Tweet
European legislators moved by finnacial interests are prone to defend
the stance of the Azerbaijan: Ana Maria Gomes
11:32, 28 September, 2012
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 28, ARMENPRESS: Many international organizations
have expressed their concern and criticism over criminal Ramil
Safarov extradition to Azerbaijan. European Parliament Member Ana
Maria Gomes joined the statements and commentaries. Armenpress had an
exclusive interview with MEP Ana Maria Gomes on ''Safarov'' scandal
and the resolution adopted by European Parliament.
-Mrs Gomes, after the resolution on Safarov's case, what are the next
steps to be taken by the EU as a whole and the European Parliament
(EP) in particular? Or do you believe the resolution was a final say
of the EP?
-We need to be aware of the very fragile situation surrounding NK and
the possibility of "defrosting of the frozen conflict". The statements
from all sides were very unhelpful and showed that the situation is
very tense. Obviously, the Parliament can not be satisfied only with
the passed resolution on Safarov's case, where many believed this was
not necessarily about human rights. I believe we in the EP must be
more attentive to the security situation and its implications and
should put efforts towards rebuilding "human ties" that will prevent
the escalation into war.
-It became known that your party did not want to participate in the
adoption of the resolution and that ALDE refused to vote. Could you
please elaborate on that?
-My Group wanted a full debate in the presence of HR/VP Ashton on the
pardon of Safarov by the Azerbaijani government and the implications
of this step to an already fragile and tense security situation in the
region. Such a debate would have put the situation right at the center
of the EU foreign policy agenda. However, the EPP, the Greens and ALDE
wanted to treat it only as a human rights issue,a much more modest
approach. Still, when this decision was reached by the majority in the
EP, we participated constructively. We prepared our own draft
resolution, which was very critical of the actions of the Hungarian
government and condemned the pardon granted to Safarov by the
president Aliyev of Azerbaijan. The EPP, however, wanted to exclude
from the resolution any language that was critical of the Hungarian
government, since it belongs to the same political family. In the end
they succeeded in doing that by rejecting our amendment that was
critical with Hungary. I donīt know exactly what reasons prompted
ALDE to withdraw from the resolution. But what I know is that there
are people here in the Parliament who are normally very prone to
defending the stance of the Azerbaijani government.
-The lobby groups are very active in the EP and bring "polarization"
to the institution. There is also a growing Azerbaijani lobby. Do you
see a possibility of reaching and showing a more balanced approach
within the EP?
-I do not belong to any of these camps, I belong to the camp of human
rights, the rule of law and human security which is a very important
camp and one that should prevail in the EP. I see these sympathetic
camps being very vocal, because there is much money involved . See the
example, the case of Safarov, where strong suspicions exist that
indeed a bail out of 2-3 billion euros was promised to Orban's
government.
There are some who are concerned with security elements, but in a
narrow perspective, focusing only in the a security of energy supply
to the EU, which tends to make them particularly receptive to the
points of view of the Azerbaijani government. Moreover, I do imagine
that some people may be moved by some kind of financial interests
Though my Group wanted a full debate and resolution with HR/VP Ashton
on all the implications of this case for the regional security, and
not just a human rights resolution, we decided to join the majority,
since we felt there was a need to express our dismay at the action of
both Hungarian and Azeri authorities endorsing this act of inciting
ethnic hatred, that obviously should be punished. Furthermore, a
number of destabilising comments were made in reference to NK, which
could not be left without issuing our opinion on that. We wanted to be
constructive and help the parties to tone down acrimony and
eventually, ideally, go back to a negotiating stance. This requires a
lot of engagement and involvement. We urged the EEAS to make whatever
is necessary to defuse the tension, to help both sides and also the
Minsk Group not to lose their efforts. I can assure you, we are
closely following the situation.
the stance of the Azerbaijan: Ana Maria Gomes
11:32, 28 September, 2012
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 28, ARMENPRESS: Many international organizations
have expressed their concern and criticism over criminal Ramil
Safarov extradition to Azerbaijan. European Parliament Member Ana
Maria Gomes joined the statements and commentaries. Armenpress had an
exclusive interview with MEP Ana Maria Gomes on ''Safarov'' scandal
and the resolution adopted by European Parliament.
-Mrs Gomes, after the resolution on Safarov's case, what are the next
steps to be taken by the EU as a whole and the European Parliament
(EP) in particular? Or do you believe the resolution was a final say
of the EP?
-We need to be aware of the very fragile situation surrounding NK and
the possibility of "defrosting of the frozen conflict". The statements
from all sides were very unhelpful and showed that the situation is
very tense. Obviously, the Parliament can not be satisfied only with
the passed resolution on Safarov's case, where many believed this was
not necessarily about human rights. I believe we in the EP must be
more attentive to the security situation and its implications and
should put efforts towards rebuilding "human ties" that will prevent
the escalation into war.
-It became known that your party did not want to participate in the
adoption of the resolution and that ALDE refused to vote. Could you
please elaborate on that?
-My Group wanted a full debate in the presence of HR/VP Ashton on the
pardon of Safarov by the Azerbaijani government and the implications
of this step to an already fragile and tense security situation in the
region. Such a debate would have put the situation right at the center
of the EU foreign policy agenda. However, the EPP, the Greens and ALDE
wanted to treat it only as a human rights issue,a much more modest
approach. Still, when this decision was reached by the majority in the
EP, we participated constructively. We prepared our own draft
resolution, which was very critical of the actions of the Hungarian
government and condemned the pardon granted to Safarov by the
president Aliyev of Azerbaijan. The EPP, however, wanted to exclude
from the resolution any language that was critical of the Hungarian
government, since it belongs to the same political family. In the end
they succeeded in doing that by rejecting our amendment that was
critical with Hungary. I donīt know exactly what reasons prompted
ALDE to withdraw from the resolution. But what I know is that there
are people here in the Parliament who are normally very prone to
defending the stance of the Azerbaijani government.
-The lobby groups are very active in the EP and bring "polarization"
to the institution. There is also a growing Azerbaijani lobby. Do you
see a possibility of reaching and showing a more balanced approach
within the EP?
-I do not belong to any of these camps, I belong to the camp of human
rights, the rule of law and human security which is a very important
camp and one that should prevail in the EP. I see these sympathetic
camps being very vocal, because there is much money involved . See the
example, the case of Safarov, where strong suspicions exist that
indeed a bail out of 2-3 billion euros was promised to Orban's
government.
There are some who are concerned with security elements, but in a
narrow perspective, focusing only in the a security of energy supply
to the EU, which tends to make them particularly receptive to the
points of view of the Azerbaijani government. Moreover, I do imagine
that some people may be moved by some kind of financial interests
Though my Group wanted a full debate and resolution with HR/VP Ashton
on all the implications of this case for the regional security, and
not just a human rights resolution, we decided to join the majority,
since we felt there was a need to express our dismay at the action of
both Hungarian and Azeri authorities endorsing this act of inciting
ethnic hatred, that obviously should be punished. Furthermore, a
number of destabilising comments were made in reference to NK, which
could not be left without issuing our opinion on that. We wanted to be
constructive and help the parties to tone down acrimony and
eventually, ideally, go back to a negotiating stance. This requires a
lot of engagement and involvement. We urged the EEAS to make whatever
is necessary to defuse the tension, to help both sides and also the
Minsk Group not to lose their efforts. I can assure you, we are
closely following the situation.