Tweet
ENGLAND IS A PRAGMATIC COUNTRY...
Conducted by Armen Manvelian, translated by L.H.
AZG Armenian Daily #203
06/11/2007
International
"Azg" daily interview with the Armenian Ambassador to the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Vahe Gabrielian
- Mr. Gabrielian, an opinion is formed that the pro-Azerbaijani
position of London impedes development of Armenian-British
relations. It is generally considered that Great Britain has always run
pro-Turkish-Azerbaijani policy. Does the opinion correspond to reality?
- I don't think that it's right to condition the status of two
countries' relations to the relations of one of those with the third
one. It's right, the United Kingdom has clearly displayed interests
in Azerbaijan and at a certain moment it can take them into account in
the relations with us or other countries. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean
that because of it we cannot have good relations with that country.
There are other countries that have good relations with us in spite
of their interests in the neighboring countries. Our task is to find
mutual profitable spheres of cooperation and to develop them. There is
no doubt that if those spheres are many, the role of foreign factors
will be less important.
The second part of the question would be better to address to
historians, though similar widespread social opinion exists. The United
Kingdom has really good relations with Turkey in this historical
period of time; it's Turkey's active advocate in international and
especially European institutions.
Everybody see it, and the British officials never conceal it. The
importance of Turkey for UK and NATO countries, as an important
alley in the region, is great and has become greater because of the
Iraqi war.
Anyway, it doesn't mean that the whole society agree with the viewpoint
of the government. Though the UK official position is to support
Turkey in the process of integration in the EU, there are many people
in the political and public spheres that have an opposite opinion.
- Many Armenian specialists share my above-mentioned opinion insisting
that the pro-Azerbaijani position of London is conditioned by the
activity of "British Petroleum" in the Azerbaijani part of the Caspian
Sea and the oil interest of the British in the region in general.
- It is obvious that the British have oil interests in Azerbaijan and
an issue of providing oil transition in Turkey and Georgia. However,
it would be wrong to think that they are involved only in oil sphere
in the region. When big corporations enter a market, others also
follow them, and other programs are being carried out , too, though
the power-generating programs and the abundantly appearing financial
means remain primary in the country.
Nevertheless, I should repeat that thinking that the British presence
in any region is only because of the above-mentioned reason would
mean not to understand their present-day way of thinking and culture
and to forget the lessons of the one-time biggest empire of the world.
- In contrast to the European leading countries France and Germany,
Great Britain is one of the passive countries with its economic and
financial investments in Armenia. Is it a casual circumstance? Or
aren't there Armenian-British economic interests to cooperate on
efficiently? What is the role of the Embassy in this issue?
- It's desirable to have the most possible variety of investments
in our economy. And I'd like the European and West investments, in
this case the British investments, to be more in Armenia. Anyhow,
I would not measure the importance of the investments against their
number. The conception of the so-called "brand" is very important. In
my opinion, the presence of the "British Airways" and "HSBC" is a
matter of a greater importance to Armenia, than, for example, even
more investments of an apparent investor.
Of course, it does not mean that what we have is satisfactory. I am
sure, that the entry of British well-known and big companies into our
market is of necessity. Anyhow, our market should attract them. The
interests that you mentioned should be found or created, though I
understand that it is difficult. The creation of those interests takes
place due to the corresponding legislation of the country, but also
thanks to the applicable practice, at the level of the whole country,
when it leads to the creation of mutual interests of corresponding
business circles of the two countries' different spheres.
In the conditions of peculiar economic system formed in centuries
the role of the embassies is different from many countries. The
businesses are inclined to work directly with the other countries'
colleagues and usually avoid the involvement of the state departments,
if the programs are not very big.
Our main task is the proper presentation of our country and its
available favorable conditions for the investments that we do whenever
an opportunity presents itself. In this case, of course, it would
be better to have trade attaches or representatives, specialists of
corresponding qualification, and more diplomats in our embassies to
all those countries that have economic power like the UK. Speaking
of this, I am taking into account of course the fact that today in
this sphere issues are not the same as before, as sufficient open
information is already available from many sources.
Naturally, it's necessary that there should be real interest in
Armenia in developing trade relations with the UK. On the one hand,
it's easy for our businessmen to act in closer, familiar and cheaper
markets that have closer cultures, on the other hand the British want
to act with comparatively more purchasing and familiar markets. Of
course, there are differences, and though finding general features
and similarities is hard, but it is possible, and also because of
our Armenian people's growing interest in Britain. The number of
the British Armenians buying private residences and plots, and the
individuals and companies having business programs has also increased.
I am sure that the tendency will continue. I think that the "New
neighborhood" program with the EU will also assist our economy to
reach their standards and to increase the cooperation with the EU
member states at bilateral level.
- Twelve member countries of the European Union have adopted and
recognized the Armenian Genocide at the level of parliaments. What
kind of situation is created in Great Britain on this issue and does
the Armenian community organize works in that direction?
- Of course, the Armenian community of Britain works hard in that
direction and cooperates actively with the Embassy. However, the
community is rather small and doesn't have the power of the well-known
communities of some countries. Though the fact of the Armenian Genocide
does not give rise to doubt in most of the scientific, political and
journalistic circles and the publications on that theme increase
day-by-day, the pro-Turkish policy of the UK government plays a
major role. Turkey is of political and economic importance to the UK,
I would like to admit that we have many things to do here.
Nevertheless, the ice is broken - Wales' parliament declaration in
2002, decisions of Gwined (Wales) city council in 2004 and Edinburgh
(Scotland) city council in 2005 was a big success. And the allocation
of a cross stone in Cardiff, in memory of the Armenian genocide
victims is an unprecedented event, as it's the first such a monument
in this country that is being allocated on the public plot (allotted
by the municipality). The cross stone is being allocated in virtue
of "Wales-Armenia solidarity" organization, especially its leader
John Torosian and a very active and devoted representative, a Welsh
by origin Elian Williams and also thanks to the Welsh authorities
and people's good will, and in spite of the Turkish lobby's active
protests. The number of 180 MPs, who signed the statement of the
adoption of the Armenian Genocide presented to UK parliament, is
also unprecedented. Anyhow, we should not forget that it's only a
statement, and at this moment 1600 similar statements are presented in
the parliament, and only a few of them has a chance to get to a public
debate stage. We hope that in case of gathering numerous signatures the
process will run up, in order to present a corresponding draft law in
future. I should not forget that England is a very pragmatic country,
and it will be always taken into account what the country will benefit
and what it will lose in case of adoption of the Armenian Genocide.
According to the announcement of the UK Prime Minister Gordon Braun
followed by the signature of the military cooperation agreement
between the UK and Turkey these days, today 1500 British companies
act in Turkey, 17000 British citizens live permanently there and 1,5
mln tourists visit Turkey annually. In Turkey, the UK is considered
as their most friendly country. In addition, thousands of British
have bought summer cottages in Turkey, and there are also people who
move there for permanent residence. And the British cannot shut their
eyes to all of these, until we present more forcible contra-arguments.
- Do you consider that there are resources in the Armenian-British
relations that are not used yet? What do we need to do to reach a
new stage of bilateral political and economical relations?
- First of all, I would like to present facts that the UK sees
evidently political interests in Armenia and works actively with
the different spheres and institutions of our society. In contrast
to many other countries, the British usually act without luster;
they often avoid big, all-embracing programs. Very frequently,
where the British government is not involved directly, the British
non-government organizations work there. Though the NGOs cooperate
with their government, they at the same time have more freedom to
act. For example, it's already four years that the Consortium of the
NGOs has been founded. Its task is the creation of favorable conditions
for the peaceful settlement of Karabakh conflict and preparation of
the societies for the peace after the settlement. For this purpose,
they function in Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Anyway, my working years and contacts in the UK prompt that in
order to reach a new level of relations with the British, the
most reliable and shortest way is the deepening of trade-economic
relations; providing with British investments in Armenia, which
seems difficult at this moment. However, we should not think that
there are no other resources. The United Kingdom is a rich country
and though the competition of entering into its market is extremely
big, especially for the countries that have small potential, I
think that we should refer to the market in the broader sense. I
see real resources in the spheres of education, culture, health
care and scientific research. Here our "goods" should correspond
to the international standards of quality and also the standards of
international "packing". We should be able to present what we like
and to select the best to present. Praising ourselves is not enough;
we should look and learn, what is much in demand, which are the
standards of modern science, art and education and how we can provide
them. It is clear that we cannot set our hopes exclusively or mainly
on the export of minerals like some countries, we should lay stress
on highly valuable scientific, educational and cultural results,
banking and management skills, high technologies and tourism. It
takes time and our task is to shorten that time as much as possible.
I am sure that with this we will reach a higher level of bilateral
relations not only with the United Kingdom, but also with other
countries.
Conducted by Armen Manvelian, translated by L.H.
AZG Armenian Daily #203
06/11/2007
International
"Azg" daily interview with the Armenian Ambassador to the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Vahe Gabrielian
- Mr. Gabrielian, an opinion is formed that the pro-Azerbaijani
position of London impedes development of Armenian-British
relations. It is generally considered that Great Britain has always run
pro-Turkish-Azerbaijani policy. Does the opinion correspond to reality?
- I don't think that it's right to condition the status of two
countries' relations to the relations of one of those with the third
one. It's right, the United Kingdom has clearly displayed interests
in Azerbaijan and at a certain moment it can take them into account in
the relations with us or other countries. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean
that because of it we cannot have good relations with that country.
There are other countries that have good relations with us in spite
of their interests in the neighboring countries. Our task is to find
mutual profitable spheres of cooperation and to develop them. There is
no doubt that if those spheres are many, the role of foreign factors
will be less important.
The second part of the question would be better to address to
historians, though similar widespread social opinion exists. The United
Kingdom has really good relations with Turkey in this historical
period of time; it's Turkey's active advocate in international and
especially European institutions.
Everybody see it, and the British officials never conceal it. The
importance of Turkey for UK and NATO countries, as an important
alley in the region, is great and has become greater because of the
Iraqi war.
Anyway, it doesn't mean that the whole society agree with the viewpoint
of the government. Though the UK official position is to support
Turkey in the process of integration in the EU, there are many people
in the political and public spheres that have an opposite opinion.
- Many Armenian specialists share my above-mentioned opinion insisting
that the pro-Azerbaijani position of London is conditioned by the
activity of "British Petroleum" in the Azerbaijani part of the Caspian
Sea and the oil interest of the British in the region in general.
- It is obvious that the British have oil interests in Azerbaijan and
an issue of providing oil transition in Turkey and Georgia. However,
it would be wrong to think that they are involved only in oil sphere
in the region. When big corporations enter a market, others also
follow them, and other programs are being carried out , too, though
the power-generating programs and the abundantly appearing financial
means remain primary in the country.
Nevertheless, I should repeat that thinking that the British presence
in any region is only because of the above-mentioned reason would
mean not to understand their present-day way of thinking and culture
and to forget the lessons of the one-time biggest empire of the world.
- In contrast to the European leading countries France and Germany,
Great Britain is one of the passive countries with its economic and
financial investments in Armenia. Is it a casual circumstance? Or
aren't there Armenian-British economic interests to cooperate on
efficiently? What is the role of the Embassy in this issue?
- It's desirable to have the most possible variety of investments
in our economy. And I'd like the European and West investments, in
this case the British investments, to be more in Armenia. Anyhow,
I would not measure the importance of the investments against their
number. The conception of the so-called "brand" is very important. In
my opinion, the presence of the "British Airways" and "HSBC" is a
matter of a greater importance to Armenia, than, for example, even
more investments of an apparent investor.
Of course, it does not mean that what we have is satisfactory. I am
sure, that the entry of British well-known and big companies into our
market is of necessity. Anyhow, our market should attract them. The
interests that you mentioned should be found or created, though I
understand that it is difficult. The creation of those interests takes
place due to the corresponding legislation of the country, but also
thanks to the applicable practice, at the level of the whole country,
when it leads to the creation of mutual interests of corresponding
business circles of the two countries' different spheres.
In the conditions of peculiar economic system formed in centuries
the role of the embassies is different from many countries. The
businesses are inclined to work directly with the other countries'
colleagues and usually avoid the involvement of the state departments,
if the programs are not very big.
Our main task is the proper presentation of our country and its
available favorable conditions for the investments that we do whenever
an opportunity presents itself. In this case, of course, it would
be better to have trade attaches or representatives, specialists of
corresponding qualification, and more diplomats in our embassies to
all those countries that have economic power like the UK. Speaking
of this, I am taking into account of course the fact that today in
this sphere issues are not the same as before, as sufficient open
information is already available from many sources.
Naturally, it's necessary that there should be real interest in
Armenia in developing trade relations with the UK. On the one hand,
it's easy for our businessmen to act in closer, familiar and cheaper
markets that have closer cultures, on the other hand the British want
to act with comparatively more purchasing and familiar markets. Of
course, there are differences, and though finding general features
and similarities is hard, but it is possible, and also because of
our Armenian people's growing interest in Britain. The number of
the British Armenians buying private residences and plots, and the
individuals and companies having business programs has also increased.
I am sure that the tendency will continue. I think that the "New
neighborhood" program with the EU will also assist our economy to
reach their standards and to increase the cooperation with the EU
member states at bilateral level.
- Twelve member countries of the European Union have adopted and
recognized the Armenian Genocide at the level of parliaments. What
kind of situation is created in Great Britain on this issue and does
the Armenian community organize works in that direction?
- Of course, the Armenian community of Britain works hard in that
direction and cooperates actively with the Embassy. However, the
community is rather small and doesn't have the power of the well-known
communities of some countries. Though the fact of the Armenian Genocide
does not give rise to doubt in most of the scientific, political and
journalistic circles and the publications on that theme increase
day-by-day, the pro-Turkish policy of the UK government plays a
major role. Turkey is of political and economic importance to the UK,
I would like to admit that we have many things to do here.
Nevertheless, the ice is broken - Wales' parliament declaration in
2002, decisions of Gwined (Wales) city council in 2004 and Edinburgh
(Scotland) city council in 2005 was a big success. And the allocation
of a cross stone in Cardiff, in memory of the Armenian genocide
victims is an unprecedented event, as it's the first such a monument
in this country that is being allocated on the public plot (allotted
by the municipality). The cross stone is being allocated in virtue
of "Wales-Armenia solidarity" organization, especially its leader
John Torosian and a very active and devoted representative, a Welsh
by origin Elian Williams and also thanks to the Welsh authorities
and people's good will, and in spite of the Turkish lobby's active
protests. The number of 180 MPs, who signed the statement of the
adoption of the Armenian Genocide presented to UK parliament, is
also unprecedented. Anyhow, we should not forget that it's only a
statement, and at this moment 1600 similar statements are presented in
the parliament, and only a few of them has a chance to get to a public
debate stage. We hope that in case of gathering numerous signatures the
process will run up, in order to present a corresponding draft law in
future. I should not forget that England is a very pragmatic country,
and it will be always taken into account what the country will benefit
and what it will lose in case of adoption of the Armenian Genocide.
According to the announcement of the UK Prime Minister Gordon Braun
followed by the signature of the military cooperation agreement
between the UK and Turkey these days, today 1500 British companies
act in Turkey, 17000 British citizens live permanently there and 1,5
mln tourists visit Turkey annually. In Turkey, the UK is considered
as their most friendly country. In addition, thousands of British
have bought summer cottages in Turkey, and there are also people who
move there for permanent residence. And the British cannot shut their
eyes to all of these, until we present more forcible contra-arguments.
- Do you consider that there are resources in the Armenian-British
relations that are not used yet? What do we need to do to reach a
new stage of bilateral political and economical relations?
- First of all, I would like to present facts that the UK sees
evidently political interests in Armenia and works actively with
the different spheres and institutions of our society. In contrast
to many other countries, the British usually act without luster;
they often avoid big, all-embracing programs. Very frequently,
where the British government is not involved directly, the British
non-government organizations work there. Though the NGOs cooperate
with their government, they at the same time have more freedom to
act. For example, it's already four years that the Consortium of the
NGOs has been founded. Its task is the creation of favorable conditions
for the peaceful settlement of Karabakh conflict and preparation of
the societies for the peace after the settlement. For this purpose,
they function in Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Anyway, my working years and contacts in the UK prompt that in
order to reach a new level of relations with the British, the
most reliable and shortest way is the deepening of trade-economic
relations; providing with British investments in Armenia, which
seems difficult at this moment. However, we should not think that
there are no other resources. The United Kingdom is a rich country
and though the competition of entering into its market is extremely
big, especially for the countries that have small potential, I
think that we should refer to the market in the broader sense. I
see real resources in the spheres of education, culture, health
care and scientific research. Here our "goods" should correspond
to the international standards of quality and also the standards of
international "packing". We should be able to present what we like
and to select the best to present. Praising ourselves is not enough;
we should look and learn, what is much in demand, which are the
standards of modern science, art and education and how we can provide
them. It is clear that we cannot set our hopes exclusively or mainly
on the export of minerals like some countries, we should lay stress
on highly valuable scientific, educational and cultural results,
banking and management skills, high technologies and tourism. It
takes time and our task is to shorten that time as much as possible.
I am sure that with this we will reach a higher level of bilateral
relations not only with the United Kingdom, but also with other
countries.