MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
—————————————— —-
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
Government House # 2, Republic Square
Yerevan 0010, Republic of Armenia
Telephone: +37410. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +37410. 562543
Email: [email protected]
INFORM ATION FOR JOURNALISTS
18-04-2007
Statement by H. E. Vartan Oskanian
at the 660th Special meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council
17 April 2007, Vienna
Mr. Chairman, distinguished colleagues and friends,
I thank you for this opportunity to address the Permanent Council. My
previous appearances here have been gratifying to me and I hope that this
Council itself found it useful to hear directly from me about Armenia’s
priorities and policies.
I myself have found our meetings helpful because this is the opportunity to
directly, clearly talk about our issues with an audience that is most
knowledgeable, in a forum that is most relevant.
The discussions and reflections about the OSCE’s relevance of course
continue. Although Armenia may see this organization as indispensable, there
is no denying that its costs and benefits are being assessed very
differently in various capitals. Some would like to further empower this
organization, others are reluctant to do so.
Concern over OSCE’s effectiveness in carrying on its relevant mandates gave
us the Panel of Eminent Persons, who in 2005 looked rather comprehensively
at the question of reform. We do not believe the organizational, operational
challenges identified by the Panel and its recommendations have been fully
addressed and embraced. We see and understand why those who resist further
efforts see the present arrangements and methods sufficient and satisfying.
However, the frustration and restlessness of those who continue to see and
experience the inequities, partisan approach, two-tiered distribution of
Participating States continues. Therefore, it is essential that we persist
in efforts to collectively adopt ways to make our organization more
effective and coherent. As the OSCE pursues transparency, rule-based
applications, inclusive participation, equality of opportunities and even
playing fields inside the political systems of states, we believe it would
be extremely appropriate if the same patterns of democratic conduct were
practiced within the OSCE itself, among all members.
Our delegation is ready to fully engage in ensuring the robust viability of
an OSCE that is very much a pillar of our foreign policy landscape, and also
a partner in developing and instituting domestic democratic processes,
including election reform.
Mr. Chairman,
I know that the OSCE, its institutions and its members are watching as we
embark on parliamentary elections next month.
The long-term observer team sent by ODIHR under the leadership of Ambassador
Frlec of Slovenia has already started its work. These elections, to be held
on May 12th, will also be observed by a large contingent of short term
observers deployed on Election Day. We welcome them and we would encourage
OSCE member states to participate with observers.
Many of us in and out of government are deeply committed to improve our
score, to strive for elections in line with international norms. While past
mistakes are undeniable, we should not be presumed guilty for the future. We
have changed our election law, we’re moving from a strong presidential
system to a system where the role of the parliament is being enlarged. This
is a serious change, there are now new checks and balances in our
government, it enhances the role of parliament and through them the role of
political parties. Therefore, during these elections, each party will
struggle for votes, defend its vote, and watch others in order to assure
their share of power.
But fair and free elections require the good will and good intentions of
everyone: not only government, the elections commission, the ruling party,
but the entire society, and also the opposition parties. Unfortunately,
those with great doubt about their own electability are more than eager to
convince outsiders that their political weaknesses are solely due to the
machinations and insincerity of those in the majority. To avoid this, we
need to make monitors vigilant and aware of this fact, as well as generally
aware of the Armenian reality. As I meet with members of the observation
team, I have noticed that those now involved in observation missions in
Armenia as well as in monitoring of the media situation are more aware than
before of the problems with reliance on hearsay and mechanistic,
quantitative methods, without an understanding of the cultural and political
realities on the ground. Of course, in Armenia, as well as everywhere East
and West of Vienna, incumbency has its privileges and advantages that cannot
be reduced to simple calculations of candidates’ airtime. And, in Armenia as
elsewhere, there is a curious correlation between rising standards of living
and the cost of financing electoral campaigns.
Of course, these elections are a serious challenge for Armenia to
demonstrate its determination to consolidate through free and fair elections
its progress towards democratization and the rule of law. Together, all of
us — government, opposition, with the OSCE’s help — will further Armenia’s
democratization process.
Mr. Chairman,
OSCE’s assistance to Armenia’s democratization and the modernization of its
political structures is of course not limited to the agenda of ODIHR and the
Office of the Representative of Freedom of Media. The OSCE office in Yerevan
has been a useful presence and partner for longer than six years. It has
accomplished some projects, initiated others, and remains engaged in a
variety of reform related activities.
The Melange project is nearing its completion. Through the participation of
our Defense Ministry, the expertise of the planners and the implementers and
thanks to the generosity of donors, the melange project can serve as a model
for implementing serious programs thru collective efforts.
Among many other items, let me single out the elaboration and implementation
of a regional economic/environmental development plan for the province of
Syunik, our southernmost area and facing multiple challenges. My Ministry is
deeply committed to make this initiative succeed both for its own sake and
as a model for similar actions elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Chairman,
Armenia’s economy is doing well. This is the 7th year of double-digit
growth. The inflation rate is low, around 3%, our exports are increasing,
foreign investment is increasing, our foreign reserves are increasing. Such
positive macroeconomic achievements allow us to address the more problematic
issues in our economy – unemployment, low incomes, poverty. There’s one
other major problem we need to address and that is the gap between rural and
urban areas.
Mr. Chairman,
Before I talk about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict negotiation process, let
me continue on this economic theme and link it to the conflict. There is an
ironic phenomenon that is connected to our economic development. It seemed
to us that for about ten years after the cease-fire, Azerbaijan, and its
ally Turkey, expected Armenia to collapse under the weight of poverty,
economic stagnation and despair. This hasn’t happened and it will not
happen. But no lessons are being learned from this experience. The blockade
continues. And with new efforts: The evidence is the recent signing of a
deal to begin construction of a new railroad that will circumvent Armenia.
We never expected that new initiatives, Baku-Ceyhan for example, would go
through Armenia, but it’s amazing to even contemplate that one might
consider spending $700 mil to $1 billion to build a new railroad where there
is an existing rail that will perform the same function, just to bypass
Armenia. We’ve said to them — use the existing one, Armenia would be
willing not to be a beneficiary of the running of the railroad, we won’t
transport our goods on that railroad, we won’t even charge transit fees,
just use it, instead of spending $700 million. But Turkey and Azerbaijan
have not met us halfway on this issue. No lessons have been learned
obviously. We regret this. Let me repeat, Armenia will not be isolated, but
we can be alienated. A new railroad will not make us succumb, it will not do
more harm than the existing closed border. It’s the political environment
that will suffer, that’s what we regret, not the economic benefits. We will
continue to advocate that the existing rail line be opened. And we will go
further, and ask that Turkey open the border and establish normal ties with
Armenia. We have no preconditions to normal ties. And we expect that Turkey,
too, won’t have preconditions. This is the last closed border in Europe, and
it needs to open, so that Turkey can engage in the region more positively,
and bring its positive contribution to the NK conflict.
Regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, I believe we could be close to a
resolution. I have been Minister for nine years now. Five years before being
appointed Minister, I was part of the team negotiating the Nagorno Karabakh
issue. I have seen all the proposals that have ever been produced by the
mediators, and if I were to base my judgment purely on the content of the
document on basic principles at hand, I can assure you that we’ve never been
this close. What we have today is the most sensible, the most balanced. This
is a trade-off among principles, this gives something to everyone, and
denies every maximalist demand the sides might have. It is a balanced
approach and we hope we will be able to continue to make progress on the
basis of this document.
However, there are two other factors which affect the negotiations and need
to be addressed: one is the militaristic ambition of Azerbaijan. Let me
repeat: this conflict has no military solution. This must be ruled out so we
can focus on compromise. Second, the public statements made by the sides
should match the spirit and letter of the document. When the document is
eventually opened up, the public will ask why the statements don’t match the
content. In the case of Baku’s statements, there is a discrepancy between
their statements and the content of the document. My guideline is to go by
what we’ve been hearing, what the co-Chairs have been hearing during the
talks.
Mr. Chairman,
Let me say one thing about Kosovo whose ultimate fate will be decided by the
Security Council of the United Nations if the formula meets both parties’
interests.
We are often asked what Armenia’s position is on this matter. No matter how
beneficial a certain solution may appear to us and to our case, we are firm
believers in the distinctiveness of each conflict, its dynamics and its
conditions. We have no problem expressing our views as to the limited value
of precedents.
However, it is ironic that those who oppose one "size fits all" precedents
are disingenuous in bundling together four "frozen" conflicts elsewhere.
Further, more than just arguing against precedent, GUAM is attempting to
prejudge the outcomes of other conflicts, specifically ours, by creating
mechanisms, through resolutions and other actions, to block the natural
progression of our negotiations process.
The international community must be alert to the disingenuousness of such
efforts. This is not a zero sum process – where a successful
self-determination process for Kosovo necessarily means that all other
self-determination processes must be quashed, artificially.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman and distinguished colleagues, let me state
unequivocally that Armenia remains committed to a negotiated solution, and
we will continue to pursue a fair resolution that will guarantee the people
of Nagorno Karabakh security and the right to determine their own future.
I will travel tomorrow to Belgrade, to conduct regular talks with my
counterpart. I am going to Belgrade with the hope that we will be able to
reaffirm our commitment to the principles agreed heretofore and attempt to
make progress.
We believe that this is the best to move forward.
Thank you.