Tweet
ARMENIAN ANALYST EXPLAINS MOTIVES BEHIND EP RESOLUTION
15:57 ~U 24.10.13
In an interview with Tert.am, Karen Bekaryan, the president of
the European Integration NGO, addresses the European Parliament's
recent resolution, focusing on the factors that he thinks might have
caused the EU parliamentarian to adopt a measure conflicting with
the interests of Armenia. The analyst attributes the decision to
three major factors: Azerbaijan's "caviar diplomacy", the existing
discontent with Armenia's Customs Union move and the the continuing
"club and pancake" policies in relation to Azerbaijan. Bekaryan says it
would be better for the Armenian ambassadora accredited to different
European states to gather together in Yerevan one day to agree upon
future policy lines and developments
Mr Bekaryan, we now hear opinions that the European Parliament's
resolution, which is not quite pro-Armenian, is the EU's revenge on
the Armenian president's statement on the Customs Union membership.
If we address the resolution or rather its part concerning
[Nagorno-]Karabakh, I think there are different factors that we may
encounter. The first, which isn't something new, is the Azerbaijani
lobby's activities and their influence on different organizations,
particularly the parliamentarians. This is what is normally considered
'caviar diplomacy'.
The second essential factor to my mind is that we repeatedly witness
what can be termed as "club and pancake" policies by the European
organizations, especially in parliamentary formats. On the one hand we
see very big criticism over the elections in Azerbaijan, and on the
other hand - because they avoid provoking a very aggressive reaction
and a decline in the relations etc. - they seem to be balancing that
with the part regarding Karabakh. And the third, I think, has to do
with parliamentary formats, i.e. - the "September 3" [when President
Sargsyan made the landmark statement on the CU accession] has not been
fully and comprehensively perceived. If we address specific provisions
in the resolution, there are several elements there, which require
attention. If we see a problem with territorial integrity in the case
of Georgia, with Abkhazia and Ossetia not being separate [states], the
same is the case with Moldova. Hence there is 'no' Karabakh as far as
Azerbaijan and Armenia are concerned. It has been separated. Along
with the UN resolutions and the abnormal terming. "occupation",
a reference is made to the L'Aquila statement. Combining them with
one another, it is very hard to perceive the real intention. So,
there are lots of things which aren't absolutely normal.
Does this in general testify to a certain degree of non-competence
or do they frighten us with what we may return to? And is a return
possible at all? Is there such a practice of returning to documents
adopted in any other organization, the UN, for instance, after a
twenty-year interval?
There are developments which we must perceive as a fact. The question,
at this point, has to do with the European parliamentarians and their
understanding. It is, of course, possible to raise the competency
issue, but to expect parliamentarians from so many states to have
a competent approach or attitude would be naivety. And that isn't
something that has to do only with us and our problems; that problem
exists globally, and it is characteristic of parliamentary bodies.
This is one aspect of the issue.
The other thing is the summary of the three factors I presented. There
is another issue here: we have to think of our future steps but
not under the influence of haste or responses made in force majeure
situations. I don't mean that. We have to clearly realize the public
perceptions in Europe, particularly on the part of parliamentarians.
They do not perceive all this, so we have to realize that and take
proper efforts in this direction.
It would be very good, for instance, for our ambassadors accredited
to Europe to come to Yerevan to check watches with one another and to
understand the future course of developments. It would be very good,
probably, for our parliamentarians working with European partners
in different European organizations to take more active efforts and
carry out certain work with their colleagues in a more intensive
manner than they do now.
What implications can we talk about? There don't seem to be legal ones,
as is normally the case but can that position become predominant in
European organizations in future?
There aren't legal implications of course, but that isn't something
that should leave us with a feeling of relief, lulling us into a false
sense of security. That's a political statement, be it as it may,
and it does create a political background.
May that resolution endanger the signing of the document between
Armenia and the EU, establishing "other formats of cooperation"?
