Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T. Torossian: `Foreigners Judge By The Situation'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T. Torossian: `Foreigners Judge By The Situation'

    T. TOROSSIAN: `FOREIGNERS JUDGE BY THE SITUATION'

    Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
    02 Dec 04

    The head of the Armenian delegation in the PACE, the vice speaker of
    the National Assembly of Armenia Tigran Torossian expresses his
    viewpoint on the draft report of David Atkinson, the new reporter on
    Karabakh in the Political Committee of the PACE. Mr. Torossian, how
    would you comment on the fact that Atkinson presented his draft report
    without a single visit to the region. You had personally suggested him
    visiting Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan and Mr. Atkinson accepted
    your suggestion. However, he did not have any visits. Why? - I met
    Mr. Atkinson in London on November 15 and told him we were
    dissatisfiedas after his appointment as a reporter he has never had
    any meetings in Karabakh, Yerevan, Baku. Moreover, he has not met with
    the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group, as well as the delegates of
    Armenia and Azerbaijan. Whereas, he was offered to carry out
    continuous work on the project. Besides, still at the September
    meeting of the committee I proposed him to take into consideration my
    suggestion made earlier in March, that is organize a round-table
    meeting onthe issue with the participation of the representatives of
    Nagorni Karabakh. By the way, Atkinson accepted my suggestion, whereas
    Davis noticed with doubt that it would hardly be effective especially
    that a similar attempt had been made already which, according to him,
    failed. Although I tried to relieve their doubts saying that I would
    guarantee correctness and willingness on the part of the participants
    from Nagorni Karabakh and Armenia, and the rest was up to Azerbaijan,
    of course, the meeting was not organized. Why was not this suggestion
    accepted? Both during the meeting of the committee and the meeting
    with Atkinson before that it became clear for me that there is,
    nevertheless, a great wish to present the question at the January
    session and there are no possibilities for changing anything. - The
    Armenian delegation in the PACE managed tomake 7 changes in the draft
    document. Nevertheless, during a press conference you mentioned that
    there are still several points which are not favourable for Armenians.
    I would like you to comment on these. - The wording to be argued
    against are the following. In the first point there is a statement
    that `separatist forces' continue to control the territory of Nagorni
    Karabakh. In fact, from the legal aspect this will not have any
    consequences, however, it has a psychological aspect as well. Because,
    as I have mentioned at the committee, this is an insult to the
    Armenian nation, and especially the people of Nagorni Karabakh for
    separatist forces may be at any place but they are usually few in
    number. Whereas, the entire population of Nagorni Karabakh is
    standing for the defence of its fair claim. This was proved by polls
    of public opinion and the referendum, as well as the decisions made by
    all the international organizations. Therefore, if this statement is
    not changed, people will identify the Council of Europe with the
    Soviet Union, which is not, of course, desirable. Another point states
    that the Assembly reasserts that the independence and separation from
    a state may be achieved only through a legal and peaceful process
    based on the democratic assistance of the inhabitants of the given
    territory and not through the wave of armed confrontation which
    results in ethnic cleansing and de facto annexation of this area by
    another state. The first part of this statement is obviously
    favourable for us because the Karabakh movement began in exactly this
    way, through democratic processes when the population of the area
    expressed its opinion. At that time it was the decision of the
    parliament of the region, the public opinion poll, many protest
    meetings, and later the referendum for independence. That is to say,
    the first part of the sentence is very important because if it is
    maintained, we will later acquire basis for detailed presentation of
    the matter and making our viewpoint fully comprehensible. In the last
    part it is said, not through the wave of armed confrontation. Of
    course, none of us wished an armed conflict. The settlement of the
    problem through an armed conflict was attempted by Azerbaijan, and
    everybody knows this. But there is a disagreeable mentioning of ethnic
    cleansing and de facto annexation ofan area by another country. I
    think, similar statements are disagreeable. My suggestion was putting
    a full stop after the words `and not throughthe wave of armed
    confrontation.' Naturally, all the possible ways of omitting or
    changing all the formulations that are not agreeable and favourable
    for Armenia and improving the resolution should be put to use. But I
    must also say that it will not be a tragedy if the resolution is
    passed in its present form. -May we say that the report with all its
    unfavourable points for Armenia will not have a practical effect upon
    the settlement of the NK issue. - This document does not impose
    anything. It may have a certain influence on the public opinion and
    not more. After all, the practical in this resolution is the appeals
    to Armenia and Azerbaijan to put an end to hostility, find ways of
    cooperation, etc. That is to say, from the practical viewpoint there
    is nothing dangerous there. On the contrary, I think, it may have only
    positive results. For example, the document says that the
    Parliamentary Assembly appeals to the Minsk Group co-chairmen to take
    steps for conducting the free talks rapidly. Or, it is mentioned in
    the resolution that efforts will be made to organize meetings in
    Strasbourg where Nagorni Karabakh will also be represented. And I
    think it will be more favourable for us. - Despite all the favourable
    points enumerated by you the document is on the whole unfavourable for
    Armenia. Whereas, in 1992 Atkinson presented a document of a
    completely different character where it is statedthat the Armenians of
    Karabakh cannot live within Azerbaijan taking into accountthe policy
    of that country. What is, in your opinion, the reason for the changeof
    standpoint 12 years later? - An important question, indeed. On
    November 15 I, of course, presented that document to him and made
    references to the document at the political committee. However, we
    must take into account that the situation in 2004 is different from
    the situation in 1992. That is to say, when Nagorni Karabakh was
    bombed in 1992, almost everybody was beside Nagorni Karabakh because
    what happened was really inhuman. And in your mentioned document it is
    stated as well that Azerbaijan undertook a military aggression. And
    there is even a question whether after all this it is correct to speak
    about Nagorni Karabakh being within Azerbaijan. However important and
    painful it is for us, we must recognize that foreigners judge by the
    situation. And presently the so-called victim for them is neither
    Karabakh, nor Armenia but Azerbaijan.- Actually, Azerbaijan has
    completely changed its tactics replacing the role of aggressor by that
    of a victim, the results of which are favourable for it.- What does
    the Armenian side do? - Azerbaijan has adopted a new tactics. They try
    to take certain steps in all directions, be active, get hold of
    certain documents. However, no practical steps can be made in
    reference to the problem. We must not forget that neither the PACE,
    nor the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the UN are to solve the
    problem. Everybody knows that the settlement will be sought for in the
    framework of the Minsk Group. And I am sure that they tryto get to
    these documents first of all for internal use. Because Ilham Aliev is
    the son of Heidar Aliev but he is not Heidar Aliev. Of course, he
    wants to have influence on his country in the way and to the extent
    his father had and the best question to manipulate for this purpose is
    the problem of Karabakh. After all, it is obvious that a lot of
    falsifications are made to have certain influence on their people
    inside Azerbaijan. Here are two small examples. The Azerbaijani side
    had made only one change in the draft project, whereas the Azerbaijani
    press wrote about 15 changes, which is utterly false. In October when
    a resolution was adopted on the implementation of obligations by
    Armenia and Azerbaijan, they wrote that the PACE had given strict
    evaluation of the both countries whereas it referred to Azerbaijan
    only. This is, I think, anotherwave from Azerbaijan. It is another
    thing if Azerbaijan changes its tactics; we will also reconsider our
    steps. I must say that Azerbaijan uses all its potential in this
    direction and I do not think it is not possible to find good solutions
    in this situation. It is not so absolutely. Life shows that when we
    concentrate our possibilities and work efficiently the results do not
    wait long. In this respect our delegation in the PACE needs wide
    assistance. We already have an arrangement with the foreign minister
    of Armenia Vardan Oskanian about assistance. And I hope that
    everything will be done and we shall not have any obstacles for the
    fair settlement of the problem of Nagorni Karabakh. â=80` The
    oppositionist press in Armenia recently has been circulating the
    viewpoint that under foreign pressure Armenia will make unilateral
    concession of territories. What is your opinion? - There will never be
    unilateral concessions because there is a principal question - how the
    question will be solved, stage by stage or the package solution will
    be chosen? The answer was given long ago. No one can concede anything
    without seeing the aim. And in the case of Armenia I am sure that it
    will not happen. And those who speak about pressure should rather do
    real work displaying at home and abroad that in reference to the
    problem of Karabakh among all the political forces in Armenia,
    oppositionist or no, and generally among the Armenian nation, there is
    unity.

    CHRISTINE MNATSAKANIAN.
    02-12-2004
Working...
X