Most popular articles
.png "Opposite side of European Parliament’s resolution")
The European Parliament adopted previous week resolution 2216 which has been much talked about by Armenian information circles being assessed negatively with disappointments and alarms.
That kind of boom was natural: in the mentioned resolution the European Parliament, having as co-chair Yevgeni Kirilov (compatible with Turkish-Azerbaijani lobby), defined a range of favorable and even incomprehensive statements, and surely, the principle clause was getting Armenian armed forces troops out of NKR.
Since tough (even emotional) discussions have been outset the comprehensive study of the EU adopted resolution has been buried in oblivion. While the incompatible statements and messy definitions of the resolution are alarming for the Armenian side, they’re intended to keep balance and in principle topics they express terms that don’t damage the interests of Armenian side.
To conclude, the same term of the resolution alarming and much talked about, in fact, has been partially covered by the Armenian media. The 8th point of the resolution defines that the withdrawal of Armenia troops is simply conditioned by providing security to Nagorno-Karabakh people corresponding to the international standards. I think this very term is the key focus of Armenian disposition.
In the same 8th point (8-11 points of the resolution covers NK conflict and the 12th – Armenian-Turkish ties) The European Parliament raises the rights of not only the domestic displaced but all those refugees and displaced people in the aftermath of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to return to their living places, to have guaranteed their property and personal security rights. If I’m not mistaken, the Armenian side has never rejected the necessity of protecting the Azerbaijani displaced, and has demanded not to differentiate them from those about half million brutally displaced Armenians from Azerbaijan. I see, the European Parliament has adopted a definition in the resolution reflecting Armenian disposition.
Yet, the resolution covers other more important definitions. For example, in the 6th point hailing the negotiations over the peaceful resolution of the conflict, the European Parliament “condemns the idea of armed resolution and calls on the sides abstaining from violating any norm of ceasefire signed in 1994.” Taking into consideration the country, which traditionally and in its highest levels declares the war hasn’t finished and of their intends to get armed resolution of the conflict, I think, it’s rather understandable that the European Parliament’s condemns sidestep the Armenian side.
The 7th point of the European Parliament’s resolution the dispositions of the Armenia side are again repeated. “OSCE MG intermediating efforts are supported, as well as basic principles written in Madrid documents and Aquilla statement made by the OSCE MG co-chairs in July 10, 2009,” resolution states. I know that it’s official Baku aimed at revising the existing format and in fact they’ve’ heard the collective rejection of European countries.
In the 9th point, the European Parliament called on “guarding against instigating policy and oratory, from provoking statements and distorting of the history. Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s presidents are called on making responsible activities.” If we remember Ilham Aliyev’s gibberish that “Armenia is Azerbaijan and Yerevan is hired from Azerbaijani”, then European Parliament’s concerns have no second address. So if Azerbaijan’s official campaign has been buckled down to Armenian campaign and tries to create an image of rival Armenian and to get national identity we have more clear scenery.
Anyway, let’s turn to the 10th point of the resolution. The European Parliament has made a very important recording here. It particularly states: “the interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh may serve as a settlement to the conflict until it gets its final status.” In this case we need deeper analysis but still two things may be fixed: a/ the European Parliament underscores that the well-defined NK status is necessary element to the resolution of the conflict, and b/ it’s necessary to grant a definite status to NK, which means rejection to the Azerbaijani side which declared NK doesn’t exist, as there are administrative regions.
The 12th point of the resolution covers “the normalization of Armenian-Turkish ties and OSCE MG negotiations are different processes, which should be guided by their own logic.”
It’s worth mentioning that regarding Georgia, the European Parliament expressed unconditioned support to its territorial integrity while they haven’t reinforced similar support to Azerbaijan.
Placeholder
Studio One