Tweet
WAS PACE RESOLUTION 1643 ON ARMENIA A VICTORY OR A DEFEAT?
Anna Nazaryan
"Radiolur"
30.01.2009 17:12
Republican Karen Avagyan and member of the "Heritage" faction Vardan
Khachatryan today discussed Resolution 1643 that came to substitute
Resolutions 1609 and 1620. According to the latter, we cannot sigh
with relief, sine the last resolution is still dangerous for Armenia.
Instead of discussing whether Armenia's voting right will be suspended
or not, people in Armenia are now arguing whether it was a victory
or defeat.
"Sure, it was a victory over those who do their best to deprive our
delegation of the voting right," Republican Karen Avagyan says.
However, opinions differ. To correctly comment on the Resolution,
one should look at its requirements and understand which points are
favorable for Armenia, which are not. Here also everyone sees what
he wants to see.
According to Karen Avagyan, the primary thing in Resolution 1643 is
the requirement to amend Articles 225 and 300 of the Criminal Code
of Armenia.
Was the new Resolution adopted by PACE a simple change of numbers or
a document posing serious requirements?
In response to the question, member of the "Heritage" faction Vardan
Khachatryan stated: "The new Resolution is as dangerous as the previous
two. Let's not resemble a dug addict, who takes the drug and thinks
that the disease=2 0has passed."
After the adoption of Resolution 1643 the opposition was insisting
that the situation in Armenia had been presented unilaterally, the
co-rapporteurs had not listened to the opinion of the opposition. Since
the founder of the "Heritage" Partyu Raffi Hovhannistayn is the only
representative of the opposition in the Armenian delegation to PACE,
the pointer of dissatisfaction turned towards him.
Why didn't Raffi Hovhannisyan participatre in the PACE session? Vardan
Khachatryan responded: I consider such talks are extremely biased
and are beneath criticism, because the European structures are
well-informed. Raffi Hovhannisyan does not participate in plenary
sittings, and the reason is the application of double standards
towards Armenia and Azerbaijan. Boycotts take different forms and
to see whether they turn useful or not, it is necessaruy to consider
concrete cases."
With regard to this statement, Republican Karen Avagyan noted:
"In this concrete case you are the only opposition and you had to
contribute to the lessening of polarization."
Anna Nazaryan
"Radiolur"
30.01.2009 17:12
Republican Karen Avagyan and member of the "Heritage" faction Vardan
Khachatryan today discussed Resolution 1643 that came to substitute
Resolutions 1609 and 1620. According to the latter, we cannot sigh
with relief, sine the last resolution is still dangerous for Armenia.
Instead of discussing whether Armenia's voting right will be suspended
or not, people in Armenia are now arguing whether it was a victory
or defeat.
"Sure, it was a victory over those who do their best to deprive our
delegation of the voting right," Republican Karen Avagyan says.
However, opinions differ. To correctly comment on the Resolution,
one should look at its requirements and understand which points are
favorable for Armenia, which are not. Here also everyone sees what
he wants to see.
According to Karen Avagyan, the primary thing in Resolution 1643 is
the requirement to amend Articles 225 and 300 of the Criminal Code
of Armenia.
Was the new Resolution adopted by PACE a simple change of numbers or
a document posing serious requirements?
In response to the question, member of the "Heritage" faction Vardan
Khachatryan stated: "The new Resolution is as dangerous as the previous
two. Let's not resemble a dug addict, who takes the drug and thinks
that the disease=2 0has passed."
After the adoption of Resolution 1643 the opposition was insisting
that the situation in Armenia had been presented unilaterally, the
co-rapporteurs had not listened to the opinion of the opposition. Since
the founder of the "Heritage" Partyu Raffi Hovhannistayn is the only
representative of the opposition in the Armenian delegation to PACE,
the pointer of dissatisfaction turned towards him.
Why didn't Raffi Hovhannisyan participatre in the PACE session? Vardan
Khachatryan responded: I consider such talks are extremely biased
and are beneath criticism, because the European structures are
well-informed. Raffi Hovhannisyan does not participate in plenary
sittings, and the reason is the application of double standards
towards Armenia and Azerbaijan. Boycotts take different forms and
to see whether they turn useful or not, it is necessaruy to consider
concrete cases."
With regard to this statement, Republican Karen Avagyan noted:
"In this concrete case you are the only opposition and you had to
contribute to the lessening of polarization."