UK Ambassador to Armenia comments on upcoming parliamentary elections, March 1, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian-Turkish issues and the statue of Anahit goddess (Video).

During the interview with LURER.com, UK Ambassador to Armenia Catherine Lich answered the questions referring the Human Rights in Armenia, the organization works of British Embassy in Armenia, Great Britain`s political and economic priorities in Armenia and the South Caucasus, Armenian-Turkish issues, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia-NATO relations, the upcoming parliamentary elections in Armenia, March 1 events and the statue of Anahit goddess.

You have been Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Armenia for 2.5 months already. Have you managed to meet the representatives of political organisations and what are your first impressions on the situation of Democracy and Human Rights context?

I’ve been in the country, as you say for two and half months and at that time I have managed to meet most of the senor members of the government including the president and foreign minister and a number of other ministers. Now that we are entering an election season I have also now started to meet with the heads of the other political parties who will be contesting the election. So I hope I have managed to gain an impression so far and of what is coming up in Armenia, on the current situation, and I would say that on the question of democracy and human rights I think Armenia has a great deal of potential. If you look at the former Soviet Union the position on democracy and human rights in many countries is extremely difficult, extremely bad. Armenia has a real chance to show that it can make a break with the past. Its human rights situation is better than in many other countries in the region; it has a much freer press, still problems with TV, but very lively internet debates and progress on issues like freedom of assembly. But on the elections themselves, this is the key question: can these elections really make a break with past? Can they be free and fair? Can people have confidence in them? We know that the political signals are right and that the President also says he wants the elections to be free and fair. But will this be implemented in the ground and will the citizens themselves really respond and refuse to take bribes, report violations, and insist that the process is fair? This is very important and this is what I hope to see.

The appointment of a joint Ambassador has caused many debates and discussions in actives circles of the society. There was an opinion that appointment of joint ambassadors is a signal from the UK Government of Armenia’s being unimportant country for the UK. Is Armenia an important country for the UK?

If Armenia were not important for the UK we wouldn’t have an embassy here. The fact is that we have an embassy here and we want to have an impact here too. I would say that our appointment as joint ambassadors is a way that the Foreign Office has found to increase the resources and the profile of the embassy. We know that people will have questions because it’s a very new idea and diplomacy is a very traditional and conservative field. But I think it’s up to us now to show to people when they meet us that we can really deliver something, joint experience, joint energy, a different approach on some things, but a different approach that will actually mean that we can do more, we can connect with people in different ways, we can pursue some different projects. Overall we think it will add something to the embassy and I think that people in Armenia will feel that.

How do you envisage your joint work with your husband? Whether the appointment of two people in one post will impact the overall effectiveness of the Embassy’s work?

I think there are some challenges; we need to make sure that we keep each other informed and that we are working to the same overall agenda. We are used to working as a team, I think any couple is used to communicating well, making sure things work and we are confident that we can do it [at work too]. The Foreign Office has done this before and it has worked very well so they felt that [our appointment] is actually an added value to the post. It is now up to us to show that we can do it too.

Which are the political and economic interests of the UK in Armenia and in South Caucasus?

What we want is a stable, secure, prosperous Armenia in a stable, secure, prosperous South Caucasus. This region will always be strategically important because it’s a crossroads of east and west, north and south, the Christian and the Muslim worlds. So it’s a very important region and of course as an energy corridor it’s also a crucial region for the EU, for our European partners. So Armenia is part of that, if Armenia is not secure and prosperous then there is no lasting security and prosperity for the region itself. Those are our interests. In addition the UK has an Armenian Diaspora which is smaller than some other European countries but it is lively and engaged. We want to help the Diaspora make the contribution it wants to make. We can do more on trade and investment, the trade and investment figures for Armenia go up every year, but I think we can try to do something more. I know that is something that the Government would really welcome as well, and the more the government can do to convince business people that the business environment is fair and free and that the rule of law is strong, the more that will attract business people to come to Armenia and to look for the opportunities that exist here.

As an EU-member state, what’s your evaluation of the Armenian-Turkish relations in general and in the context of Turkey’s aspirations to become an EU member?

We were strongly supportive of the protocol process and we remain very disappointed that at the moment the protocol process is stuck. It offered a real opportunity for Turkey and Armenia to meet and get on with doing business with each other which I think this is what both sides really want. Of course from the EU perspective the UK is a great supporter of Turkey joining the EU but the condition of joining the EU is to have good relations with neighbours so for us good Turkey-Armenia relations are really important, it’s a key priority for us and we would like to do anything we can to support that process of normalisation of relations.

How does the UK see the regulation of the Karabakh conflict?

We, like all the other members of the European Union, of course support the Minsk process because that’s the key negotiating forum to try to resolve the conflict. That’s the first thing to say. We also hope that the EU can play a positive role and the new EU special representative Philippe Lefort is very keen to do everything he can to make a contribution which will support the Minsk group process, for example looking at post conflict scenarios where the EU could promote development and reconstruction work. Also confidence building measures which we can encourage both sides to take and which would also support the Minsk group process. So that at the moment is where our focus lies and as the UK we have spend many years trying to support those processes by organising a lot of projects which bring Azerbaijani and Armenian groups together - journalists, young people, opinion formers. Because it’s really crucial that people continue to meet, to talk, to understand each other. With this sort of “bottom up” activity we hope can contribute to the resolution of the conflict.

Which is the impact of the UK’s major regional economic projects on the official London’s vision of the NK conflict regulation?

We are interested in peace for a number of reasons. Of course safeguarding our economic interests is a very good reason to be interested in peace because our companies have made big investments in this region and we know that war is the worst possible thing for our economic interests. We are the biggest foreign investor in Azerbaijan and war would be disastrous for our interests in Azerbaijan. So of course that’s a very important factor. But, is it the only factor? Of course it isn’t, because our foreign policy - the way we do business - is also driven by values. We want to see countries develop democracy, develop good governance, develop very robust protection for human rights for their citizens. And I hope that’s evident that from the kinds of things we have been doing, from the sorts of activities we have been supporting. It’s also because we strongly believe that democracy breeds economic growth and open political systems are the best possible thing for developing an economy. So these things are very closely connected. A stable democratic country is the best kind of country to do business with.

UK (British Embassy) is NATO’s official representative in Armenia. What’s your evaluation of the Armenia-NATO relations, and how probable are changes in the system and direction Armenia’s security strategy?

I think on NATO-Armenia there is really positive story to tell. In the last two months since I have been here, we have had three high level delegations from NATO and each of the delegation leaders has certainly been impressed by the commitment to reform that they have seen in the Ministry of Defence and particularly by the Defence minister and his deputy. So I think there is real evidence of change. The UK and US have been very heavily involved in the Strategic Defence Review which is now moving on to its implementation phase and my colleagues who have been involved in that review have been absolutely convinced that there is a genuine appetite for change. Of course there are some areas where we would like progress to be quicker; military discipline, tackling hazing, tackling the issue for alternative service. These are all issues where we would like to see quicker progress, but on some of the key issues and on the commitment that Armenia has made for example to international efforts in Afghanistan, and in Kosovo, that’s been extremely impressive. We know that there is a commitment from Armenia to have a fully NATO-interoperable battalion by 2015, again a very impressive commitment, so I think it’s a really great story to tell.

Referring to local elections in Hradzan, you once mentioned that in accordance to the reports that you have received, there has been vote buying, distribution of bribes, abuse of administrative resources but you also expressed hope that the upcoming elections will be more democratic. What are the grounds for your optimism?

I think there has been a lot of preparatory work done, both by making the right political signals at the very top level but also looking at the electoral law. The Central Election Commission has worked very hard looking at Venice Commission proposals to draft its law, and to train officials. Something over 30000 officials have been trained. Looking at election observation as well, there is a strong commitment that there will be as many observers as possible, and I very much hope to be invited as a head of mission to observe as well. So these all are very positive signs but the big questions remain, I think, on the period up to the Election Day. [For example] the use of television in particular - will that will be a level playing field for the different political parties? The use of charity gifts by particular political parties - and then as we saw in Hrazdan, there was youtube footage of a lady saying “Everyone else in my apartment block has been give 5000 dram to vote and where is mine?!” There are these issues as well, which need to be looked at both by the authorities but also as I said before by citizens themselves. Citizens need to play a role in being responsible and believing in the possibility for this to be a free and fair election. I have some grounds for optimism because I think people realise this time how important this election is. They do not want to see March 1st 2008 repeated again. That was a terrible shock for everybody and nobody wants to see that repeated. I think the authorities realise how important it is, and I think the people realise that Armenia is facing a turning point where it can really show its European partners that it wants to take a big step forward. And the European Union stands ready to give Armenia a great deal of support if we can get a positive signal about a commitment to free and fair elections. So I think there’s a lot at stake. I am convinced people realise that, but we need to make sure that people do not revert to their old bad habits on the Election Day, just to make sure that everything is as they want. People need to have faith that they must let the people decide and if that happens then I think it will set off a number of very positive processes in Armenia.

There is an impression that the European structures a member of which is the UK, in their election monitoring missions in Armenia and CIS countries when assessing the national or local elections, narrow down their assessments to the election day evaluation of the voting ignoring the violations in the pre-election period. How is such approach justified and don’t you think that the pre-election cycle pretty much determines the election outcome.

