STATEMENT BY H. E. VARTAN OSKANIAN

AZG Armenian Daily
19/04/2007

Ministry Of Foreign Affairs Of The Republic Of Armenia
at the 660th Special meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council
17 April 2007, Vienna

Mr. Chairman, distinguished colleagues and friends,

I thank you for this opportunity to address the Permanent Council. My
previous appearances here have been gratifying to me and I hope that
this Council itself found it useful to hear directly from me about
Armenia’s priorities and policies.

I myself have found our meetings helpful because this is the
opportunity to directly, clearly talk about our issues with an audience
that is most knowledgeable, in a forum that is most relevant.

The discussions and reflections about the OSCE’s relevance of course
continue. Although Armenia may see this organization as indispensable,
there is no denying that its costs and benefits are being assessed
very differently in various capitals. Some would like to further
empower this organization, others are reluctant to do so.

Concern over OSCE’s effectiveness in carrying on its relevant mandates
gave us the Panel of Eminent Persons, who in 2005 looked rather
comprehensively at the question of reform. We do not believe the
organizational, operational challenges identified by the Panel and
its recommendations have been fully addressed and embraced. We see
and understand why those who resist further efforts see the present
arrangements and methods sufficient and satisfying.

However, the frustration and restlessness of those who continue to
see and experience the inequities, partisan approach, two-tiered
distribution of Participating States continues. Therefore, it is
essential that we persist in efforts to collectively adopt ways
to make our organization more effective and coherent. As the OSCE
pursues transparency, rule-based applications, inclusive participation,
equality of opportunities and even playing fields inside the political
systems of states, we believe it would be extremely appropriate if
the same patterns of democratic conduct were practiced within the
OSCE itself, among all members.

Our delegation is ready to fully engage in ensuring the robust
viability of an OSCE that is very much a pillar of our foreign policy
landscape, and also a partner in developing and instituting domestic
democratic processes, including election reform.

Mr. Chairman,

I know that the OSCE, its institutions and its members are watching
as we embark on parliamentary elections next month.

The long-term observer team sent by ODIHR under the leadership of
Ambassador Frlec of Slovenia has already started its work. These
elections, to be held on May 12th, will also be observed by a large
contingent of short term observers deployed on Election Day. We
welcome them and we would encourage OSCE member states to participate
with observers.

Many of us in and out of government are deeply committed to improve our
score, to strive for elections in line with international norms. While
past mistakes are undeniable, we should not be presumed guilty for the
future. We have changed our election law, we’re moving from a strong
presidential system to a system where the role of the parliament is
being enlarged. This is a serious change, there are now new checks
and balances in our government, it enhances the role of parliament
and through them the role of political parties. Therefore, during
these elections, each party will struggle for votes, defend its vote,
and watch others in order to assure their share of power.

But fair and free elections require the good will and good intentions
of everyone: not only government, the elections commission, the ruling
party, but the entire society, and also the opposition parties.

Unfortunately, those with great doubt about their own electability are
more than eager to convince outsiders that their political weaknesses
are solely due to the machinations and insincerity of those in the
majority.

To avoid this, we need to make monitors vigilant and aware of this
fact, as well as generally aware of the Armenian reality. As I meet
with members of the observation team, I have noticed that those now
involved in observation missions in Armenia as well as in monitoring
of the media situation are more aware than before of the problems
with reliance on hearsay and mechanistic, quantitative methods,
without an understanding of the cultural and political realities on
the ground. Of course, in Armenia, as well as everywhere East and
West of Vienna, incumbency has its privileges and advantages that
cannot be reduced to simple calculations of candidates’ airtime. And,
in Armenia as elsewhere, there is a curious correlation between rising
standards of living and the cost of financing electoral campaigns.

Of course, these elections are a serious challenge for Armenia to
demonstrate its determination to consolidate through free and fair
elections its progress towards democratization and the rule of law.

Together, all of us — government, opposition, with the OSCE’s help —
will further Armenia’s democratization process.

Mr. Chairman,

OSCE’s assistance to Armenia’s democratization and the modernization
of its political structures is of course not limited to the agenda of
ODIHR and the Office of the Representative of Freedom of Media. The
OSCE office in Yerevan has been a useful presence and partner for
longer than six years. It has accomplished some projects, initiated
others, and remains engaged in a variety of reform related activities.

The Melange project is nearing its completion. Through the
participation of our Defense Ministry, the expertise of the planners
and the implementers and thanks to the generosity of donors, the
melange project can serve as a model for implementing serious programs
thru collective efforts.

