Two days ago, the meeting of Co-Rapporteurs of the PACE Monitoring Committee on Armenia, Axel Fischer and Alan Mills, was held with the PACE Armenian delegation. “Aravot” talked to the head of the Armenian delegation to PACE, NA Vice Speaker, Hermine Naghdalyan, on the details of the meeting.
– Ms. Naghdalyan, according to our sources, the meeting with the European co-rapporteurs was held in a quite strained atmosphere. What issues were raised by our delegation, and which subjects were the triggers of the fiery discussion?
– First of all, I would like to emphasize that all the issues that relate to Armenia’s assumed commitments to the Council of Europe, in other words, the basic mandate of this structure, in this sense, we particularly have not disagreements. We are consistent and step-by-step implemented the Action Plan for the period 2012-2014, now the Action Plan for the period 2015-2017 is also underway in collaboration with the Council of Europe. These actions are conducted in numerous directions: constitutional reforms, combat corruption, judicial reforms and other key initiatives, about which the co-rapporteurs have expressed their satisfaction and a positive assessment by the results of their previous visit. In that sense, the perception of Armenia and Azerbaijan as countries under the monitoring of the Council of Europe are radically different in the Council of Europe because our assumed commitments for enhancement of democracy, human rights, rule of law, freedom of the press, political prisoners, civil society and so on are fully implemented, and we do not have any serious flaw on these matters, which could be a reproach to us by the Council of Europe, in the meantime, when the civil society, human rights, democracy, rule of law issues are popular and flagrant in Azerbaijan.
I do not say that everything is ideal in our country, but the progress is actually great, and it is visible and perceivable for the international organizations. Here, we do not have a debate. In that sense, if we say that the meeting with the co-rapporteurs was held in a strained atmosphere, it was not related to our assumed commitments. The tension was available regarding the issues that were beyond our commitments and the PACE mandate. The problem is that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, today, displaying a pretty unprincipled, corrupted and unilateral attitude under the influence of petrodollars enters the range of issues that do not pertain to its mandate, it has no such a power, experience, expertise and toolbox, and it is expressed in Azerbaijani monitoring report through the working about Nagorno-Karabakh. Issues related to the conflict and its settlement are not included in the problems of the co-rapporteurs of the monitoring, both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The conflict-related issues, generally, are not issues related to the Council of Europe, but by the consensus decision of all OSCE member countries, the solution of these issues are attributed to the OSCE Minsk Group as a specialized structure. Using a vocabulary that does not comply with the Minsk Group’s accepted vocabulary means expressing absolutely biased and partial opinion.
Read also
In none of the international document so far you will not meet the “Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven occupied territories” wording. Armenia joined the Council of Europe in 2001, i.e. when the active phase of all the problems connected with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has already been completed. The armistice was signed in 1994 when accepting Armenia and Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe in 2001, the CU has not used the “Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 occupied territories” phrase. The “occupied territories” phrase has never occurred in these years.
– What is such development of the PACE conditioned by? What factors contribute to the emergence of such reports?
– In recent years, we have repeatedly voiced our concern about the fact that over these years the Council of Europe has undergone significant changes by turning from an organization of values to an organization of interests and by losing its principles and its mandate adherence.
And today, with a tandem of Azerbaijani and Turkish lobby, together they are trying by using their financial capabilities to influence the processes of this structure. In fact, Azerbaijan being defeated in the OSCE Minsk Group, which is a specialized mandate structure, is trying to thwart the peace process at any cost. After the meeting in Kazan in 2011, no progress has been made in the peace process because of the Azerbaijan’s posture.
In addition to corruption and the known handwriting of Azerbaijan to influence the talks at any cost, here, we are dealing with the changes of geopolitical type. Today, the major states that create a climate in the international world order are at any cost striving to preserve the territorial boundaries that were established after the last World War II. In that sense, they both equal in the Helsinki principles, inwards, are more inclined towards the territorial integrity, also driven by their own interests. This plays into Azerbaijan’s hands, it skillfully find and fit in the cracks.
Using all possibilities of lobbying until now, Azerbaijan is trying to enter a turning point or open a window for itself, to produce some documents, which will contain requires and favorable phrases for itself, which later would be used in this-or-that talks or formats.
This is the problem, and the tension that arose during the meeting was due to this. In other words, the Azerbaijani report on the monitoring should have addressed the commitments assumed by Azerbaijan rather than the geopolitical issues, which both Azerbaijan, as well as numerous countries, including Armenia, have them.
Together with his co-rapporteurs, Azerbaijan is now trying to divert the European public attention from their own drawbacks in the monitoring commitments by linking all of these shameful problems due to the Nagorno-Karabakh problems, and by using the corruption, it is trying to tear off any PACE wording that would be beneficial for itself.
– Well, eventually, how dangerous is the resolution to be adopted and whether it can become a bargaining chip in the hands of Azerbaijan to influencing the course of the talks?
– The nature of the PACE decisions is known: they are not binding directives and laws. They are recommendations. The OSCE Minsk Group statements and decisions are of value and role for the conflict settlement, but certainly. Such phrases and expressions crawling into the international documents become a source of Azerbaijan is becoming a source of excitement for Azerbaijan to toughen its stance in the peace process and a comfort in the eyes of its own public on the background of non-Azerbajanophile statements by the Minsk Group.
