Tweet
WHAT GOAL DO THE SUCCESSIVE HEARINGS PURSUE?
Vardan Grigoryan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on April 19, 2008
Armenia
It is noteworthy that on April 17, the day PACE passed the report
on the "Situation of the Democratic Institutions in Armenia", the
Committee on "Security and Cooperation in Europe" or the "Helsinki
Committee" of the US Congress also started discussions over agenda
"Armenia after the Elections."
It's more than clear that after PACE's holding long-lasting and
detailed hearings and debates and adopting the report, the discussions
held in the "Helsinki Committee" of the Congress would add nothing
new to the international community's assessments on the post-electoral
situation in our country.
Moreover, from the point of view of following the situation of the
democratic institutions in our country, introducing relevant proposals
and achieving their adoption, they have been more pedantic and rigorous
during the recent years, compared to the US Republican Administration
which is clearly guided by geopolitical interests.
However, even in conditions of such pedantry and rigorousness, the
report adopted in Strasburg on April 17 is quite balanced, and it
enables the new leadership of Armenia to bring to life the specific
proposals before the start of the PACE summer session.
Therefore, the factor currently troubling our country is not absolutely
the contents of the international community's demands (introduced in
the spring session of PACE) of conducting an independent inquiry into
the March 1-2 events, releasing the individuals arrested by political
motives, refusing to implement the changes introduced to the law on
"Holding Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations."
We are sure that their phase-by-phase implementation in the course
of the coming months is not absolutely "beyond the powers" of the
Armenian authorities and political forces.
The real problem consists in the following: what particular goals
does the leadership of the given state or international tribunal
pursue by introducing reports, proposals and recommendations? And in
this respect, it is noteworthy that the top figures of the US State
Department and first of all, Condoleezza Rice, have started dropping
open hints at the existence of new opportunities for the solution of
the Karabakh issue during the coming months.
What gives rise to more concern is the US State Department release
which says the United States and the international community do not
recognize Nagorno Karabakh as an independent state. The release was
published on April 17, the day the Helsinki Committee held discussions
over the issue "Armenia after the Elections". It is also noteworthy
that during the discussions devoted to the internal political situation
of Armenia, the American Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew
Bryza acted as a rapporteur, making tough and unilateral assessments
on our country's current situation.
In the meantime, special attention was paid to the issue on how
the recent developments of Armenia may influence the process of the
Karabakh settlement talks. M. Bryza assured the participants that
the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers will meet in the course
of the coming month, with the purpose of preparing the negotiations
between Ilham Aliev and Serge Sargsyan. This testifies to the fact
that the United States hopes to finish the coordination of the
Karabakh settlement principles before the Presidential elections
to be held in Azerbaijan on October 15. Obviously, the official
Washington's intention to link the attempts of speeding up the
process of the Karabakh settlement talks with the investigation of the
recent developments of Armenia and the situation of the democratic
institutions may create an ambiguous situation for our country. The
fact is also understood in Azerbaijan; therefore, Foreign Minister
E. Mamedyarov has been recently making "constructive statements"
on Azerbaijan's willingness to resume the negotiation process.
It seems to Azerbaijan that Armenia may hereafter be viewed as a
retreating country in terms of the development of democracy and even be
compared with it. And the "concern" expressed by the Azeri delegates
over the situation of the democratic institutions in Armenia as well
as the false demands of not applying "double standards" against the
country may be accounted for by this.
We believe that before the Presidential elections to be held in
Azerbaijan on October 15, our Foreign Ministry should adopt the
tactics of making an equivalent response to the tough stance of the
Azerbaijani leadership.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Vardan Grigoryan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on April 19, 2008
Armenia
It is noteworthy that on April 17, the day PACE passed the report
on the "Situation of the Democratic Institutions in Armenia", the
Committee on "Security and Cooperation in Europe" or the "Helsinki
Committee" of the US Congress also started discussions over agenda
"Armenia after the Elections."
It's more than clear that after PACE's holding long-lasting and
detailed hearings and debates and adopting the report, the discussions
held in the "Helsinki Committee" of the Congress would add nothing
new to the international community's assessments on the post-electoral
situation in our country.
Moreover, from the point of view of following the situation of the
democratic institutions in our country, introducing relevant proposals
and achieving their adoption, they have been more pedantic and rigorous
during the recent years, compared to the US Republican Administration
which is clearly guided by geopolitical interests.
However, even in conditions of such pedantry and rigorousness, the
report adopted in Strasburg on April 17 is quite balanced, and it
enables the new leadership of Armenia to bring to life the specific
proposals before the start of the PACE summer session.
Therefore, the factor currently troubling our country is not absolutely
the contents of the international community's demands (introduced in
the spring session of PACE) of conducting an independent inquiry into
the March 1-2 events, releasing the individuals arrested by political
motives, refusing to implement the changes introduced to the law on
"Holding Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations."
We are sure that their phase-by-phase implementation in the course
of the coming months is not absolutely "beyond the powers" of the
Armenian authorities and political forces.
The real problem consists in the following: what particular goals
does the leadership of the given state or international tribunal
pursue by introducing reports, proposals and recommendations? And in
this respect, it is noteworthy that the top figures of the US State
Department and first of all, Condoleezza Rice, have started dropping
open hints at the existence of new opportunities for the solution of
the Karabakh issue during the coming months.
What gives rise to more concern is the US State Department release
which says the United States and the international community do not
recognize Nagorno Karabakh as an independent state. The release was
published on April 17, the day the Helsinki Committee held discussions
over the issue "Armenia after the Elections". It is also noteworthy
that during the discussions devoted to the internal political situation
of Armenia, the American Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew
Bryza acted as a rapporteur, making tough and unilateral assessments
on our country's current situation.
In the meantime, special attention was paid to the issue on how
the recent developments of Armenia may influence the process of the
Karabakh settlement talks. M. Bryza assured the participants that
the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers will meet in the course
of the coming month, with the purpose of preparing the negotiations
between Ilham Aliev and Serge Sargsyan. This testifies to the fact
that the United States hopes to finish the coordination of the
Karabakh settlement principles before the Presidential elections
to be held in Azerbaijan on October 15. Obviously, the official
Washington's intention to link the attempts of speeding up the
process of the Karabakh settlement talks with the investigation of the
recent developments of Armenia and the situation of the democratic
institutions may create an ambiguous situation for our country. The
fact is also understood in Azerbaijan; therefore, Foreign Minister
E. Mamedyarov has been recently making "constructive statements"
on Azerbaijan's willingness to resume the negotiation process.
It seems to Azerbaijan that Armenia may hereafter be viewed as a
retreating country in terms of the development of democracy and even be
compared with it. And the "concern" expressed by the Azeri delegates
over the situation of the democratic institutions in Armenia as well
as the false demands of not applying "double standards" against the
country may be accounted for by this.
We believe that before the Presidential elections to be held in
Azerbaijan on October 15, our Foreign Ministry should adopt the
tactics of making an equivalent response to the tough stance of the
Azerbaijani leadership.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress