Tweet
Armenian presidential aide accuses European rapporteur of pro-Azeri stance
Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
21 Sep 04
An interview with the Armenian president's advisor Garnik Isagulyan.
[Hayots Ashkarh correspondent] Mr Isagulyan, [rapporteur of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] Terry Davis's draft
report on Karabakh has been submitted to the Council of
Europe. According to some officials, it contains statements which
worry both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Do you also think so?
[Garnik Isagulyan] I think there is nothing surprising in the draft
report. The principle according to which the rapporteur on Karabakh
was chosen should be taken into account in the first place. Terry
Davis is an MP from Great Britain, a country which in 1991 recognized
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan including Karabakh. For this
reason, Great Britain, albeit an influential country, did not become a
member of the OSCE Minsk Group [for the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict] because from the very beginning it adopted a pro-Azerbaijani
position.
A new rapporteur has been appointed recently and again an MP from
Great Britain. I do not think that his approaches will differ greatly
from the approaches of Davis. We should be ready for this. On the
whole, it will be better if our delegation in the Council of Europe
does its best to have a representative of a country that has a neutral
position appointed a rapporteur on the Karabakh issue.
[Passage omitted: Baku might want to change format of Karabakh talks]
[Correspondent] Do you think that within the framework of the Minsk
Group a pro-Armenian settlement is becoming more realistic?
[Isagulyan] I would say not pro-Armenian, but a settlement which stems
from the real situation, in case if Azerbaijan stops insisting on
starting the process from scratch. But Baku understands very well that
the minimum to which the Armenian party will agree is Karabakh's
independence or even reunification with Armenia. Our society,
political forces, on the whole, should get into the habit of not
paying much attention to different discussions and reports regarding
the Karabakh issue in those international structures which have no
significant role in the settlement process. The Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic is in fact an independent state. As for the discussions that
start from time to time as to whether territories should be returned
or not, what compromises can be made, the Megri problem, and so on, in
reality they are raised in Armenia. There are similar hopes in
Azerbaijan and Turkey that if certain forces come to power in Armenia,
the problem could be resolved in their favour.
[Correspondent] What forces do you mean?
[Isagulyan] It is no secret that the whole ideology and approaches of
the Armenian Pan-National Movement worked in this direction. Their
agreement to the settlement option suggested at the end of 1997 and
[Armenian ex-President] Levon Ter-Petrosyan's known article are the
links of the same chain. Today in Armenia against the background of
the anti-Karabakh propaganda, one can hear from radical opposition
circles expressions like: let Karabakh itself resolve its
problem. This is inadmissible. Although Karabakh is a fully-fledged
country, it still needs Armenia's support and it will never be within
Azerbaijan. No country or international structure can make such an
illogical claim to Armenia and Karabakh if our domestic moth does not
destroy us.
Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
21 Sep 04
An interview with the Armenian president's advisor Garnik Isagulyan.
[Hayots Ashkarh correspondent] Mr Isagulyan, [rapporteur of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] Terry Davis's draft
report on Karabakh has been submitted to the Council of
Europe. According to some officials, it contains statements which
worry both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Do you also think so?
[Garnik Isagulyan] I think there is nothing surprising in the draft
report. The principle according to which the rapporteur on Karabakh
was chosen should be taken into account in the first place. Terry
Davis is an MP from Great Britain, a country which in 1991 recognized
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan including Karabakh. For this
reason, Great Britain, albeit an influential country, did not become a
member of the OSCE Minsk Group [for the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict] because from the very beginning it adopted a pro-Azerbaijani
position.
A new rapporteur has been appointed recently and again an MP from
Great Britain. I do not think that his approaches will differ greatly
from the approaches of Davis. We should be ready for this. On the
whole, it will be better if our delegation in the Council of Europe
does its best to have a representative of a country that has a neutral
position appointed a rapporteur on the Karabakh issue.
[Passage omitted: Baku might want to change format of Karabakh talks]
[Correspondent] Do you think that within the framework of the Minsk
Group a pro-Armenian settlement is becoming more realistic?
[Isagulyan] I would say not pro-Armenian, but a settlement which stems
from the real situation, in case if Azerbaijan stops insisting on
starting the process from scratch. But Baku understands very well that
the minimum to which the Armenian party will agree is Karabakh's
independence or even reunification with Armenia. Our society,
political forces, on the whole, should get into the habit of not
paying much attention to different discussions and reports regarding
the Karabakh issue in those international structures which have no
significant role in the settlement process. The Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic is in fact an independent state. As for the discussions that
start from time to time as to whether territories should be returned
or not, what compromises can be made, the Megri problem, and so on, in
reality they are raised in Armenia. There are similar hopes in
Azerbaijan and Turkey that if certain forces come to power in Armenia,
the problem could be resolved in their favour.
[Correspondent] What forces do you mean?
[Isagulyan] It is no secret that the whole ideology and approaches of
the Armenian Pan-National Movement worked in this direction. Their
agreement to the settlement option suggested at the end of 1997 and
[Armenian ex-President] Levon Ter-Petrosyan's known article are the
links of the same chain. Today in Armenia against the background of
the anti-Karabakh propaganda, one can hear from radical opposition
circles expressions like: let Karabakh itself resolve its
problem. This is inadmissible. Although Karabakh is a fully-fledged
country, it still needs Armenia's support and it will never be within
Azerbaijan. No country or international structure can make such an
illogical claim to Armenia and Karabakh if our domestic moth does not
destroy us.