PACE President's Visit to Yerevan and Its Outcomes

• 04.17.2015, 20:40
•  Europe,  Region,  "Insight" Analytical Center ,  World,  Analytics

-         How would you assess the visit of the PACE president? What was the outcome of the visit?

-         Well, first of all it is important to understand what the expectations from this visit were. In this regard two approaches should be discussed: the first one- overall, concerning the Council of Europe and the second regarding the PACE in particular.

In the first case the expectations are about all the issues, important principles which are on the basis of the CoE and Armenia being the follower of those values. In the context of democracy and human rights, I hope that an effective dialogue has taken place during the meetings and we can expect certain progress in future.

The second approach in particular refered to PACE and the report named "Escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan", which is at least not logical. Although there was  a hope that with the arrival of the PACE president, the issue would be solved, the hope vanished, as judging from the duration and the completion of the visit, we cannot conclude that Brasseur perceived tha absurdity of the report or had a wish to accept that it is so.

I would like to mention an important circumstance: it was quite unpleasant that in background of the European "activeness" of the recent days concerning the Armenian Genocide, including the last European Parliament resolution on recognition of the Armeian Genocide, Brasseur avoided pronouncing the word Genocide, and her visit to Tsitsernakaberd memorial was formal.

-         You mentioned that the planned report is not logical, what is the reason for that?

-         The report is not only illogical but it is also absurd. First of all, as I already mentioned, having such a title, regardless of the content,  it already, violates all the principles of objectiveness. On the other hand, an institute, which does not deal with the conflict settlement, with a title like this makes pressure both on the sides and the mediators.

Another circumstance is that the term "occupation" is by itself a legal one, thus its mentioning in the title of a report may affect the future status of the NKR.

Anne Brasseur should understand, that with this report and its promotion, also  by calling on Armenia to join its works, she is backing the present behaviour of Azerbaijan, the ceasefire violations from its side. In this regard she is also carrying responsibility for the situation on the borders, the blood shed by the victims and the ruined lives.

At the same time, if PACE is actually interested in peaceful settlement of the NKR conflict and wishes to have its input in it, it should not be done by means of a report with a title like that. A possible solution may be opening a CoE office in NKR, which would on the one hand give the institute an opportunity to receive objective information and on the other hand help protect human rights and democracy making processes. Another important input might be presence of NKR representatives during the discussions regarding NKR.

And finally, Armenia has been a member of the Council of Europe for many years now, and Brasseur will not succeed if she is aiming at spoiling Armenia-CoE relations. In reality, the institutions are not connected with the persons, as when the term expires, the person is replaced, while good relations of institutes and their members remain.