Parliamentary Assembly

thanked the President, the Secretary General and members of the Parliamentary Assembly for their welcome. He expressed his gratitude for the crucial role that the Council of Europe had played in the process of democracy in Armenia. He considered it an honour to be able to address the Assembly today.

On 21 September 1991, Armenia had declared its independence. That was the fulfilment of a dream of many centuries. It reunited Armenia with the community of nation states. Since Armenia had joined the Council of Europe in 2001, it had been able to reaffirm its cultural history with other member states. He recalled the milestones in this process and the achievement of the people of Armenia. Armenian citizens had experienced oppressive regimes and were aware of the price of freedom. Freedom and peace had been their dream for centuries and it had been a long struggle to achieve those goals. Nevertheless, Armenia was now firmly on the right road and the people of Armenia had made an important and irreversible choice.

Armenia’s journey to membership of the Council of Europe had been unique and there had been some obstacles in the process, notably the artificial and illegal blocks experienced from some of its neighbours. However Armenia was aware of where it was going and considered this process to be a homecoming to Europe and the cultures and traditions to which it had belonged for centuries. The Council of Europe was the embodiment of this, as it defined Europe not as a geographical term but as a series of common values. The people of Armenia had paid a high price for believing in those values and at many points in their history had been silenced in brutal and violent ways. The Council of Europe was important in ensuring that such events did not recur and had played a vital part in the strengthening of democracy in Armenia. In Armenia, some people joked that the political system had three components: the government, the opposition and the Council of Europe. That reflected the strong involvement of the Council of Europe in the process of change under way in Armenia.

"I am convinced that a shared future is emerging, based on peace and stability, and without divisions or divides"

In 2008, Armenia had experienced serious problems and challenges to the process of change, but steps had been taken by the government to overcome this. In March 2008, there had been discussions with a number of partners, including the Council of Europe. Sometimes, there had been disagreement, but Armenia had nonetheless benefited from the wisdom of dialogue, which had been constructive. Without this process of dialogue, it would not have been possible to move forward. He expressed his thanks to Lord Prescott, Mr George Colombier and the Venice Commission for their constructive and consistent engagement.

The Armenian Government was consistent in its aim of ensuring progress along the democratic path. No doubt had been cast on its commitment to the democratic process, even at the darkest points in its history. This determination was at the heart of the government’s comprehensive and continuous programme of reform of its institutions. Armenians had learned to listen and to respect the views of others: the government and opposition no longer viewed each other as enemies and they were aware that strength did not lie in elimination of the other side. The government had learned not to reciprocate insults and was now consulting widely with stakeholders on key issues. The government did not shy away from constructive criticism; it had learned to live by another set of rules. This might seem an obvious approach to those member states of the Council of Europe for whom those principles were deep-rooted, but it remained an approach that it was absolutely critical for Armenia to adopt. The process of reform required a high degree of effort and perseverance but Armenia was committed to the process and ready to take all opportunities available to them.

Armenia was proud of its achievements in the last two decades when there had been a wide-scale building of democracy. Particular efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law had been made following the constitution’s adoption in 2005. Armenia had seriously and irreversibly aligned itself with the principles of the liberal world. The Venice Commission and the European Commission had been indispensible in this process. The European Court of Human Rights was a unique structure promoting human rights in the country.

The 2008 political crisis in Armenia had demonstrated vulnerabilities in the democratic system and had provided a new impetus to the government’s efforts. As a result of the crisis, there had been major revisions, including reform of the police force and reform of the judicial system, which was necessary in order to safeguard the independence of those institutions. There were also changes being made to the criminal code. Legislation on freedom of assembly was also being revised and was now underlined by a new philosophy which undertook to guarantee freedom of association rather than restricting it. A comprehensive review of legislation relating to corruption was high on the political agenda and an anti-corruption monitoring commission had been created to as a result. A public service law would require disclosure of property and income along with any potential conflict of interest. It also set out a number of ethical rules. Work was also under way on laws relating to television and radio, and defamation laws had been revised in order to ensure freedom of speech. Reforms over the next three years would harmonise changes made in these various areas. However, further improvements would be necessary to ensure Armenia’s democratic development and no doubt some of these changes would be painful.

The people of Armenia had been the main driving force behind changes and he took pride in their attitude, as this would help ensure a speedy and comprehensive process towards freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The changes made would be consolidated within a framework of diversity. The next milestone would be next spring, when elections would be held. The government was committed to ensuring that the electoral process was both fair and transparent.

The establishment of free and fair elections would not be enough – they had also to be seen to be so. A new electoral code had been developed after a review of the findings of the Election Observation Mission and he was confident that the new code would help the process of achieving free and fair elections. If Armenia were seen to have a fair electoral system, that would in turn help to generate full acceptance of the election result by the electorate. Public trust was essential and if developed this would strengthen the government’s accomplishment. No effort would be spared by the Armenian Government to achieve this. It was grateful to the Council of Europe for its important advice in this area and would continue to co-operate with all the institutional stakeholders and accept the advice and support offered in order to ensure a transparent election. There would be no shortcuts in the process: the government was not looking for praise, nor would it attribute any failure to achieve a fair election to the unresolved conflict.

He asked that the Council of Europe apply fair and consistent rules when assisting member states. He was very grateful to the OSCE Minsk Group for its efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and he was hopeful that the involvement of the presidents of the member states of that group would help the situation. The most important contribution of the Council of Europe would be the encouragement of tolerance but it pained him that hotbeds of intolerance, xenophobia and racism existed within the lands represented by the Council of Europe. This was bad for the society there and across the whole of Europe.

In two days’ time there would be a trilateral meeting involving Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia and he noted that the co-chairs had exerted every effort to reach agreement on the principles of resolution. Armenia would be willing to make concessions but it could be difficult to persuade the people of Nagorno-Karabakh that all parties were equally committed. He wished to see progress and overall a safe future for young people. Final agreement would be implemented only when all racism was eliminated.

Surely no one would question the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to live freely in their own land; he expected that the Council of Europe had no desire to harm the process that could lead to the achievement of that aim. The talks of the OSCE Minsk Group could lead to peace and must not be jeopardised. He was sure that the vast majority of Council of Europe colleagues would express good will towards this aim. He urged all to exercise some restraint in their remarks until the full situation was known.

He was certain of one thing: Nagorno-Karabakh would remain part of Europe. It had to be remembered that Karabakh society was part of the European family. He thought that the time had come for the Council of Europe to ensure the protection of the Karabakh people, their human rights and their civil society, and the promotion of democracy and tolerance in that region. The Council of Europe should engage first with the people of Karabakh before talking about them, and include them in its talks. He noted that the collapse of the Berlin Wall had happened 20 years ago but the people of his mountainous region were still waiting for their wall to come down.

Two years ago, diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey had been established and he was grateful for the assistance in this of mediators from national communities, including senior members of the Council of Europe. He regretted that the two countries were still in deadlock and he was unsure when the next opportunity for negotiation would be. Armenia had started the process with good intentions based on the principles of living together peacefully. He considered that Turkey’s denial of the Ottoman genocide of 1915 was at odds with Armenia’s tireless efforts to gain international recognition of it. However, he was determined that the current conflict would not be left unsolved for future generations.

It was important for Europe to have peace, stability and co-operation and obstacles to achieving this had to come to an end. He believed in a peaceful Europe with a common platform for its shared values, extending from the Atlantic to the Urals. Europe should not tolerate new dividing lines and the Council of Europe should become the arena for European-wide discussion aimed at increasing European unity. Member states shared a common responsibility to the future generation.