I don't think so. There is anyway, a body responsible for that process,
which is the executive, the European Commission. It is possible to
point to a couple of more essential facts: a month before September 3,
the European Commission issued the statement saying the negotiations
with Armenia had been successfully completed, and the country is
ready for the initialing of the Association agreement. That is, the
official position reflects more that than what the European Parliament
said. But I repeat, there will be by all means a background effect.
http://www.tert.am/en/news/2013/10/24/karenbeqaryan/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
15:57 ~U 24.10.13
In an interview with Tert.am, Karen Bekaryan, the president of
the European Integration NGO, addresses the European Parliament's
recent resolution, focusing on the factors that he thinks might have
caused the EU parliamentarian to adopt a measure conflicting with
the interests of Armenia. The analyst attributes the decision to
three major factors: Azerbaijan's "caviar diplomacy", the existing
discontent with Armenia's Customs Union move and the the continuing
"club and pancake" policies in relation to Azerbaijan. Bekaryan says it
would be better for the Armenian ambassadora accredited to different
European states to gather together in Yerevan one day to agree upon
future policy lines and developments
Mr Bekaryan, we now hear opinions that the European Parliament's
resolution, which is not quite pro-Armenian, is the EU's revenge on
the Armenian president's statement on the Customs Union membership.
If we address the resolution or rather its part concerning
[Nagorno-]Karabakh, I think there are different factors that we may
encounter. The first, which isn't something new, is the Azerbaijani
lobby's activities and their influence on different organizations,
particularly the parliamentarians. This is what is normally considered
'caviar diplomacy'.
The second essential factor to my mind is that we repeatedly witness
what can be termed as "club and pancake" policies by the European
organizations, especially in parliamentary formats. On the one hand we
see very big criticism over the elections in Azerbaijan, and on the
other hand - because they avoid provoking a very aggressive reaction
and a decline in the relations etc. - they seem to be balancing that
with the part regarding Karabakh. And the third, I think, has to do
with parliamentary formats, i.e. - the "September 3" [when President
Sargsyan made the landmark statement on the CU accession] has not been
fully and comprehensively perceived. If we address specific provisions
in the resolution, there are several elements there, which require
attention. If we see a problem with territorial integrity in the case
of Georgia, with Abkhazia and Ossetia not being separate [states], the
same is the case with Moldova. Hence there is 'no' Karabakh as far as
Azerbaijan and Armenia are concerned. It has been separated. Along
with the UN resolutions and the abnormal terming. "occupation",
a reference is made to the L'Aquila statement. Combining them with
one another, it is very hard to perceive the real intention. So,
there are lots of things which aren't absolutely normal.
Does this in general testify to a certain degree of non-competence
or do they frighten us with what we may return to? And is a return
possible at all? Is there such a practice of returning to documents
adopted in any other organization, the UN, for instance, after a
twenty-year interval?
There are developments which we must perceive as a fact. The question,
at this point, has to do with the European parliamentarians and their
understanding. It is, of course, possible to raise the competency
issue, but to expect parliamentarians from so many states to have
a competent approach or attitude would be naivety. And that isn't
something that has to do only with us and our problems; that problem
exists globally, and it is characteristic of parliamentary bodies.
This is one aspect of the issue.
The other thing is the summary of the three factors I presented. There
is another issue here: we have to think of our future steps but
not under the influence of haste or responses made in force majeure
situations. I don't mean that. We have to clearly realize the public
perceptions in Europe, particularly on the part of parliamentarians.
They do not perceive all this, so we have to realize that and take
proper efforts in this direction.
It would be very good, for instance, for our ambassadors accredited
to Europe to come to Yerevan to check watches with one another and to
understand the future course of developments. It would be very good,
probably, for our parliamentarians working with European partners
in different European organizations to take more active efforts and
carry out certain work with their colleagues in a more intensive
manner than they do now.
What implications can we talk about? There don't seem to be legal ones,
as is normally the case but can that position become predominant in
European organizations in future?
There aren't legal implications of course, but that isn't something
that should leave us with a feeling of relief, lulling us into a false
sense of security. That's a political statement, be it as it may,
and it does create a political background.
May that resolution endanger the signing of the document between
Armenia and the EU, establishing "other formats of cooperation"?
I don't think so. There is anyway, a body responsible for that process,
which is the executive, the European Commission. It is possible to
point to a couple of more essential facts: a month before September 3,
the European Commission issued the statement saying the negotiations
with Armenia had been successfully completed, and the country is
ready for the initialing of the Association agreement. That is, the
official position reflects more that than what the European Parliament
said. But I repeat, there will be by all means a background effect.
http://www.tert.am/en/news/2013/10/24/karenbeqaryan/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress