The “Heritage” faction MP Tevan Poghosyan about the Armenian delegates’ silence in the PACE, Artashes Geghamyan’s suggestion in OSCE and Aliyev-Sargsyan upcoming meeting
– At the 23rd session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Baku, the leader of the Armenian delegation and the MP of parliamentary faction of the ruling party, Artashes Geghamyan, had voiced a suggestion about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh to enter into the Eurasian Economic Union, thus resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. How logical is this approach, and whether it can be perceived as a position by official Yerevan?
– As far as I am informed, in accordance with the Constitution of Armenia, only two officials, the President of the Republic of Armenia and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have the right to express an official opinion. As far as I know, none of them holds Geghamyan last name. When the President of the Republic of Armenia or the Minister of Foreign Affairs voices such a suggestion, then it will comment on it. Otherwise, a representative of another party, who is a member of the Republican Party, and there are some mixed situations … let the ruling force clarify it within the party. I have repeatedly said that I do not believe in the success of the Eurasian Economic Union, I am not sure that its member states will achieve their strived success, and I do not want Armenia eventually to become an EEU member. If I do not want Armenia be a member of this Union, how can I agree with the idea that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh enter into the Eurasian Economic Union? I can suggest another model. If Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized by Azerbaijan, then Armenia, naturally, is doing its step. And if the region is taking the path to European integration, the European examples that were brought there are made an attempt to be applied. And in the future, perhaps, it would be possible to establish one common framework by the three recognized states, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Artsakh, which would be consistent with the European peaceful thinking. This may work. But, being a Eurasian Union member in the conflict situation, I do not understand.
– At the PACE summer session, quite anti-Armenian speeches by the President of Azerbaijan and the Foreign Minister were followed by the silence by the Armenian delegation. It was not univocally accepted in Armenia. The delegates have been returned to Yerevan, but they refrain from communications with journalists and clarifications. What is it caused by?
Read also
– It is a little difficult to give estimations, it would be correct if they give the respond to it. However, I know one thing that those same delegates were able to pass a resolution in the PACE, which says about the human rights problems in Azerbaijan. However, various European delegated raised the fact of the bad human rights and democratic institutions in Azerbaijan, and it was also the work of the Armenian diplomacy, as well as by our delegation. On the other hand, it is clear that every time, an equivalent response should be given by some instances to any anti-Armenian statement. It is not true that the members of our delegation in the PACE have not done anything, but we must understand that like any subversive attack on the borderline gets its equivalent response, so in the media, diplomatic circles, political circles, various international organizations, and Internet wars, Azerbaijan should realize that any of its attack would get an adequate response.
– In the spring, during his visit to Armenia, the French President Francois Hollande spoke about the necessity of Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan meeting. Recently, this topic was “rehabilitated” by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern. What will Aliyev and Sargsyan meeting produce at this moment?
– Any meeting, of course, is better than its non-occurrence, because any meeting is a new opportunity to talk, share, listen to, and insist on your own views. It outlines an opportunity to save at least the life of one soldier and so on. In this sense, every kind of meeting should be applauded. It’s another matter that as of today we do not have great expectations and anticipations from Aliyev and Sargsyan meeting. Our expectations and anticipations are that the issue should be resolved. And to resolve the issue, the meeting should not be bilateral, between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but three-sided, between the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. When we will gave the Artsakh representative at the negotiating table, then we can cherish hopes that every meeting will eventually lead to a resolution of the issue.
– Recently, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are again active in voicing different views on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On the background of geopolitical developments, are there preconditions for a move in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, or the co-chairs are the so-called keeping the “hand on the pulse”?
– Developments are taking place in the region initiated by the powerful countries. Russia has its own problems in Ukraine, now the situation is changing the Middle East, and each activeness results in a new activeness, in which everyone is trying to compete separately. The Institute of co-chairs is trying to bring this activeness into a balance, and that this competition is not turned into an open confrontation here, like in Ukraine. In that sense, when the co-chairs are active, then meetings, visits, talks, etc. take place, it means that they control the process and are trying to resolve the issue peacefully. If there is no activeness, it means that the parties are directly setting up a war. So, these types of activeness should not be avoided, they contain positive things. We just need to be prepared, be flexible and able to push our interests forward.
Interviewer, Nelly GRIGORYAN
