There is no ground to compare Safarov’s case with that of Varoujan Garabedian
10:55 | 2012-09-13 | Interview & Panels | Interviews | Armenuhi Ghazaryan
In continuation of analyzing the so called Safarov Case “1in.am news
& Analyses” has conducted several exclusive interviews with renowned
international experts on South Caucasus. One of our recent interviews
was with EPC Policy analyst Amanda Paul. In her interview, Ms. Paul
compared Safarov’s case with that of Varoujan Garabedian. In order
to clarify how proper the comparison was, we decided to conduct an
interview with Ara Papian, former Ambassador of Armenia in Canada,
now the head of “Modus Vivendi” Centre and is very familiar with
both cases.
What was your first reaction when you heard about Ramil Safarov’s
extradition by Hungary?
First I was surprised as I didn’t expect Hungary do that, because
there were lots of promises about not sending him back to Azerbaijan.
Secondly I was outraged, because it was violation of not only domestic
law in Hungary and Azerbaijan but also of international law. I was
in deep frustration because I saw that unfortunately money can solve
problems even on international level. But it is the reality and we
have to draw some conclusions from this. We need to understand that
we have to be tougher in our foreign policy in order to protect our
country’s interest.
How would you evaluate the international reaction on Hungary’s decision
and later Safarov’s pardon by Azerbaijan?
The verbal reaction of many countries and international organizations
is quite strong actually, but we have to see also the deeds; will there
be any sanctions against Azerbaijan or will it be limited to just the
oral protests? From the Azerbaijani side, I am not surprised as it is
not the first time. We have to remember the reaction of Azerbaijan
in December 1988, after the devastating earthquake in Armenia when
they were dancing in the streets. Because I am in a way a historian,
I do know history very well and I can say that usually people do not
change their behavior during the centuries.
Unfortunately the Soviet years were very short period to change Azeri,
Turkish behavior. It is normal for them, but it is not normal for
the humanity.
Don’t you think that strategically it was a surprising move by
Aliyev, as it was obvious that pardoning a murderer is not going to
be favorable for his own country?
It did in way harm the image of Azerbaijan. For me, Aliyev made his
calculation according to the presidential elections which are to
be held in Azerbaijan next year. It seems that Aliyev’s position is
no so strong in domestic politics and with this action he wants to
grab more nationalistic votes of their society. He is moving to the
nationalistic part of the Azerbaijani society and he just ignores
the international reaction.
Few days ago I conducted an interview with EPC Policy Analyst,
journalist Amanda Paul, who publishes articles in Zaman and other
newspapers. In her interview, when talking about Safarov’s case, Ms.
Paul compared Safarov with Varoujan Garabedian, saying that because
back than EU had virtually no role in the region, Garabedian’s case
drew little attention. What do you think about this and do you think
it is right to compare these two cases together?
You see, these cases are absolutely different in their essence. First
of all Varoujan Garabedian was not an Armenian citizen, he was not
an officer of the Armenian Army sent to NATO “Partnership for Peace”
program. And legal status of Varoujan Garabedian and Safarov are
different too. Safarov in a way represents the country, because he
is the army officer of the Azerbaijani army. But the main difference
is that Varoujan Garabedian was pardoned after staying in jail for
17 years and he was freed by French court. Safarov was not freed
or pardoned by Hungarian court. He was extradited to Azerbaijan to
continue his sentence and at least for 25 years stay in the Azerbaijani
jail. There was a written confirmation from the Azerbaijani side that
this would happen. So there is a big difference.
When Garabedian came to Armenia, he was already a free man. He was
punished for what he did, he was sentenced, he stayed in jail and he
was freed by the court and came to Armenia as a free person. This
means that everybody could meet him. Anyway he was not met as a
hero in Armenia as in Safarov’s case. I remember that only the Prime
Minster once met Varoujan Garabedian and that’s all. Safarov was sent
to continue his sentence in jail; he was met by Aliyev, which was a
violation of domestic law as well as of international law. And he was
not only pardoned, he was rehabilitated, which means he was given the
salary for 7 years, he got the major rank, which means that this is
not just a violation of laws, but also Aliyev was sending a message to
the Hungarian court, saying. “Your decision, your verdict was wrong”.
There is no ground to compare these two cases.
Mr. Papian, what do you think Armenia’s next step should be? How
should Armenia act towards the European Union after this?
I do not think that this has anything to do with EU because Hungary
did what she did by violating European values. But this mustn’t be
excuse for some people to blame European values or EU. We have to
continue to cooperate with them and this is mutually beneficial both
for us and EU. We have to be tougher than we are, we need to show the
different mediators, like EU or Russia and the USA that they need to
be tougher against Azerbaijan, and they mustn’t close their eyes at
what Aliyev is doing. It is clear that all this is because of the oil.
Let’s suppose that Azerbaijan had no oil, I am quite sure that the
independence of NKR would be easily recognized years before. The
main reason is that everybody needs Azeri oil and natural gas and
then they are playing all this resources against Russia because they
want to be more independent from Russian supplies. In this case human
rights are becoming a secondary issue. We want to see European values
as more important than the resources and money.
Several experts in Armenia have expressed the idea that the Armenian
government should recognize the NKR independence now. What is your
opinion about that?
No I don’t think so, because I consider Nagorno Karabakh as part
of Armenia. It is part of Armenia according to our constitution,
because our constitution is based on the declaration of independence
which has reference to the decision of December 1989. The facto we
have unification. The inhabitants of Nagorno Karabakh are holders of
Armenian passports, they are part of our economic territory, our money
is in circulation there, and their officials are coming to Armenia
and becoming prime ministers, later presidents and so on. This is
the reality. For 20 years Nagorno Karabakh has been part of Armenia
and there is no reason for recognition of independence.
If you recognize Nagorno Karabakh as an independent state, you have
to recognize the separation from Armenia. We just need to declare
the presidential elections of the so-called NKR as the last elections.
Nagorno Karabakh after that should be part of Armenia as it was already
recognized by the international community. I want to stress that it
is very strange that people, experts, politicians deny the legacy of
Stalin all over the world, but they want to keep this Stalin legacy
in South Caucasus, which is unacceptable. By the decision of Paris
conference of February 24, 1920, Karabakh was recognized as part
of Armenia. But there is no international legal document which says
that Nagorno Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. This is the reality and
we need to talk more and more about this. Our mistake was that when
signing the ceasefire we agreed to compromise because we thought that
if we compromise, Azerbaijan will also do the same. But it will not.
For the sake of peace we were ready to renounce our right over some
parts of Lower Karabakh, but we will never agree to give even an inch
of the territory that is now under Armenia’s control.
From: Baghdasarian
http://1in.am/eng/interviewandpanel_interviews_2108.html