by peaceful diplomatic means. For this, many high-level meetings were held at various international platforms. But unfortunately, despite all his diplomatic efforts, certain political circles in Russia and the West always hindered him.
President Aliyev succeeded in preserving the statehood and independence of Azerbaijan on the global political map. The next President, Ilham Aliyev, followed his political course and managed to develop and establish Azerbaijan in the international arena. President Ilham Aliyev chose a strategy to open up to the world, to make our country more attractive; we have entered the stage of new regionalism and made our country multi-cultural, highly developed, socially stable and economically attractive.
Today, according to the statements of some Western leaders, after 27 years it is already clearly visible who has been the enemy of peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh region all these years. Each time, assisted by Armenia’s western curators, the peace negotiation process did not come out of the impasse. E.g. we saw periodic destructive statements by France, although it is a member of the OSCE Minsk Group as well as a co-chairing country in regards to our conflict. An important factor in this protracted conflict is the fact that the guarantor of the security of the Republic of Armenia is the Russian Federation, which has deployed its military bases on Armenian territory.
As a diplomat with over 20 years of diplomatic experience, I would like to state that my country has been making daily efforts to resolve this issue peacefully. We understand that any war deepens the suffering of any people; war is a crippled fate and lost lives. But in recent years, especially with the arrival of the new Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and as a result of his populist statements and defiant actions, the process of peace negotiations only aggravated. Especially, the feelings of the Azerbaijani people and leadership were infringed by its frequent ostentatious visits to our occupied territories, in particular, the city of Shusha, which is the soul, the cradle of culture and music of the Azerbaijani people.
Most recently, Shusha on a weekly basis hosted, provocative for us, events and festivals of various levels including with invited foreign guests. One of the latest resonant statements by PM Nikol Pashinyan that: “Karabakh is Armenia, period!” caused a violent reaction of the Azerbaijani people as well as aroused its anger.
On July 12, 2020, as a result of another military provocation by Armenia, the Azerbaijani military were killed including the General of the Azerbaijani Army Pollad Gashimov, on the territory of Azerbaijan bordering Armenia and Georgia, a place far from the front line; this was followed by a new wave people’s anger and an appeal to the Government of Azerbaijan to suspend negotiations and return Karabakh by any means. On September 27, 2020, the Azerbaijani civilians were shelled from the territories of the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh causing military casualties also. This incident prompted the Azerbaijani government to start counter-offensive operations to liberate the occupied territories.
I would like to especially stress that it was Pashinyan and his team that really needed this war to distract Armenian people’s attention from the internal political tension that had developed in Armenia. First of all, it is a deplorable socio-economic and demographic situation, which has not been successfully resolved, despite his promises during the “velvet revolution” in Armenia. By the way, none of his promises to the Armenian people have been fulfilled. The social standard of living of Armenian citizens is deteriorating from year to year. Thousands of people leave Armenia massively, especially young people, in search for a work, mainly in Russia. An interesting fact is that Armenians, in hunting for a job or a better life do not hesitate to migrate even to Turkey. All these problems pushed the Armenian people to the need to change the government.
Secondly, owing to N. Pashinyan’s populist and inconsistent activities the peace negotiation process nearly stopped, thereby causing great discontent on the part of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen. Armenia was rapidly moving towards the loss of the last signs of independence of its foreign policy. Therefore, Pashinyan needed a more impressive reason to justify. And apparently, together with his patrons, he finally found a formula for solving his political problems. This is a traditional Turkic threat only thanks to which Armenian establishment can ‘justify’ its military, political, information and diplomatic adventure.
C.P.: What is different or new in the military escalation of the conflict this time beyond the general mobilization decreed by both sides?
There is intel (information) according to which Armenia would have transfered YPG-PKK fighters in order to occupy the territory in Nagorno-Karabakh and to train militias there in fighting Azerbaijan.
How do you comment on this intel?
There are also speculations according to which Turkey would have transfered fighters from the Free Syrian Army (north of Syria) and Libya to Azerbaijan in order to fight the separatists.
Can you comment on this claim?
H.E.A.Kh.: Exactly a year ago, Armenia began a massive settlement of people from the Middle East to of our occupied territories, particularly ethnic Armenians from Syria, Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries. This process was carried out openly, with no hiding.
Official Baku has repeatedly informed the OSCE and other relevant international organizations about this. In recent months, official Baku had information about the involvement of mercenaries and Kurdish militias from the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The other day, the Special Service of Azerbaijan published a radio interception, where PKK militants express regret that they came to the conflict zone and were deceived by the Armenians. Photo proofs of PKK mercenaries’ presence were released. Thus, Armenia started a very dangerous business, engaging Middle East terrorists into the war in Karabakh against Azerbaijan.
There are numerous facts confirming this. At the same time, Armenian top brass falsely accused Azerbaijan of using the ISIS fighters. By this, official Yerevan wants to present the operations to liberate the occupied territories as a war between religious radicals, and to catch the entire Christian world’s eye. Of course, these are all despisable attempts by a weak but aggressive state. Azerbaijan has a population of 10 million, which is almost 4 times the population of Armenia, which minimizes the need to recruit mercenaries. It is a well-known that there is a hybrid and information war going on.
In this context, the Armenian side does not squeamish, and has never did, the release fake information. To date, not a single international organization including, first of all, the UN and the EU and especially the OSCE Minsk Group member states, is making no feasible effort to stop the occupying country – Armenia. Only, brotherly Turkey is making every effort on both international arena and regional level to restore Azerbaijani territorial integrity and historical justice.
Azerbaijan is grateful to Turkey for moral and diplomatic support. There is a high political dialogue between our countries as well as military-technical cooperation. Azerbaijan purchases from fraternal Turkey modern precision weapons, drones and other military-technical means, which the Azerbaijani army successfully uses in military operations to liberate the occupied territories.
C.P.:In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Azerbaijan enjoys an open backing/support from Turkey.. What is this backing/support exactly?
H.E. E.A.: In geopolitical terms as of our region, Azerbaijan and Turkey create a new concept of regional security and act as a single stabilizing force contributing to the formation of a new reliable and stable system of regional and global security. In this context, of course, Russia’s influence will slightly weaken, and its role of the major regional player will shift into another channel. In other words, Russia in the South Caucasus are losing their strategic and geopolitical positions. Russia is also a strategic partner of Azerbaijan and our country, unlike Armenia, has always been a predictable and reliable partner in political and economic terms.
Armenia, on the other hand, has long become an unnecessary burden for Russia with its eternal problems; in a word, they are like a “suitcase without a handle” – hard to drag but grieves to dump it. In my opinion, Armenia’s biggest mistake is that it is trying in every possible way to draw Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) into this conflict. But Russia is now showing restraint as never before and does not want to be drawn into this war that started. And this is not because Russia or the CSTO are not strong enough, but because Russia knows that by interfering now it will definitely lose a reliable partner, Azerbaijan, as well as influence in the South Caucasus.
C.P.:What is the limit of Turkey’s backing/support for Azerbaijan which the Russian Federation will not tolerate?
H.E.A.Kh.: It is a well-known fact that Armenia and Russia are members of a regional international organization called the CSTO. Its purpose, among other things, is to protect the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the member states on a collective basis; at that, the priority in achieving this goal is given to political means. In other words, Azerbaijan, without encroaching on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Armenia, does not give any reason for Russia’s military intervention at the moment, since the Azerbaijani army is conducting a liberation operation to de-occupy territories within the internationally recognized Azerbaijani borders. Our country has used the UN Charter’s Article 51 and is complying with all norms and principles of international law.
If Russia decided to intervene and provide Armenia with support, then fraternal Turkey with its no less powerful army would instantly find itself on a par with the Azerbaijani army. This was declared by the entire top leadership of Turkey. It is gratifying to emphasize that these powerful states and our strategic partners are still refraining from direct interference. I think this is very correct.
C.P.:What is the backing/support Russia could grant Armenia in this conflict? How could things change in case of such a scenario?
H.E.A.Kh.: This year the UN celebrates its 75th anniversary. The main goal and task of this organization is to preserve and strengthen lasting peace and stability. But today we see that conflicts and wars are raging in many regions and many regions are faced with a humanitarian disaster. As you can see, the UN activities are not as effective as expected.
Recently, the issue of reforming the UN has been increasingly raised at its annual general assemblies in order to increase its effectiveness. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats there show stubborn resistance to the process of renewal and new changes. In my subjective opinion, today’s UN is like a toothless old woman who, for the sake of respect, is listened to but not considered. Despite four UN Security Council’s resolutions call for a ceasefire and clearly stipulate the immediate withdrawal of Armenian military formations from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, unfortunately none of these resolutions have been implemented to this day.
The OSCE Minsk Group has not yet resolved a single conflict in the post-Soviet space including our conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. I myself represented my country for 4 years in this organization and witnessed that the OSCE does not have the necessary mechanisms for resolving conflicts. Within the framework of this organization, there are only discussions around some issue or topic. And this is already diplomatic and moral nonsense! This shows that international organizations lost their diplomatic and moral consciousness and traditional humane essence, and are in a deep crisis!
In this context, the behavior of France, which is one of the OSCE Minsk Group member states, causes great concern. France openly supports the aggressor. I think that after all the statements by official Paris, France cannot and does not have the moral right to continue its activities in the OSCE Minsk Group. France, in fact, blocks the path leading to a peaceful settlement of the conflict and this harms not only its democratic image, but also puts the EU in a very difficult position.
C.P.:Why do you think the mediation efforts of the international community – UN, the OSCE Minsk Group and the states of the region failed –and what could each of them do for an amiable and lasting solution of the conflict?
H.E.A.Kh.: Azerbaijan has always been committed to the peaceful regulation of this issue, otherwise we would not have waited 28 years for its resolution in a peaceful way. There are the Madrid principles, which are the basis for a phased settlement of the conflict. These principles were agreed by all parties including the Minsk Group member states. Basic principles include:
• Return of territories around Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Azerbaijan; this means five regions that have nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh region;
• Granting interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh;
• Providing a corridor linking Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh;
• Defining the future final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will;
• Return of all refugees to their places of former residence;
• International security guarantees and deployment of peacekeeping forces.
