The NA deputy chairman,
the head of Armenian delegation in PACE Tigran Torosian says on the occasion of
the resolution of the OSCE special representative on NK issue Goran Lenmarker.-There
are appraisals that in contrast to David Atkinson’s report and PACE resolution
Goran Lenmarker’s report produced to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was a serious
progress for the Armenian party. Do you agree?- I think this isn’t a serious
appraisal as the appraisals must be grounded and the difference must be mentioned.
There is a positive thing on the occasion of Lenmarker’s report; that the history
is absent in the Armenian reality. Certainly I mark it positively as we must treat
the documents calmly.A romantic title "Golden opportunity" and a
very interesting subtitle Lenmarker’s report has and I think it is very right:
"Some thoughts round the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict." The impression
is indeed so that there are simply some scattered thoughts in the report.
If we compare it with the PACE 1416 resolution which refers to Karabakh conflict
I want to remind first of all that nobody adopted the proposal of solid dispute
round that document. And the second, which is the most important nobody can show
any other document adopted by any international organization where it is recorded
that there is a possibility of Karabakh conflict settlement by the way of NK independence
and it is stressed by the second point of the resolution. So I don’t think that
the comparison of these documents is in favor Lenmarker. I think it is just the
opposite. The project of OSCE PA resolution is at me, which has a positive side;
it doesn’t say anything at all. This is indeed a positive side not to prevent
the settlement of the conflict. There is only a point in the resolution where
it is suggested to Armenia and Azerbaijan to follow the suggestions connecting
with the situation "victory-victory" which were assisted by European
institutions. Frankly speaking, we can suppose what "victory-victory"
means, but in reality it is nothing. This document doesn’t say anything, doesn’t
add anything and doesn’t change anything. And perhaps for that reason this document
can be considered positive. There isn’t any new taken step. -Meanwhile they
insist that Lenmarker’s appraisals are more balanced, more pro-Armenian.-I
don’t agree with the people who say that Lenmarker’s report is positive, pro-Armenian
and I don’t know what else. Certainly it is spoken about who wants what. It is
called in some points to observe everything round Euro integration and to do everything
for the region to become a complete territory etc. These are only good wishes
but don’t have any ground and the document doesn’t suggest any mechanism how it
must be achieved in case of different conditions of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.-
Though Lenmarker refused the idea of RNK independence mentioning that "the
separation of Caucasian region into small states is dangerous" but he also
used expressions by which he didn’t exclude the opportunity of reunification:
"Armenia wants the Nagorno-Karabakh security and such a status will form
a highest level of security."- Unfortunately it was excluded. And it
wasn’t said that the way of solution must be in that way. Show other points of
the report where it is spoken about solutions. It is said in the second point:
"The highest standards of democracy, human rights and national minorities
must be respected". It is considered that the NK population is minority in
Azerbaijan. Certainly it is spoken here about autonomy. It is obvious if we read
this document without emotions the suggestion is only that about which Mr. Lenmarker
spoke at the end of his report. "Is it possible in real life that the solution
of autonomy becomes privileged for both side. As a Swede I must say yes, taking
into consideration the experience." All this report is based on this idea.
Unfortunately this is the reality.- He has suggested determining Artsakh’s
status by the example of Swedish populated Alandian islands, which are the part
of Finland. Is this example useful for NK?- The Karabakh people gave the answer
of it in time. Arkadi Ghukasian had said to the member of the commission of foreign
relations in Euro Parliament Pier Garton; "I agree Nagorno-Karabakh to be
an autonomous region under Finland’s rule." No there isn’t any serious way,
any real step for the settlement of the conflict in the project of the resolution.
– Goran Lenmarker has suggested involving in the negotiating process the Parliamentarians
of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the communities and representatives of media. Perhaps
involving journalists will be decisive for the settlement of the conflict.-
Involving Parliamentarians isn’t a new idea and acts for a long time. Deputies
participate in that process round the initiation of the OSCE and CE PA and South
Caucasian parliamentary initiations where are the greatest contacts. Armenian
and Azerbaijani journalists also meet together in various round tables.- He
also advised in the report to form a bilateral commission "Justice and reconciliation"
which will look for historical justice which is in Lenmarker’s opinion will be
possible after giving the "occupied" territories back.- This is
also a dangerous thing as there mustn’t be bilateral relations in the settlement
of NK conflict. As the NK must take part in the negotiations by all means. Another
circumstance, the 17-year way of the conflict is ignored in the report. Though
Lenmarker chose the subtitle of the report very fairly "some thoughts".Anna
Israelian