Nacho Sánchez, a Spanish member of the European Parliament, praised the Armenian government’s policy aimed at strengthening ties with the European Union and the approach of Armenian society in that direction.

In an interview with Armenpress in Brussels, Sánchez also addressed the activities of the Democracy Support Group (DEG), recently formed in the European Parliament, and its cooperation with the Armenian parliament.

He also spoke about steps taken by the European Union aimed at securing the release of Armenian prisoners held in Azerbaijan, as well as other related issues.

The interview is presented below:

– Mr. Sanchez, since the creation of the Democracy Support Group (DEG), what concrete work has been carried out, what results have been achieved, and overall how would you assess the group’s activities so far?

We managed the issue in the following way. We decided on four, five, six priority countries, and we decided to include Armenia in the last round. Then, my mission as a lead member in this capacity, when I visited the country in another format, was to use my visit to conduct a parallel agenda with the parliamentary leadership. This is a parliament-to-parliament relationship, and it works on two levels.

At a technical level, meaning whatever the Armenian Parliament needs from a technical point of view — the organization of the registry, IT equipment, these kinds of practical matters — we had a very productive meeting with the Secretary General of the Parliament.

But at the political level, which is the level in which I have to work more deeply, the aim is to try to create the conditions to overcome polarization. I know the country is very polarized, and the Parliament is very polarized. And our duty is to try to create those conditions.

And the way in which we do this part of the role is to gather the leaders of the fractions together. And we did it. They came to the European Parliament a couple of weeks ago, and they had a very, very intensive agenda in which we talked about politics. The first sessions were inevitably shaped by inertia, because the inertia is there. They tried to transfer to the European Union the same quarrels and opinions that they use among themselves, but later they entered into the agenda and were very interested in many practical aspects that we offered them the opportunity to learn from the European Parliament.

When I went to Yerevan, I asked the people: are you ready to engage in this kind of program even before the elections? And everybody said yes, meaning the European Union Ambassador said yes, the leaders of the factions said yes, and then we did it, even though we knew for sure that when elections are approaching, tensions are inevitably higher. But it was good to have the leaders together even before the elections.

–Since Armenia has been included in the DEG, and considering that the European Parliament often maintains representations in countries involved in such frameworks, could the next step be the opening of a European Parliament regional office in Armenia?

-No, we use our embassies, meaning our interlocutor in the field is the ambassador, the European Union ambassador. The European Union ambassador is not only the ambassador of the Commission or the External Service of the Council, he is the ambassador of the European Union. And then we work normally with the embassies, and the ambassador is aware of this new format in our relationship, Parliament to Parliament. And this is the way.

But we are creating a kind of trust and regular contact. And this is good for, let’s say, the European aspirations of Armenia. That is the background over which we created this priority status for Armenia.

–The Euronest Parliamentary Assembly session took place in Yerevan at the end of last year, and this year the first Armenia–EU summit is expected. How do you assess the current dynamics of Armenia–European Union relations and their future prospects?

I think it is very positive because we have been, let’s say, answering a request from the Armenian authorities, and I think from society, to move closer to the European Union. That is for sure. And we appreciate a lot this policy, not only of the government but of society, to move closer to the European Union.

And then we explore every format, meaning visits from commissioners, dealing with connectivity, whatever other part of the agenda, and regarding the Parliament, in what way the European Parliament can help the Armenian Parliament to try to tackle this situation.

Regarding the fact that these activities started before the elections (the parliamentary elections in Armenia on June 7), I would prefer not to have a summit so close to the elections. It is not in my hands to decide, but for sure we have to be careful not to be understood in Armenia as helping one or another contender.

And for sure, to have a summit so close to the election offers a platform for Prime Minister Pashinyan to appear before public opinion in a good light. But it is not within my capacity to decide what the agenda of the Commission should be, and they decided to do it in May. I only warn everyone to be careful not to become involved in the domestic arena.

 – Mr. Sánchez, ahead of the upcoming elections in Armenia, have you received an invitation to send election observers? If so, should we expect a large delegation from the European Parliament?

I don’t know. We have to decide. There is a system to decide, rotating among political groups and others. I can imagine there is going to be a lot of interest from my colleagues, but I’m not sure whether we have formally received the invitation. But for sure, the invitation is going to be there. Armenia is not only a priority country, but it is one of the countries for which we are preparing a mission if we are invited. But I’m not sure whether, at the current moment, we have received the invitation.

-Numerous resolutions have been adopted on different platforms calling for the immediate release of Armenian prisoners unlawfully held in Baku. What concrete steps have been taken in this regard, including by the leadership of this structure? Are you satisfied with the response of the EU’s executive institutions, or do you believe the measures taken so far are still insufficient?

Well, the members of the European Parliament who are more committed to the country, such as myself, Nathalie Loiseau, and other colleagues, are always raising the issue. But we have to put pressure on the mediator who offered services, the United States, meaning that in the last August agreement or statement, it was clearly stated that the United States was taking care of this.

I know there are contacts, but we want these contacts to be fruitful and to bring these persons back home to Armenia because, listen, this is a military court. And they say, no, it is not a military procedure, but it is a military court. It is not the usual setting.

And then I read the indictment carefully. And the indictment concerns the war. And there are accusations that are astonishing, meaning: you dug trenches. Of course, you dug trenches, because there was a war situation.

And then I think it has to be assessed in that context. If we want to finish the logic of war, and finally have this de facto peace situation, and maybe in the future a peace treaty, it is senseless to keep these people in prison because of what they did during the war, because it was a war.

And then I think that at a certain moment in the process, I hope they are going to be released because of the pressure from the United States, because of the pressure from the European Union, and because the logic of the process demands closing the chapter of the war.

-The war atmosphere and the tension in South Caucasus continues with Iran. Your country, Spain, is among the few countries that, amid tensions surrounding Iran, continues to insist that the diplomacy should remain the only effective tool and opposes large-scale military scenarios. In this context, how do you comment Donald Trump’s threats to limit trade relations with Spain? What’s your stance about that? 

Yeah, it is a little bit astonishing that the statements of the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr. Sánchez, are considered something extraordinary. Because the usual thing we have always said is that when there is a violation of international law, we talk about the violation of international law. We talked about Georgia, we talked about Crimea, we talk about Ukraine, in Donbas, we talk about Gaza. And now, why should we change the idea?

It is not because the world changed, as Ursula von der Leyen (President of the European Commission)  said. It is because there is a new administration in America. It is not the world that changed. It is the American administration.

Then we have to stand for our role in the world, as has been underlined today by António Costa (President of the European Council). It is not to abandon the rules-based international order. On the contrary, it is to try to sustain the international rules-based order until this period in the United States passes.

-And last but not least, one of the key issues in the Armenia–Turkey normalization process is the opening of the border, yet there has been no tangible progress so far. In your view, where does the main obstacle lie?

Well, I am a little bit tired of these successive announcements of reopening, reopening for third-country nationals, and so on. I am just tired. The problem is that Turkey decided to externalize its foreign policy to Azerbaijan. To me, it is astonishing that a medium regional power, or an important regional power like Turkey, decided that this part of its foreign policy is not under its own control — that the owner is Baku.

To me, it is quite strange to understand that Turkey, bragging about its powerful position, is surrendering part of its foreign policy to another neighbor, even if I understand the closeness, one nation, two states, that kind of narrative.

But you appear to be in a position of not being able to deliver on your commitments regarding the opening of the border because you decided to delegate this part of your policy to a third country. This is a big question, and this is the big problem.

I do not understand it, I do not share it, and I would like Turkey to really deliver on these successive, tiring commitments about the reopening.