On May 20 the European Parliament adopted Resolution 2216 on the need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus. The rapporteur on the Resolution, Member of European Parliament Evgeni Kirilov answers to the questions of “Hetq.” On May 21, when asked to comment on the resolution on the South Caucasus adopted by the European Parliament, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated, “The points on the Karabakh issue do not go in line with the Madrid Principles, the L’Aquila Statement or the Moscow Declaration the document refers to… Some of the [resolution] provisions also contradict the EU’s position, which has been repeatedly articulated.” On May 21 RA National Assembly President Hovik Abrahamian sent a letter to the President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek, which says in particular, “In the six paragraphs of the Resolution related to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, four paragraphs (namely 6, 7, 8 and 10) contain wording that run contrary to the negotiation process on peaceful settlement of the conflict, to the position of OSCE and EU concerning Nagorno Karabakh, that found their explicit reflection in statements made in Athens in December 2009, as well as in all the Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament itself since 1998. They are not in line with the Madrid Principles, Moscow and L’Aquila Declarations to which reference is made in the Resolution.” How would you comment on these statements? First of all I would like to assure the Armenian public that the main objective of the most recent European Parliament's resolution on South Caucasus is to suggest ways of enhancing the relations between EU and the three countries and to strengthen peace and democracy in the region. All the recommendations made in the resolution are in the vital interest of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and their only aim is to bring the countries closer to the EU values and to encourage their development as stable and democratic countries, ready to establish good neighbourly relations and to integrate into the EU policies. Taking this into consideration I regret the fact that in Armenia there have been some ungrounded misinterpretations and speculations with separate paragraphs of the resolution, taking them out of context and suggesting that the resolution is a product of someone's hidden agenda. The resolution was drafted with the help of the internal experts in the Parliament and a valuable input was made by some of the most distinguished and competent international organizations and experts working closely on South Caucasus. The initial draft was presented to the Committee on Foreign Relations and about 300 amendments were introduced by many Members of Parliament from all political groups. The resolution was then adopted in the Committee with an overwhelming majority (actually only one Member voted against it). There was a broad consensus among all political groups about the text of the resolution and therefore it was again adopted with overwhelming majority in the plenary. Therefore to say that the resolution was prepared by a lobby or by one person sounds unserious and shows a substantial ignorance about the legislative procedure in the European Parliament. As far as the call of the European Parliament for the withdrawal of the Armenian forces from the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh is concerned I can say that it was not in the first draft but came as an amendment from the European People's Party during the discussion in the Foreign Affairs Committee. All the big political groups supported it. And it is difficult not to support is since it is the base of 4 UN Security Council resolutions and it is a question of integrity for the European Parliament before its voters to go against the provisions of the international law and the highest international authority. It is true that this text has not been part of the previous resolutions of the European Parliament but it has been present in resolutions of other European institutions, for instance Resolution 1416 of 2005 of the Council of Europe which has been much more critical. Regarding the so called accusations that the resolution contradicts the Madrid Basic Principles I can   only urge everyone who is interested to read it carefully again and to see that paragraph 7 of the resolution states explicitly that the Parliament "fully supports the mediation efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group, the Madrid basic principles and the statement from L`Aquila". The European Parliament has always supported these efforts and this has not changed. However, the status-quo is unacceptable and dangerous and the Parliament wants to see more ambition in resolving the conflict from all sides. We should not wait to happen what happened in Georgia in 2008 when EU realized it needs to play a more active role and got involved in the conflict management during and after the war. Due to its very nature as the institution expressing the voice of the European citizens, the Parliament is particularly sensitive with regards to the situation of the refugees and the internally displaced persons. It is unacceptable in 21 century in Europe people not to be able to come back to their homes and to be denied their rights to return and to personal security. Therefore there is a particular emphasis in the resolution on this issue through a separate paragraph. In no way it means that we have selectively mentioned one or another of the agreed Madrid principles. The withdrawal of the forces is seen only in the context of a comprehensive solution, involving maximum security guarantees for all. The Parliament wants to see the resolution of the conflict on the base of what has been already agreed and calls on active EU involvement through programmes and missions once a political solution is found within the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations. Having all these considerations in mind I was astonished by the position of some of your officials and the tension they have managed to create within the Armenian public opinion.  I think it is of no use and I would even say contraproductive for the Armenian foreign policy. In the resolution on the South Caucasus adopted by the European Parliament there are no provisions about the self-determination of Nagorno Karabakh. In your opinion, is this a show of disregard for the rights of Nagorno Karabakh population? One of the reasons for the deadlock in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is exactly the fact that so far the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity have been used selectively by one of the parties. Therefore in my first draft there was no reference neither to self-determination nor to territorial integrity. Afterwards there were amendments from colleagues making general reference to the principle of territorial integrity, mainly because of Georgia and they were adopted. It is very difficult to apply the principle of territorial integrity when Georgia is concerned and not to apply it for Azerbaijan. The contrary would mean creating a double standard and putting under question the EU `s integrity as a union. However, I do not agree that the resolution is only critical on Armenia. If you read it carefully you will see that the calls for more constructive attitude or avoiding provocative policies and rhetoric are directed both to Armenia and to Azerbaijan. We are very well aware that in every conflict there are two parties. There must be a compromise from both sides. For example the resolution recommends extending EU programmes to Nagorno-Karabakh - a very painful issue for the Azerbaijani side. It also underlines that the Turkish-Armenia rapprochement and the NK negotiations should be seen as two separate processes which can influence positively one another. There is also a call on all regional actors to stop Armenia's isolation and include it in relevant transport and energy project in the region. All these are very positive aspects for Armenia which also come for the first time in a resolution of the European Parliament. It would be maybe fairer if all these are recognized and welcomed. Member of Armenian National Assembly, representative of Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party Artsvik Minasian has expressed the following opinion, “In my opinion, this unbalanced document also contains a risk of war. Though the same document calls for the conflicting parties not to apply military power, but, on the other hand, the document is so biased and unbalanced that if this approach is brought to life or there are attempts to bring this approach to life, this will be a direct cause for the war.” Do you see such a risk held in the document? This is an extremely exaggerated statement, very distorted and unfounded. For such politicians we have a text in the resolution to refrain from using inflammatory language and statements. You have consulted with Azerbaijani and Turkish parliamentarians when drawing up the Resolution 2216. Have you discussed the Resolution with Armenian parliamentarians and taken into consideration theirs points of view, as well? I have consulted on equal basis the three countries from the region - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia after the first draft of my report. But since the focus of the resolution is the EU interest in the region it is very difficult for separate countries to try to influence the process. Of course during the preparation of the resolution we have heard the positions and demands of all countries and actors in the region but after all the idea behind the resolution is not to satisfy the needs of one or another country but to bring forward the EU position and policies. This is what we have done and that is why the resolution was adopted with such a big majority from all political groups. Both RA National Assembly President Hovik Abrahamian and RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian have stated that you have never dealt with the NK problem and have never been to the region during the preparation period of the report. Hovik Abrahamian’s above-mentioned letter reads, “Neither had he the courage of consulting the mediators of OSCE Minsk group co-chairmen, particularly with the EU member state French co-chair, which finally resulted in the unacceptable distortions in formulations related to Nagorno Karabakh.” How would you comment on these statements? Regarding the speculations that, as a rapporteur on South Caucasus, I do not know the region I can only say that I have visited the region many times, I have been rapporteur for Georgia in the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly for a very long time and I am convinced that the future of the region lies in the ability of the political leaderships and the people in all three countries to create a more tolerant atmosphere, to support the peaceful initiatives and to promote reconciliation. And the EU is ready to assist you in this endeavour and based on its own historical experience to show that people in the region can live together in peace and prosperity, restoring the good relations and trust that historically existed. I have Armenian friends, I know well representatives of the Armenian diaspora. I have not so far been invited as a rapporteur to visit Armenia but even now I would be glad to visit your country. I would just like to add that the European Parliament is an independent institution and the voice of the European citizens. During the years its role has gradually increased within EU and after the Lisbon treaty it has even more ambition and bigger legitimacy to participate actively in shaping the EU policy, including in the foreign policy sphere. It has its own political vision and is considered often as a driving force of the Union in policy areas where EU is still absent. During the preparation of the report I had consultations with many of the stakeholders in the region. However, I was never approached for a meeting from the French co-chair and even till the present moment I have not received any criticism or whatsoever comment from the French co-chair. This makes me think that this is an issue with which has been speculated a lot in Armenia and which is completely ungrounded. You are being blamed in Armenia for defending Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s interests and being financed from Azerbaijani sources? Please comment on these statements very common in Armenia. The resolution was adopted with overwhelming majority both in the Foreign Affairs Committee and in the plenary. Do you think that all the 736 Members of the European Parliament who voted in favour were also financed from these sources? My colleague Charles Tannock, who presented himself as a big friend of Armenia during the plenary session suggested replacing the word "withdrawal of the Armenian forces" with "considers desirable". His amendment was supported by only 64 members, 390 voted against. So I think it is clear that one MEP cannot draft alone, vote alone and adopt alone with absolute majority a resolution in a Parliament of 736 Members and the big and influential on European level political groups. Therefore my conscious is clear and I find these accusations completely irrelevant. Some of your local politicians tend to exploit the issue for internal political purposes. Representative organizations of the Armenia diaspora who took active part in the initial discussions currently asses the resolution as balanced. Personally I am convinced that this resolution is in the best long-term interest of the Armenian people.