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