Among many other items, let me single out the elaboration and
implementation of a regional economic/environmental development plan
for the province of Syunik, our southernmost area and facing multiple
challenges. My Ministry is deeply committed to make this initiative
succeed both for its own sake and as a model for similar actions
elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Chairman,

Armenia’s economy is doing well. This is the 7th year of double-digit
growth. The inflation rate is low, around 3%, our exports are
increasing, foreign investment is increasing, our foreign reserves
are increasing. Such positive macroeconomic achievements allow us to
address the more problematic issues in our economy – unemployment,
low incomes, poverty. There’s one other major problem we need to
address and that is the gap between rural and urban areas.

Mr. Chairman,

Before I talk about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict negotiation
process, let me continue on this economic theme and link it to the
conflict. There is an ironic phenomenon that is connected to our
economic development. It seemed to us that for about ten years after
the cease-fire, Azerbaijan, and its ally Turkey, expected Armenia
to collapse under the weight of poverty, economic stagnation and
despair. This hasn’t happened and it will not happen. But no lessons
are being learned from this experience. The blockade continues. And
with new efforts: The evidence is the recent signing of a deal to
begin construction of a new railroad that will circumvent Armenia. We
never expected that new initiatives, Baku-Ceyhan for example, would
go through Armenia, but it’s amazing to even contemplate that one
might consider spending $700 mil to $1 billion to build a new railroad
where there is an existing rail that will perform the same function,
just to bypass Armenia. We’ve said to them — use the existing one,
Armenia would be willing not to be a beneficiary of the running
of the railroad, we won’t transport our goods on that railroad, we
won’t even charge transit fees, just use it, instead of spending $700
million. But Turkey and Azerbaijan have not met us halfway on this
issue. No lessons have been learned obviously. We regret this. Let
me repeat, Armenia will not be isolated, but we can be alienated.

A new railroad will not make us succumb, it will not do more harm
than the existing closed border. It’s the political environment that
will suffer, that’s what we regret, not the economic benefits. We
will continue to advocate that the existing rail line be opened. And
we will go further, and ask that Turkey open the border and establish
normal ties with Armenia. We have no preconditions to normal ties. And
we expect that Turkey, too, won’t have preconditions. This is the
last closed border in Europe, and it needs to open, so that Turkey
can engage in the region more positively, and bring its positive
contribution to the NK conflict.

Regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, I believe we could be close
to a resolution. I have been Minister for nine years now. Five years
before being appointed Minister, I was part of the team negotiating
the Nagorno Karabakh issue. I have seen all the proposals that have
ever been produced by the mediators, and if I were to base my judgment
purely on the content of the document on basic principles at hand,
I can assure you that we’ve never been this close. What we have
today is the most sensible, the most balanced. This is a trade-off
among principles, this gives something to everyone, and denies every
maximalist demand the sides might have. It is a balanced approach and
we hope we will be able to continue to make progress on the basis of
this document.

However, there are two other factors which affect the negotiations
and need to be addressed: one is the militaristic ambition of
Azerbaijan. Let me repeat: this conflict has no military solution. This
must be ruled out so we can focus on compromise. Second, the public
statements made by the sides should match the spirit and letter of
the document. When the document is eventually opened up, the public
will ask why the statements don’t match the content. In the case of
Baku’s statements, there is a discrepancy between their statements
and the content of the document. My guideline is to go by what we’ve
been hearing, what the co-Chairs have been hearing during the talks.

Mr. Chairman,

Let me say one thing about Kosovo whose ultimate fate will be decided
by the Security Council of the United Nations if the formula meets
both parties’ interests.

We are often asked what Armenia’s position is on this matter. No
matter how beneficial a certain solution may appear to us and to our
case, we are firm believers in the distinctiveness of each conflict,
its dynamics and its conditions. We have no problem expressing our
views as to the limited value of precedents.

However, it is ironic that those who oppose one "size fits all"
precedents are disingenuous in bundling together four "frozen"
conflicts elsewhere.

Further, more than just arguing against precedent, GUAM is attempting
to prejudge the outcomes of other conflicts, specifically ours, by
creating mechanisms, through resolutions and other actions, to block
the natural progression of our negotiations process.

The international community must be alert to the disingenuousness of
such efforts. This is not a zero sum process – where a successful
self-determination process for Kosovo necessarily means that all
other self-determination processes must be quashed, artificially.

In conclusion Mr. Chairman and distinguished colleagues, let me state
unequivocally that Armenia remains committed to a negotiated solution,
and we will continue to pursue a fair resolution that will guarantee
the people of Nagorno Karabakh security and the right to determine
their own future.

I will travel tomorrow to Belgrade, to conduct regular talks with
my counterpart. I am going to Belgrade with the hope that we will be
able to reaffirm our commitment to the principles agreed heretofore
and attempt to make progress.

We believe that this is the best to move forward.

Thank you.