HEIKO LANGNER: “THE PRICE OF FURTHER OCCUPATION IS THE STRUCTURAL ECONOMIC UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF ARMENIA”
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Dec 10 2013
10 December 2013 – 10:42am
Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, head of the European Bureau of Vestnik
Kavkaza
Heiko Langner, a German political analyst, specialist on the
post-Soviet space and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has expressed
his point of view on the conflict in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
– Mr. Langner, what do you think about consequences of the
Nagorno-Karabakh war for Armenia and Azerbaijan?
– The war, which started in the early 1990s, was a humanitarian,
economic, social disaster for both sides of the conflict. About 30,000
people were killed; more than a million people became refugees. In
Azerbaijan almost every ninth citizen is a refugee. Before the war
in Syria it was the highest quota per person in the world. Living
conditions of refugees were very difficult and many of them had only
temporary shelters, until quite recently.
In 2005-2006 Azerbaijan began to sell oil and experienced an economic
boom. It influenced improvement of refugees’ position. Tent camps
were replaced by real villages for refugees, which sometimes were as
large as towns. I visited old and new camps for refugees, and I saw
that living conditions in the new villages were satisfactory. At the
same time, I must point out that people still feel pain from a loss of
their motherland and want to come back, but it is impossible because
of Armenia’s military occupation. They say: “We don’t want new houses,
we want to return to our old motherland.”
– Do you think people will ever return home?
– The international society, the UN, and the OSCE should pay more
attention to the fate of internal refugees and press on Armenia,
making it refuse from its position and begin to withdraw troops at
least from seven occupied regions near Nagorno-Karabakh, as soon
as possible. It will give an impetus for economic recovery of the
regions, and internal refugees will have an opportunity to return
home. And the problem of status quo would be settled.
– What is the real damage from the results of the conflict for
Azerbaijan and Armenia?
– Speaking about material damage, Azerbaijan lost about $60 billion;
but the country managed to recover from it very quickly due to its
intensive economic development. A foundation of economic prosperity
of the country was laid by a political talent of its late president
Heydar Aliyev who signed oil contracts with Western companies. Oil
dollars were invested into development of economy, and it positively
influenced employment and living standards of the population. The
strategy of economic development, which was chosen by Azerbaijan,
is very right; and it will provide complete elimination of poverty
in the country, even though its level is very low even today.
The social and economic situation in Armenia is a mirror image of the
situation in Azerbaijan. Armenia won the war from a military point of
view; however, it put clock back in the country’s development. Armenia
is traditionally poor in mineral resources, and it has to rely on
processing industry. The collapse of the USSR destroyed many outlet
markets for Armenian goods. As the result of trade and economic embargo
by Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia had serious problems with providing
energy for its economy and private households. Azerbaijan doesn’t let
in oil and gas supplies to Armenia, and Russia is fully providing
Armenia with energy resources. It means longer and more expensive
import of energy resources through Georgia, as well as dependence
on third countries. Even electricity power self-sufficiency is not
stable, as the Metsamorskaya NPP is in bad technical conditions.
At least one third of Armenian population lives in deep poverty. If we
add to them population living in relative poverty and under a threat
of poverty, it will be clear that more than a half of the Armenian
population lives in difficult economic conditions. According to polls,
every second citizen of Armenia would prefer to leave the country
to earn money, if he or she had such an opportunity. In the past
the tendency concerned high class male professionals and people who
had higher education. Of course, it influences negatively demographic
development of the society. The tense situation in Armenia is worsened
by Azerbaijan’s accumulation of military power, as Armenia had to
allocate significant financial resources from the civil segment to
the military one.
– Is the improvement of Azerbaijani military power a preparation for
a military operation on returning occupied territories?
– Despite a big risk of renewal of the war, I think Azerbaijan, which
accumulated military power, has no a direct goal to start a liberation
war in Karabakh. They want to make Armenia withdraw its troops from
the occupied territories by prostrating it in the armament race. The
former president of Armenia Ter-Pterosyan stated at the end of his
term that Armenia couldn’t stand such a pressure from Azerbaijan,
so a compromise should be found. However, he failed to defend his
point of view and had to resign.
The price of further occupation is Armenian structural economic
underdevelopment, poverty, massive migration and demographic
reduction of the population. One day a young generation would probably
ask whether it is necessary to hold the status quo. Sometimes the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resembles the German-French bloody struggle
which lasted for 150 years. Peaceful settlement of the conflict demands
rejection of radical positions and readiness to compromise from both
sides. However, I have an impression that the majority of Armenian
population prefers to adhere to military victories, even though the
mentioned difficult consequences take place. I think an absolutely
nonrealistic idea of Great Armenia is a nationalistic dead end.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/48513.html