Toivo Klaar, now the former EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, failed to avoid a scandal upon his departure. This individual, as previously reported, gave an interview to JamNews, where he again spoke about the “safe and dignified return to their native region” of the Karabakh Armenians, generously supplementing this statement with remarks about “Azerbaijan’s obligations,” the need to “close the chapter of enmity and violence,” and so on.
The unfortunate Euro emissary has already received a response from Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, let us add our perspective. From the very beginning, Azerbaijan stated that it considers Armenians who lived in Karabakh before 1988, and their descendants, as its citizens and that they would be granted all the rights guaranteed by the Azerbaijani Constitution. However, some found the very idea of living under Azerbaijani laws unacceptable, while others simply feared responsibility. Throughout three decades of occupation, Yerevan illegally resettled ethnic Armenians in Karabakh, not only from Armenia but also from the Middle East, including professional terrorists. They also did not want to stay in Azerbaijani Karabakh. Azerbaijan has done its part for a “safe return.” The rest is up to the Karabakh Armenians themselves. Does Mr. Klaar not know this? So what “safe and dignified return” is he talking about?
Moreover, during the time Toivo Klaar represented the EU in the region, Azerbaijani experts and diplomats had many reasons to believe that he was a classic example of a loser and a failure. According to the Azerbaijani information-analytical resource Minval.az, Klaar was embedded in the EU’s foreign policy structures by the Americans, who expected him to promote their interests. However, due to his professional incompetence, Klaar did not meet Washington’s expectations. As a diplomat, he is frankly weak. He neither knows nor understands the region. He lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of his statements, analytical thinking, and even pragmatism. Instead, he is committed to the idea of “Christian solidarity,” through which he views regional processes. For Klaar, Azerbaijanis are Muslims, Armenians are “long-suffering Christians,” and that’s all there is to it. Hence, his attempts to promote Armenia’s interests and narratives by any means, his “cold” attitude towards Azerbaijan, and much more. In Baku, they saw through this character immediately. It is no surprise that Klaar was “kept at a distance” for many years, and then simply ignored in the last year.
With such a track record, especially after effectively resigning from his post as Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Klaar should have just kept silent. But he lacked even the professionalism for that and gave his scandalous interview with musings about the “safe and dignified return of Armenians.” In doing so, he “forgot” about the right of return for Azerbaijanis who were forcibly expelled from modern Armenia.
Moreover, Mr. Klaar did not think to assess the policies of the Baltic countries and raise the issue of the right to return and granting citizenship to the tens of thousands of people who were “pushed out” of Latvia, Lithuania, and his native Estonia because of their “wrong” nationality. The fact that in the 21st century human rights depend on nationality is absurd and medieval, but such trifles do not concern Klaar. He is exclusively concerned with retransmitting the Armenian narrative about the “dignified and safe return of Armenians to Karabakh.”
Here, however, are some nuances. Klaar is not an independent expert or a blogger. He is an official representative of the European Union. And by his position, he is supposed to know another fact. In Armenia, they like to talk about the right of return for Karabakh Armenians but at the same time block access to a specially created Azerbaijani portal reintegration.gov.az, where, in several languages including Armenian, it was explained how to process documents for return, and so on. A paradox? Unfortunately, no. Under the guise of talking about the “right of Armenians to return,” there are attempts to legitimize plans for a military revanche and repeated occupation of Azerbaijani lands. And Toivo Klaar greatly encouraged supporters of revanche. At least, immediately after his interview, Gagik Bagunts, who calls himself the “speaker of the Artsakh parliament,” made his demands to immediately transfer Ruben Vardanyan, Araik Harutyunyan, and others to Armenia. Former Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan also broke his silence: “Klaar’s interview indicates that the ‘Artsakh’ issue (quotation marks ours – Ed.) is still unresolved.” So, does Klaar really not understand what sentiments he is fueling in Armenia? This EU representative is certainly a very weak diplomat and analyst, but to this extent? To be honest, it all looks like a sort of “set-up” with pre-determined roles. And it would be interesting to know whether this is Klaar’s initiative, EU policy, or “a third party’s order.”
Now Klaar is finishing his unsuccessful “mission” in the South Caucasus and heading to Uzbekistan. It is not yet clear what he will be doing there. As they say, time will tell. But we hope that our Uzbek brothers will take into account the track record of this unfortunate diplomat.
