KARABAKH ISSUE USED FOR PUTTING PRESSURE ON ARMENIA
Support A1+!Our correspondent Ruzan Amirjanyan has conducted interview with Armen Rustamyan, a member of Armenian delegation to the PACE session.
Correspondent: Can removal of word “other” from the resolution be considered as achievement?
A.R.: In comparison with the initial version, this word removal could be taken as success. But we should learn lessons from that, as we, indeed, have many problems. First of all, we should divide our commitments in two groups: Karabakh-related ones and all others. Commitments not linked to Karabalh conflict are being fulfilled in due course, as they are quite feasible and necessary for democratisation of the country. And what about the conflict-related commitments, the situation is far more complicated. The thing is that we came across such language that comes neither from reality nor from the problem essence and our national interests.
Correspondent: But why we face such a kind of troubles – wording?
A.R.: I think there are three causes. The first is that the issue has been put under such a large-scale public discussion since Armenia’s entrance in the CE. I should say there is no concept for that kind of discussions. It is very important.
The problem has to be compared with similar ones and in need of coordination. Lack of concept creates obstacles on the way of their solution. Azeri side is in advantage in negotiations: it knows what exactly it demands while Armenia has no well-thought-out view. This hobbles our actions.
The second is that the CE should embark on the issue solution with full seriousness or merely leave it to other structures’ consideration. Any language should be bared from being voted and put into reports without undergoing proper scrutiny.
Very often organizations’ members vote though they are ill-informed or completely unaware of the issue. Many of them are being influenced with some reports or speeches while few are in touch of the matter essence.
The CE has set a commission for monitoring to study the situation on site yet in 2001, but monitoring had not been conducted for unknown reasons. Nobody has visited Karabakh, but everybody participated in the vote. I said in my speech this is unserious approach to the issue and urged to put an end to the process. If no, the CE may lose its role, I said.
The third cause is constant. Those involved in the decision-making process – be it a superpower or an international organization – often use Karabakh issue as an opportunity to make a country move in the direction they want, acknowledging very well that the issue have considerable impact on political situation inside the country. Karabakhi conflict is a delicate issue. That’s why it will be used as a lever in pressing one or another side of the conflict as it is needed at any particular moment.
I think there is another field to put pressure on Azerbaijan. The republic has problems connected with democracy and political prisoners. We have accomplished far more in European integration process than the neighboring country. This obvious progress is noted in the report. It means unlike Azerbaijan Armenia can’t be pressed by that lever but can be pressed by Karabakhi problem instead.
Correspondent: Blaming the CE for unserious approach, Shouldn’t we think that we ourselves have given the CE an opportunity to act such a way?
A.R.: No matter what criticism we faced after elections, this has nothing in common with Karabakh problem. And when we are being told “let’s solve the problem unjustly, because there is no justice in the republic”, we view this as rather shallow idea unsuitable to any international organization.
Other organizations being engaged in the issue for years, such as the OSCE Minsk Group are trying to avoid such a kind of languages, realizing that they are not equivalent to the problem essence. Shallow attitude toward Karabakhi conflict is unacceptable.
Correspondent: Don’t you think that failure at PACE session could lay grounds for laying the blame on Dashnaktsutyun Party?
A.R.: It doesn’t matter who will lay the blame on whom. The issue must be solved. That’s important. If it’s Dashnaktsutyun’s fault, then it would be better the party to be empowered to work out a concept. We have such a concept.