But unfortunately, in recent years, the Armenian side began to reject and ignore the previously agreed principles and stopped their further discussion. In order to really start solving the Karabakh problem it is necessary to pave the way for mutual trust. For that matter, above all, the first condition must be fulfilled: five regions near Nagorno-Karabakh should be returned. But the Armenian side continues imitation and strives for status quo that is not acceptable for the Azerbaijani side. The unacceptability of the status quo has even been repeatedly stated by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. Ignoring all the calls of the co-chairs and manipulating, the Armenian side itself brought the peace negotiation process into a final deadlock. Unfortunately, there are no compromises on the part of Armenia.
C.P.:Territorial independence (AZ) vs. Ethnic autonomy (AM). What are, in your opinion, the actual compromises Azerbaijan could make, on the one hand, and Armenia, on the other hand, for an amiable and lasting solution of the conflict?
H.E.A.Kh.: Given the tense geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, one can conclude that if the South Caucasus strong powers do not observe international law, do not act fairly and continue to support and curate the aggressor, then the global security system will suffer greatly. Moreover, one cannot exclude that a large-scale war will break out with the participation of big states.
As a representative of a progressive and humane mankind and as a diplomat who appreciates and strives for peace, I am very sorry that people of different nationalities and religions are dying on the fields of Nagorno-Karabakh. This should not be the case in the 21st century.
C.P.: If Your Excellency would like to add something for my readers, kindly do it……
I thank you very much and wish peace for Azerbaijan and the world.
Corneliu Pivariu:exclusive interview for Geopolitica blog made through on-line correspondence. The emphasis belongs to the author and the titles and subtitles are given by the blog.
For impartiality purposes I asked unseccessfully for an interview on the same theme with an embassy of the Republic of Armenia known to me. In exchange, I was recommended an expert in Yerevan whom I contacted and he had the kindness to answer promptly to my request. His answers are presented simultaneously on the blog.
Azer Khudayar oglu Khudiyev Born 1975. 1992-1997 – Faculty of Engineering of Land Vehicles, Azerbaijan Technical University 1997-2001– Faculty of Administrative Management, Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan 2009-2011 – Faculty of International Relations, Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine 2011 (February-July) – Strategic Researches and State Defense Management courses, Military Academy of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan 2015, 2016, 2017 – Black Sea Security Program, Harvard UniversitySince 2000 several post in Foreign Affaires Ministry and in 2016 – On September 6, by the Order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan he was appointed Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to Ukraine, until 2020. 2016 – On October 27, by the Order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan he was simultaneously appointed Permanent Representative of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development-GUAM
Source: text and photo – by the kind attention of His Excellency Azer Khudayar
About the author:
Corneliu Pivariu. Photographer: Ionus Paraschiv. Corneliu Pivariu Military Intelligence and International Relations Senior Expert
A highly decorated retired two-star general of the Romanian army, during two decades he has led one of the most influential magazines on geopolitics and international relations in Eastern Europe, the bilingual journal Geostrategic Pulse.
HH Sayyid Theyazin bin Haitham Al Said – Picture by Oman Olympic Committee.
In August 2020 His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tariq bin Taimur Al Said, Sultan of Oman issued a fiat bundling the Ministry of Sport Affairs, the Ministry of Art Affairs, the National Youth Committee, as well as the Culture Department at the Ministry of Heritage and Culture into a novel entity known henceforth as Ministry of Culture, Sports and Youth.
The ministry is led by His Highness Sayyid Theyazin bin Haitham bin Tariq Al Said (b. Muscat, 21 August 1990), a diplomat who entered the Omani diplomatic service in 2013, and had been serving at the Omani Embassy in London since 2014.
H.H. Sayyid Theyazin holds a master’s degree in history from Oxford Brooks University.
For further information Cabinet of the Sultanate of Oman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Oman
Prof. Gerd-Winand Imeyer, Ambassador Elena Shekerletova, and Mayor Maike Schaefer – Picture by Bremen Senatpressestelle.
Friday, 9 October 2020, Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Germany: In the Upper Hall of the UNESCO-heritage City Hall, Bulgaria’s Ambassador to Germany, Elena Shekerletova, signed the Golden Book of Bremen and thanked for the amiable reception.
Ambassador Shekerletova was accompanied by Bulgaria’s Honorary Consul, Prof. Gerd-Winand Imeyer, responsible for Hamburg, Bremen, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein.
Thereafter an exchange of ideas took place in the Güldenkammer, where the economic, scientific and social relations between Bremen and Bulgaria were the main focus. Ambassador Shekerletova and Mayor Schaefer exchanged views on the cornerstones that might lead to further joint cooperation, particularly in the field of renewable energies and climate-neutral economic activities.
Further meetings took Ambassador Shekerletova to the Bremen City-State Diet, as well as to Bremen Chamber of Commerce.
