Tweet
PACE Resolution is Outrageous
ARMAN GALOYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/country23302.html
Published: 13:54:56 - 10/09/2011
We talked to Arman Grigoryan, doctor of political science, the
representative of the Armenian National Congress to the PACE, on the
draft resolution presented by the co-rapporteurs on Armenia.
`The outcome of the latest general amnesty in Armenia, the renewed
impetus to investigate the 10 deaths during the March 2008 events, and
the resulting start of a constructive dialogue between the opposition
and ruling coalition mean that the chapter on the March 2008 events
can finally be considered closed,' reads the statement of the PACE
monitoring committee. What are your thoughts? Can the chapter on the
March 2008 events finally be considered closed?
The statement that the chapter on March 1 can be considered closed at
least leaves one embarrassed because the PACE has announced for a
number of times that the failure to reveal those 10 murders is the
main obstacle to the normalization of the political climate in
Armenia. I think it is a misunderstanding. The authors of the text
wanted to say that the release of political prisoners, re-opening of
the Freedom Square, the renewed investigation of March 1 and the
dialogue established between the authorities and the opposition mean
that the political crisis triggered by March 1 is overcome. Thought I
think it's also a sin against the truth but it is not the same as to
state that we can forget about those murders. I don't think the PACE
would consciously assume such an immoral posture. I don't think so
because, despite this queer statement in the preamble, the main body
of the text does not state that the PACE considers the chapter of
March 1 closed.
Did the opposition help the regime to `live up' to the expectations of
the international community?
The opposition has never planned its steps so as to help or prevent
the regime from living up expectations. What should have we done?
Should we have refused to enter dialogue in order not to have the
authorities live up to the expectations, even though we think that the
dialogue is in the interests of the society and the state? Moreover,
if we refused the dialogue after the authorities had met our demands,
it would help the authorities appear to the PACE in a better state.
But this point did not have a role in our plans either.
Point 56 of the resolution criticizes the demand of the Armenian
National Congress for snap elections as a demand which does not take
into consideration the complications with organizing elections in a
short period of time. What are your comments on this?
I think this is the most outrageous point of the resolution. I think
it is outrageous not because the PACE dared to disagree with us. It is
outrageous because we have already explained to them that snap
elections are a constitutional requirement. Will the CEC set forward
the same argument in case Serzh Sargsyan resigns due to health
problems, rather than the demand of the ANC? I am simply in stupor
that the PACE could be so unserious.
Point 43 of the resolution urges the political forces to refrain from
forecasts that the elections will be rigged and preparing ground for
questioning credibility of the elections in case of disappointment
with the results. What are your comments on this?
Accepting one's defeat in fair elections is one of the most important
guarantees of establishment of democracy. I have no objections to this
appeal. But when they give such advice to our political forces and
especially the opposition with a serious face, it arouses questions
about the seriousness of the authors of the report. There is as much
evidence to rigged presidential and mayoral elections as to the
hypothesis that the earth is round. We also know that the next
elections will be organized by the same people and institutions.
Therefore, were we not convinced that the next elections will be
rigged, if no action is taken to rule it out, we would be mental
patients rather than cute democrats.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
ARMAN GALOYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/country23302.html
Published: 13:54:56 - 10/09/2011
We talked to Arman Grigoryan, doctor of political science, the
representative of the Armenian National Congress to the PACE, on the
draft resolution presented by the co-rapporteurs on Armenia.
`The outcome of the latest general amnesty in Armenia, the renewed
impetus to investigate the 10 deaths during the March 2008 events, and
the resulting start of a constructive dialogue between the opposition
and ruling coalition mean that the chapter on the March 2008 events
can finally be considered closed,' reads the statement of the PACE
monitoring committee. What are your thoughts? Can the chapter on the
March 2008 events finally be considered closed?
The statement that the chapter on March 1 can be considered closed at
least leaves one embarrassed because the PACE has announced for a
number of times that the failure to reveal those 10 murders is the
main obstacle to the normalization of the political climate in
Armenia. I think it is a misunderstanding. The authors of the text
wanted to say that the release of political prisoners, re-opening of
the Freedom Square, the renewed investigation of March 1 and the
dialogue established between the authorities and the opposition mean
that the political crisis triggered by March 1 is overcome. Thought I
think it's also a sin against the truth but it is not the same as to
state that we can forget about those murders. I don't think the PACE
would consciously assume such an immoral posture. I don't think so
because, despite this queer statement in the preamble, the main body
of the text does not state that the PACE considers the chapter of
March 1 closed.
Did the opposition help the regime to `live up' to the expectations of
the international community?
The opposition has never planned its steps so as to help or prevent
the regime from living up expectations. What should have we done?
Should we have refused to enter dialogue in order not to have the
authorities live up to the expectations, even though we think that the
dialogue is in the interests of the society and the state? Moreover,
if we refused the dialogue after the authorities had met our demands,
it would help the authorities appear to the PACE in a better state.
But this point did not have a role in our plans either.
Point 56 of the resolution criticizes the demand of the Armenian
National Congress for snap elections as a demand which does not take
into consideration the complications with organizing elections in a
short period of time. What are your comments on this?
I think this is the most outrageous point of the resolution. I think
it is outrageous not because the PACE dared to disagree with us. It is
outrageous because we have already explained to them that snap
elections are a constitutional requirement. Will the CEC set forward
the same argument in case Serzh Sargsyan resigns due to health
problems, rather than the demand of the ANC? I am simply in stupor
that the PACE could be so unserious.
Point 43 of the resolution urges the political forces to refrain from
forecasts that the elections will be rigged and preparing ground for
questioning credibility of the elections in case of disappointment
with the results. What are your comments on this?
Accepting one's defeat in fair elections is one of the most important
guarantees of establishment of democracy. I have no objections to this
appeal. But when they give such advice to our political forces and
especially the opposition with a serious face, it arouses questions
about the seriousness of the authors of the report. There is as much
evidence to rigged presidential and mayoral elections as to the
hypothesis that the earth is round. We also know that the next
elections will be organized by the same people and institutions.
Therefore, were we not convinced that the next elections will be
rigged, if no action is taken to rule it out, we would be mental
patients rather than cute democrats.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress