CAVIAR DIPLOMACY FAILS, when Armenian starts to work. So, the epic around the two anti-Armenian reports in PACE ended, it can be said, in a draw. All three sides were satisfied, however, in Yerevan a little more than in Baku. PACE is pleased that it has not allowed to completely trample down its thoroughly obscured reputation, in Yerevan, it seems that they are quite satisfied with the failure of Robert Walter’s report and consider the adoption of the resolution only on the report of Markovich as the least evil. Meanwhile, Baku extols the success of the Bosnian report in every possible way, but it is lamented over the fact that “PACE refused to recognize Armenia as an aggressor”. Markovic herself did not hide the joy of realizing the fulfilled duty to Baku, but the reaction of the Turkish son-in-law and citizen Walter is difficult to judge, since he is no longer a member of the Assembly and did not appear in Strasbourg.
PACE REALLY WENT TO COMPROMISE, EXCEPTIONALLY UNDERSTANDING the unwillingness of confrontation with the international community, in the person of the OSCE in the first place. In the speeches of a number of deputies, this understanding was clearly seen, and in this context it must be recognized that the position of the European Parliament and the statement of the Minsk Group co-chairs became the decisive arguments for rejecting Walter’s report a few days earlier. Considerable efforts were made by the Armenian side, which mobilized practically all resources, including diasporas, to block at least one of the reports. And the fact that even in these conditions, 66 PACE deputies still voted for the Walter opus, which was rejected due to a difference of just 4 votes, speaks not only of the deep roots that the Azerbaijani propaganda has made in this structure, but also about systemic and Serious problems in the organization itself. On the other hand, Walter’s failure testifies to the fact that anything might happen: caviar diplomacy, by which Armenian deputies justified their own passivity and incompetence for a long time, cracked at the first signs of consistent, purposeful, even if situational work in conditions of practical work.
Apparently, the main efforts were directed against the report of the British politician, which is quite justifiable due to his emphatically political nature and dangerous political assessments of the situation. The report of Markovich externally contains a humanitarian aspect combined with economic human rights. She, as they say, pressed among other things on pity, and got what she wanted, especially since it was hard to expect the PACE deputies to reject both reports at the same time. Having endorsed the resolution on the report of a Bosnian, the Assembly formally withdrew o bit accusations of political bias on the pretext that it was a question of humanitarian and technical problems and the rights of residents of border villages. It is emphasized again: everything looks as it looks, and any European MEP with a vague idea of the situation in the Karabakh conflict zone (and they are an overwhelming majority) will induce a tear and will willingly vote for the report “about the suffering of the Azerbaijani people, whom Armenians intentionally deprive of water” .
IT’S ANOTHER THING THAT THIS VERY AVERAGE MEP has never heard, for example, about the long-term blockade of Artsakh and Armenia by Azerbaijan, the bombing of Stepanakert with the use of prohibited weapons in the early 1990s, the most brutal massacre of civilians in Maragha, and earlier – Sumgait and Baku … If closer to our days, this deputy, most likely, has no idea about how Armenian hostages are treated in Baku, including the sick old people, how they are doing to Armenian monuments in Azerbaijan, this deputy does not know that the Aliyev’s regime flatly refuses to withdraw snipers from the front lines and continues to kill Armenian soldiers, withdrawing from any proposals by the mediators, including reducing tensions by creating mechanisms for investigating border incidents. They do not know about how the harshest anti-Armenian hysteria reigns in this country and to what dangerous consequences for the region leads aggression deliberately accumulated in people, an example of which was the barbaric murder of an Armenian officer in Budapest. In this context, we can not help recalling that PACE was the only, perhaps, international structure that did not accept the statement after the ransom and return of Safarov, which in general should be reminded from the European rostrum constantly, “at every session”…
Here we come to the problem that does not find a solution throughout the entire membership of Armenia in the PACE, and more broadly – the entire post-war period, and which the whole story with reports even more clearly stymied. The MEPs do not know about all this and are familiar with the Karabakh problem mainly from the Azeri filing in force of not caviar diplomacy and the difference in the financial possibilities of the parties, but 90% due to the frankly weak parliamentary diplomacy of Armenia. And most importantly – the absence of the concept and tactics of the activity in this case in the PACE and the lack of necessary knowledge of the members of the delegation on the Karabakh issue. It is unclear whether there is any analytical expert center in the National Assembly that would systematically monitor the situation, provide deputies with relevant information and develop models of behavior and actions for each of the sessions of the PACE. The fact that the activities of the delegation is spontaneous is obvious and unacceptable, at least only by the example of the current situation, when only by enormous efforts and due to such a rare coincidence of our interests with the interests of the international community we have managed to avoid consequences that are unpleasant for the RA and NKR.
WHETHER THE EVENT IN THE PACE WILL BE A LESSON FOR NA for the more professional and active work of the delegation is difficult to say, since such a reassessment did not happen in 2005, when the anti-Armenian report of Davis-Atkinson was adopted. Emotional passages like “we are in the Milli Majlis” or “report grist to the mill of Azerbaijani propaganda” have long impressed nobody – we need a strong argumentation of our own position based on facts that the Armenian side has more than enough, it is necessary to speak with Europeans on their language – not English or French (which goes without saying), but in the language of international law and international notional vocabulary. In this sense, the words of Tevan Poghosyan – one of the few MPs in the National Assembly, who quite adequately looks like in the composition of the delegations to the OSCE PA and PACE – sounded somewhat strange. Fairly noting in the comments that “this should serve as a lesson for us about what kind of work we will have to do in the future,” Pogosyan added that “it is necessary to study cold-bloodedly all the shortcomings that have been committed and to develop a strategy for the future with the goal of not to allow the appearance and promotion of anti-Armenian reports. “
Let me disagree with the deputy. Such an approach will lead not to the “development of a strategy”, but to the continuation of the practice of ill-conceived situational actions and just a response to the activities of Azerbaijanis and their allies. The strategy relating to the Karabakh issue should primarily include the active promotion of their own initiatives in the PACE and consistent work for their adoption, which has never been done in 15 years of RA membership. And first of all, we should answer ourselves to the question: what are we trying to achieve in PACE – to represent and promote our own interests, or is it just a matter of restraining the Azerbaijani side with a feverish mobilization of all resources in the moments when “there is no place to retreat behind Artsakh”?
Marina Grigoryan