EU Special Rep present EU`s vision of unblocking of transport links,  right of Artsakh Armenians to return to their homes 

ArmInfo. EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia, Toivo Klaar, has expressed support to the Armenian government's Crossroads of Peace project.

In an interview with Armenpress, Mr Klaar said that there ought to be  no issue of extraterritoriality concerning the connections. He said  that it is quite logical that any road, any railway that goes through  Armenian territory is controlled by Armenia. 

Special Representative Klaar also spoke about the possible peace  treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the guaranteed right to  return of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians.

Question: Unlike Azerbaijan, which regularly talks about the  so-called Zangezur Corridor in the context of unblocking regional  communications, obviously implying the idea of having an  extra-territorial corridor through the sovereign territory of  Armenia, the Armenian government proposes the Crossroads of Peace  project, which implies the unblocking of regional communications  based on the jurisdiction and sovereignty of countries and as a  result of its implementation the region can become an important  international logistics and trade intersection and also a kind of  guarantee for peace. How would you interpret this initiative of the  Armenian government and what opportunities do you see here? Do you  consider the implementation of this project possible, taking into  account the destructive position of Azerbaijan in the matter of  unblocking communications?

Answer: First of all, I think that, a few months ago [in May 2023],  in Moscow, President Aliyev very clearly said publicly on television,  in a meeting that they had with Prime Minister Pashinyan in the  presence of President Putin, that naming it a 'corridor' doesn't  imply extra-territoriality. President Aliyev has said - also on other  occasions in smaller settings - that this does not imply  extra-territoriality. Yes, calling it a corridor, as you know, we say  transport corridors in reference to different corridors that we have  in Europe and we never imply extra-territoriality. So, obviously,  from our perspective, it is quite logical that any road, any railway  that goes through Armenian territory is controlled by Armenia, or any  road or railway that goes through Azerbaijani territory or goes  through, I don't know, German territory, is controlled by the country  in question. So, that is absolutely the one and only logical  arrangement. And what is also very legitimate is, for instance, in  this case Azerbaijan, to want to have an assurance that Azerbaijani  citizens and cargo crossing Armenian territory will be safe and  secure. That is perfectly logical and normal.  But how that is being  done in terms of how it is ensured is the responsibility of the  Armenian authorities. I think the vision of Prime Minister Pashinyan  of road and railway connections uniting countries is something we  absolutely share. We absolutely share that vision of an open South  Caucasus where railway and road connections are open, and countries  are reconnected in a way that they were at the end of the Soviet  period and even more so, because also the road and railway  connections across  to Trkiye, and naturally Iran, which is already  the case, but also to Trkiye, should also be open. That is how we  see the future, absolutely, our vision of a South Caucasus at peace  is one where these transport connections are all open again and there  is trade, there is people travelling across the various frontiers.

Question: Since you have mentioned the Azerbaijani President's  request that the Azerbaijani citizens should cross this corridor in a  very safe way, here I want to ask a question, which concerns the  Nagorno- Karabakh Armenian residents who were forcibly displaced.  What is your take concerning the right of these people to go back and  also to make sure that we will not forget that and just jump to other  issues in a few months' time? But the Lachin corridor was blocked and  Armenians did not have the chance to cross safely, many of them are  arrested and charged. And Azerbaijani forces didn't guarantee any  kind of safety for these Armenians. So, Azerbaijan is asking for  things that it didn't do as well. So what is your take on this,  mainly on the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians' right to be back?

I think you are bringing in many different issues, but I would focus  on the core question of the former residents of Nagorno-Karabakh  being able to return. We absolutely believe that this is a very  important thing, that first of all, they are guaranteed the right to  return. And secondly, that the kind of conditions are created, that  will provide them with sufficient security, and a sense of safety  that they will wish to do so.  And we have said that very clearly  from the EU' point of view, that all persons who have been displaced  should be able to return to their former places of residence if they  wish to do so, in safety and security.  And, in that sense, this is  something that we have been pushing for, in all kinds of different  fora. We believe that that is a very important issue that does need  to be addressed. But of course, nobody can be forced to return if  they don't wish to. But if they are, the maximum effort should be  made to provide them with the kind of conditions that would allow at  least a fair number of them to be able to decide to return.

Question: Since you talked about peace in the region. Azerbaijan  continues its expansionist rhetoric and wants to reach a peace  agreement only within the framework that suits itself. How do you  imagine the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan? What points  should be included in it so that it can be called fair and balanced  and be sustainable?