I don’t totally agree with you that the election observation is only on the day of the election because in fact the ODIHR mission sends a number of long term observers who come at least a month and may be longer then that beforehand. They monitor the television output and look at the way that the political parties are campaigning. They collect evidence of abuse of administrative resources or pressure on government employees wherever they are able to collect that kind of evidence. So I agree with you that actually of course an election in some ways begins the day after the last election and a government has four years in which to campaign to the people to re-elect it for the next election. Of course to a certain extent that’s absolutely true. But ODIHR is the body that monitors the elections, it has an established methodology which is not perfect but which is I think able to get a pretty accurate snapshot of a particular election. And for that wider perspective, I think that’s what embassies are here for partly - to report to our capitals on how level the playing field is for different political parties, on how the pre-election period has been handled. And I hope that our reporting then informs the views of our politicians our governments when they are also making decisions within the EU but also on a bilateral level about how to take the relationship forward.

Are you going to observe the upcoming parliamentary elections and if yes, how are you going to publicise the results of your observation?

I very much hope that I will be monitoring the elections. We’ve been told that the Central Election Commission will extend an invitation to us and we are waiting for that invitation to come. On the question of whether I will be making a report, my view is that the gold standards for the election report will the report of ODIHR. I have confidence that that will be an accurate report which I would like to support. So I see my role on Election Day rather as being an extra pair of eyes. Because I think the more independent, objective observers we have in every single precinct, the better. And not just to see the voters coming in and put their vote in a ballot box but to stay and to check that then those ballots are counted and the election manifest is correctly filled in and then that it’s transmitted to the territorial and then to the Central Electoral Commission. So I think there is a great value in simply being there as an observer and I very much hope that I won’t see any violations at all on that day. That’s my hope. If I do see things then I will feed that information into the ODIHR report. As I said I think the most important thing is not to have confusing messages between different representatives, whether those are MPS, the Council of Europe or missions here. I think we all have to focus on the ODIHR report, as the professional and fair report on the election.

The CoE PACE protocol kept the following statement in its resolution “the page of March 1 can be eventually considered closed” but we see how the European structures react the events in arab countries, when the dictators use force on peaceful protesters. We hear opinions in Armenia that Europe in then guided by its own interest rather by the principle of human rights and freedoms. And really, isn’t this a classic example of using double standards?

I think the particular sentence that you are talking about in the Council of Europe report, that turn of phrase, was not the best turn of phrase and actually if you read the whole report there was more nuance in what they were saying. I think the overall impression was that there has been some progress made: that “political prisoners” have been released; that freedom of assembly is a principle that has now been re-established. So there has been some progress. But on the question of double standards and whether we are applying different standards to Armenia compared with the Arab countries, I think it is very difficult to compare those situations. Because with the Arab Spring many of these manifestations were not as a result of a particular election, rather they were very widespread popular movements against long established dictators. And they took us, I think, by surprise and many other countries by surprise at how sudden and strong and powerful these movements were. We have in our approach tried to respond as well as we can to each of the countries that has undergone these different processes. Has our response been exactly the same to each country? No - because there are many different factors at play. What are we able to do; what are our options? And with Armenia, actually I think what we saw was a very strong process with the Council of Europe to engage with Armenia and too look at how to respond to the events of March 1. I understand that people feel that there hasn’t been a proper resolution to those events yet. And I think the aspect I would particularly highlight is an open public inquiry into the events - not the security services making an inquiry into their own actions on the day but rather what we in the UK would understand as a public inquiry which is an inquiry headed by an objective, respectable figure like a very senior judge who is able to call evidence from a very wide variety of people including the families of those who were killed or injured during the March 1 events, and with a real spirit of open inquiry to try to establish what exactly happened and what issues need to be taken up by the government in order to resolve those issue. So I think when the Council of Europe was calling for a full inquiry into the March 1 event that’s the kind of inquiry they had in mind and I would very much welcome it if that inquiry could happen in Armenia. But I don’t think we are at the end of the process and I don’t think the Council of Europe has finished its work with Armenia. So there is still I hope some very useful work which we can do to help people establish the truth of those very painful and difficult days and I am sorry if people feel Europe has not responded adequately to that challenge. I think we want to and we hope that the next elections will give us a chance to further intensify our contacts with Armenia in some of these areas.

The Minister for Education and Science in Armenia, Mr Armen Ashotyan recently initiated a campaign in a social network requesting to bring the statue of Anahit back to Armenia. I can recall a group of youth organization recently met you on the same request. What is the approach London takes on this issue?

When we met with Armen Ashotyan I said to him that I had already had a positive signal from the British Museum that they would be very happy to consider a request for a loan. I handed him the paperwork for that and he welcomed it as a first step. So I think from our perspective that’s where we would like to focus - on establishing a collaborative relationship on exchanging information and then looking at loans of cultural treasures including the head of Anahit. So that’s what we very much like to support because it would be a fantastic thing to be able to bring the head to Armenia for an exhibition. I am taking this [campaign] in the spirit of collaboration and intercultural cooperation and I think that’s the first step and we will see what happens next.

14 March, 2012, Yerevan

Interviewer Arthur Minasyan