Kocharian Aide Blames Britain For “Anti-Armenian” Report On Karabakh
By Ruzanna Stepanian and Emil Danielyan 28/09/2004 11:26
Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Sept 28 2004
A national security adviser to President Robert Kocharian linked on
Monday a Council of Europe report accusing Armenia of illegally
annexing Nagorno-Karabakh with Britain’s policy in the region which
he denounced as oil-driven and pro-Azerbaijani.
Garnik Isagulian claimed that the report’s findings, rejected by
official Yerevan, were greatly influenced by the British nationality
of Terry Davis, its author and the new secretary general of the
Council of Europe.
“British Petroleum’s influence on British foreign policy is very
obvious,” Isagulian told reporters, referring to BP’s pivotal role in
the multibillion-dollar Azerbaijani oil projects. “They are solely
concerned with controlling oil reserves. This is what English policy
is all about. Only Baku’s oil matters to the British.”
The document in question was meant to serve as the basis for a
resolution on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be adopted by the
organization’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE). The 45-nation assembly
chose Davis as its chief Karabakh rapporteur long before he was
elected to head the Strasbourg-based human rights organization last
June.
“Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied
by forces from Armenia, and separatist forces are still in control of
the Nagorno-Karabakh region,” reads the draft resolution submitted by
Davis to a key PACE committee earlier this month. It effectively
accuses Armenia of illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territory as
well as ethnic cleansing.
“The Assembly reaffirms that independence and secession of a regional
territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and
peaceful process based on democratic support by the inhabitants of
such territory, and not in the wake of an armed conflict leading to
ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to
another state,” says the draft resolution. “The Assembly reiterates
that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state
constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member
of the Council of Europe.”
The proposed wording is largely in tune with Azerbaijan’s
long-standing allegations about Armenian “military aggression.”
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev repeated in a speech at UN General
Assembly in New York late last week. Aliev charged that the Armenians
are intent on “consolidating the results of the aggression.”
The Davis report was rejected as “unacceptable” by Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian last week. The Armenian members of the PACE also
criticized it. One of them, deputy parliament speaker, Tigran
Torosian, plays down the document’s significance saying that it will
have no legal force because the PACE has appointed a new Karabakh
rapporteur, David Atkinson.
Atkinson is expected to present his version of a Karabakh resolution
at the PACE session in January. Isagulian contradicted Torosian when
he claimed that it is unlikely to differ markedly from Davis’s draft.
“We need a rapporteur who would represent a state with a neutral
position on the issue,” he said.
The presidential aide went on to predict that the Council of Europe
can have little impact on the Karabakh peace process because it is
spearheaded by the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. “Azerbaijan has realized very well that the
Karabakh problem has been solved within the Minsk Group framework,”
he said, apparently alluding to its peace proposals reportedly
upholding the disputed region’s independence from Baku.
Davis, on the other hand, indicated his support for the restoration
of Azerbaijan’s control over Karabakh by advising the Armenians to
look into “positive experiences of autonomous regions as a source of
inspiration.”
The report drafted by the Council of Europe chief also suggests that
the conflicting parties turn to the Hague-based International Court
of Justice if the long-running peace talks sponsored by the Minsk
Group remain lead nowhere. It says the court could rule on “whether
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan … has lawfully been violated
by Armenia in order to protect a right to secession by the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh.”