TERRY DAVIS IS THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISS
Arminfo
2007-11-27 17:04:00
An interview of the Head of the Armenian delegation to PACE,
Chairman of Parliamentary Committee for State and Legal Affairs Davit
Harutyunyan with ArmInfo news agency
Question: The issue of "the future role of the CoE in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement" was discussed during hearings
in Bundestag recently. The topic is not new and it was thanks to
it that PACE ad hoc Committee on Nagorno-Karabakh was created. Is
this initiative-the discussion of experts’ opinions in Bundestag-
directed to considering of the possibility to extend the powers of
the CoE or PACE Committee, which, by the way, Head of the Committee,
Lord Russell Johnston had expressed earlier.
D. Harutyunyan: It wasn’t the issue of such an extension of powers
of the CoE in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement that was
discussed at the meeting in Bundestag, but the necessity to create
a favorable atmosphere for settlement of conflicts. Moreover, the
current situation-the current stage of negotiations, and the situation
in the society were discussed.
Experts made speeches on each issue and presented their visions on
the situation. Opinions expressed by experts, who made speeches
on the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh, on the necessity of renewal of
the dialogue with Nagorno-Karabakh became the culmination at the
meeting. The issue of "the CoE’s future role" in the process of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement is presently under discussion. And
here most different points of view were expressed. Azerbaijan, for
example, thinks it important to create a special sub-committee for
consideration of all conflicts at the European territory. At the same
time, Russia, roughly reacts to this proposal reasonably raising the
issue that conflicts at the European territory must not be restricted
to consideration of conflicts at the former Soviet Union territory
and touch upon the conflicts in Abkhazia, Ossetia, Trans-Dniester and
Nagorno-Karabakh, in particular. In this respect, there are different
points of view. We are, basically, against creation of a special
subcommittee, as we think that there are two important missions, one
of which is the OSCE Minsk Group mission. It has been working quite a
long time, and we have no right to blame the co-chairmen for gaining
yet no results. This is a hard work, the intermediaries have gone
deep into the problem, they perfectly understand all the details of
the process. The second mission is the PACE ad hoc Committee mission,
headed by Lord Russell Johnston, which sets itself a task to create
a favorable situation for the conflict settlement. We think, there
is no sense to create another subcommittee. What really makes sense
is holding tripartite meetings, conferences with the participation of
international experts on the compulsory condition that representatives
form Nagorno-Karabakh participate in them.
Question: The Armenian authorities and OSCE MG don’t accept
intervention of other international players in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement process. I would like to draw attention on the
opinion of Lord Russell Johnston, who thinks that over centuries
borders have changed due to marriages and wars, and he sees nothing
terrible in it. People but not the territory are important for
him. Don’t you think that in the light of analogous statements, we lose
an opportunity, while in case of extension of mandates of the CoE and
the UN, the Karabakh conflict will be qualified by analogy with Kosovo?
D. Harutyunyan: No I don’t think so, because Council of Europe does not
interfere into the UN Mission to Kosovo, and international structures
must not interfere into the competence of the OSCE Minsk Group. We
don’t lose an opportunity, we just express our viewpoints and conduct
active work to avoid duplication. It is a dangerous phenomenon, for
creation of new committees having potentially concurrent powers with
the OSCE Minsk Group will be aimed at devaluation of the process within
the frames of the OSCE MG. Note that Azerbaijan raises this issue at
many international institutions in the very periods when the activity
of Minsk Group is on the top. Such measures are not only unfavorable
for us, but they don’t promote the conflict settlement.
Question: There is an opinion among Armenian political elite that when
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is mentioned in the international
structures, contemporary Azerbaijan’s territory is meant, at the time
of declaring independence of which Nagorno-Karabakh was already out of
its composition. How much founded is this opinion? Does "territorial
integrity" in case of Azerbaijan and NK really carry two semantic
burdens and can it be understood dual?
D. Harutyunyan: There is a just reason for such a view existence
since Nagorno-Karabakh has never been a part of independent Azerbaijan.
Question: CoE Secretary General Terry Davis’s recent statement
caused a storm of indignation in Armenian media. Speaking about his
powers, Secretary General particularly said he must not comment on
everything, putting the local government election in Karabakh and the
ban on holding gay-parades in Europe at the same row. For his part,
Terry Davis complained that Armenian media wrongly interpreted his
words. What is the real conflict? Is it possible that traditional
Armenian media really didn’t understand the European official,
for whom elections whether in Karabakh or in his homeland-the Great
Britain and rights of sexual minorities are actually the similar ideas?
D. Harutyunyan: I think that such a top politician like Terry Davis
should not allow himself making statements, which may be understood
incorrectly.
This is already the politician’s fault. Therefore, I don’t think that
the election in Nagorno Karabakh and gay-parades are similar ideas
for him.
Although Terry Davis said he did not want to put these events at the
same row, nevertheless such misses are inadmissible for a politician
of such a class.
Question: Armenian writing community was also dissatisfied with
T. Davis’s remarks on inadmissibility of drawig parallels between
settlement of Kosovo and Karabakh conflicts. Actually, he didn’t
say anything new, but confirmed the well-known position of the world
community on Nagorno-Karabakh issue, but he did that in an extremely
provocative way, without sparing expressions and behaving not like
a diplomat, at all. He said: "The UN controls in Kosovo, separative
regime- in Karabakh".
Should one think over what was said, one can remember his less partial
and, accordingly, more just statement, namely: CoE is oriented by the
relevant decisions of the UN in issues of defining state borders. Then,
why wasn’t it possible to repeat the position exactly? What is the
intrigue?
D. Harutyunyan: It’s a difficult question. It is hard to comment on
what is the intrigue here. Terry Davis’s position, of course, was
known to us earlier, too. Nothing new happened in this respect. It is
another thing that we don’t absolutely agree with this position and
we’ll take a strong stand. It turns out that Terry Davis’s position
is manifested implicitly.
Question: International structures insist on historical difference
between Kosovo and Karabakh. Even if this is admitted, in spite of
the fact that the territory of Kosovo is originally Serbian, there
is misunderstanding concerning the principles, which the competent
international structures intend to practice. It is unclear if they
intend to search for a settlement in the clauses of the international
law or to examine the total of historical characteristics.
D. Harutyunyan: At the moment the world community’s reaction is
that the core of the issue is not the historical characteristics or
historical borders. There are a lot of different viewpoints, presently,
but as we have no final decision on Kosovo yet, we can’t comment on
them. The only and the key position was given in the Armenian foreign
minister’s statement, which expressed inadmissibility of restricting
nation’s right to self-determination. Thus the Armenian position has
already been distinctly stated in case the situation develops in such
a way when in a similar situation one decision becomes admissible and
another one is ruled out. As to the settlement, one should wait for
the final settlement of the Kosovo problem to see what solution will
be applied in Kosovo’s case. Nevertheless, the Kosovo issue settlement
principles can and should be applied to all conflicts equally.