Wilfried Fuhrman explains why the EU, in launching sanctions against Russia, doesn’t do the same toward Armenia

Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, the head of the European Bureau of Vestnik Kavkaza

The results of the recent visit by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev to Germany and his talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel made experts state that Germany doesn't have a consistent approach to conflicts over the territorial integrity of states. Professor Wilfried Fuhrman from Potsdam told Vestnik Kavkaza about his view about Berlin’s approach to separatism, sanctions, and human rights.

- Mr. Fuhrman, during the joint press conference of President Aliyev and Chancellor Merkel the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh was touched on. For example, the head of the German government was asked why the EU has launched sanctions against Russia, but didn’t do the same against Armenia. What do you think about such parallels?

- It is a difficult question. To answer it, we should always remember two fundamental factors.

First of all, the international laws which are supported by the whole world concern human rights, but not the right of peoples and groups of the population to self-determination. This means that the expulsion and murders of Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh were illegal, as well as the declaration of independence of the so-called NKR and its protection by the Republic of Armenia.

Secondly, the principle of territorial integrity comes from an idea of global political stabilization of the world order (borders and so on) which appeared at the time of the development of the right. The right was a result of a balance of forces and interests of world powers. But the principle of territorial integrity doesn’t require the prohibition of using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. Military force cannot be used against the goals and aims of the United Nations. And here a diplomatic struggle begins, as the prohibition from using force operates in cases of using it against the right of peoples to self-determination as well.

In collapsing Yugoslavia, the declarations of independence were legally recognized in the end (the result of voting on the Kosovo issue was 10:4 by the Hague International Tribunal in 2008). The justification of the decision was the crisis and threats to human rights and the process of disintegration of Yugoslavia. In the Kosovo issue interpretational opportunities were demonstrated and used, as there was no dogmatic principle of territorial integrity.

- So, it means everything depends on the interpretation of a certain issue.

- Yes. And Russia is moving in the interpretational space. Chancellor Angela Merkel is working on the edge of the space. Of course, she relies on economic and political interests in the context of her vision of the great European power (the United States of Europe), rather than in the interests of a free and independent Germany. It seems she forgets about German interests in favor of the interests of “Europe.”

- Is the interpretational approach used either in Crimea or in Ukraine?

- In the end it concerns all territories, despite holding a referendum or declarations of independence and autonomy. At the same time, don’t infinite expulsions and murders of people in Eastern Ukraine demonstrate something which people have managed to avoid in Crimea? Or are the collapse of a whole state and numerous innocent victims needed for a legal interpretation? Wasn’t there permanent discrimination against the interests of the “Russian population” on the peninsula?

The Ukrainian President hasn’t presented a project of constitutional reforms which would require autonomous rights yet. What choice do people have in this situation? Aren’t economic sanctions more powerful than military force under certain conditions? What right do the EU and NATO have to act directly against Russia in such a way? In the Ukrainian crisis, Chancellor Merkel goes all in.

- What do you think about statements by Merkel that “Russia and Armenia are doing many things in the conflict together” and that is why the EU, which launches sanctions against Russia, follows unitary standards in the Ukrainian conflict and in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement?

- I think such a statement is typical for Merkel: it means nothing, it is rather dim and has no context. At the same time, Russia is accused of this. As for “Azerbaijan,” we don’t see this word in the statement; its role is diminished to oil and gas exports (as a substitute for Russian energy exports) and cooperation in the business sphere. It is supported orally, but only on condition that anti-Russian rhetoric will be maintained. However, Baku is not supported, when a direct position on Armenia should be stated. There were 20 years and all the necessary options for this, but the facts were self-explanatory. We should not expect sanctions against Armenia from France, the EU, or Chancellor Merkel.

- Mr. Fuhrman, in Davos Chancellor Merkel voiced a well-known idea on establishing a united economic space from Vladivostok and Lisbon. Wasn’t it strange in the context of recent developments in world politics?

- I think her statement is only a beautiful smoke screen. It is not serious and I don’t trust it. Strategic plans on cooperation with Russia were broken ahead of launching the Eastern Partnership Program, which was relatively responsible for the Ukrainian crisis. Moreover, the Chancellor is not an independent mediator in the Ukrainian conflict, considering her consent to maximum demands on Russia and her non-objective accusations which are directed exclusively against the RF.