Answer: From my perspective, I think it is important that, on the one  hand, you have a treaty, you have a text, which may or may not be  very exhaustive in its wording. It all depends on how Armenia and  Azerbaijan in the end decide how to frame, how to phrase things in  that treaty text. At least as important as the eventual peace treaty,  is what you refer to as the implementation, the conditions that come  afterwards.  And there of course, we talked about the opening of  communications, we talked about the delimitation of the border, to me  also what is very important is to ensure the kind of conditions along  the border, which means that there is a distancing of forces, a  genuine sense of security that arises, and that is provided to  residents along the border, but also more broadly. And then, of  course, you have all these issues like, you know, opening of  embassies, ensuring opening of direct air links, people being able to  travel back and forth. Rhetoric, naturally also, will be an important  thing for all concerned. After more than 30 years of conflict, it is  not only about rhetoric being used by Azerbaijan, there is also in  Armenia. There have been statements by different actors and in  different contexts. The whole context has to change in terms of  really providing a sense for the populations in Armenia and  Azerbaijan, that, really, we are in a different world now, in a  situation where the South Caucasus can really fulfil its role as  crossroads, crossroads of peace in the north-south and east-west  directions. And so, this is to me at least as important as the  signing of a peace treaty text, which, as I say is important, but  what follows that is at least as important, so that there's this real  sense of a change in the circumstances.

Question: The EU wants to be the broker who will mediate this Peace  Treaty. However, the Azerbaijani side first refused the meeting in  Granada at the last moment, then the meeting scheduled for the end of  October in Brussels. How do you interpret these rejections by Aliyev?  To what extent does the EU consider Azerbaijan's steps as  constructive?

Answer: First of all, the EU doesn't have to be anywhere in this  context. We have offered, and President Michel in particular has  offered, his good offices. For us, the primary interest is to  actually have an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And where  that is ultimately signed is to us much less important than the fact  that there is genuine normalisation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  So that's one thing. As far as President Aliyev deciding not to come  to Grenada is concerned, well, we were disappointed, we thought that  it was an important possibility and quite important forum to send  strong messages. We are still, President Michel is still, ready and  willing to organise a meeting of the leaders in Brussels at the  earliest possible opportunity. Well, dates certainly are important.  But the most important thing is to actually move forward and that is  what we are focused on, to try to encourage forward movement in a  genuine normalisation of relations.

Question: Many political experts think that Azerbaijan is not really  interested in the European platform and the 3+3 format is more  beneficial to Aliyev. What is your assessment of this approach?

Answer: I have no particular opinion, from our perspective, we look  at the "3+3" meeting, the recent one as well as the previous ones, as  something where countries of the region certainly have issues that,  as neighbours, they want to discuss and they should be able to  discuss in a sort of regional setting. At the same time, I understand  also that the understanding has been, at least initially, that  particularly the conflict, the peace agreement, the settlement,  should not really be a subject of discussion in that particular  format. So, again, for us, the most important thing is progress,  where that progress happens is much less important. But we do believe  that, actually, in our view, there is no real reason why we cannot  have serious progress in the settlement process, because, for us, the  issues on the table are very few and we believe these have been  discussed many times over, so we don't really see a reason why we  could not move and why Azerbaijan and Armenia could not move very  quickly towards normalisation of relations.

Question: Azerbaijan criticizes the arming of Armenia, while it has  three times higher military budget, and weapons shipments do not stop  landing at the Baku airport. How do you interpret this rhetoric of  Azerbaijan?

Well, I think that every country has the right to defend itself and  to purchase the necessary weapons that it deems necessary for the  defense of its territory. That's my simple answer. Most countries in  the world are purchasing weapons from abroad for the purpose of  defending their territory. So, in that sense, there is nothing  spectacular or wrong about this.

Question: The Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan criticized Mr. Borrell's  statement during the press conference and said that "The EU's  attempts to supply Armenia with weaponry and thereby support its  insidious militarization policy that undermines peace and stability  in our region, encourages a policy leading to new confrontations in  the region, that lays a responsibility on the EU. Plans to employ the  European Peace Facility, which, among other areas, implies the  buildup of military capabilities, serve to exacerbate tensions in the  region". In fact, Azerbaijan threatens not only Armenia but also the  EU. What is your take on this? 

Answer: Well, I think we very much welcome the interest of the  Armenian government to expand its relationship with the European  Union. As for Armenia's interest in the European Peace Facility, from  our perspective, this is about potentially supporting Armenia in  certain areas where it sees itself to be vulnerable - cyber security  has been mentioned as one - and there again, if it does go forward  (this is still in the planning phase), we don't see this as being  aimed against anybody but rather, for the purpose of strengthening  Armenia's sovereignty, which, I think, is in the interest of  everyone, not only of Armenia, but also of Armenia's neighbours and  of the wider international community. We want to have a strong, self-  confident Armenia that is a good partner to the European Union and is  equally a good partner to its neighbours, including to Azerbaijan.