YEREVAN, JANUARY 27, ARMENPRESS. The failure of the anti-Armenian resolution at PACE confirmed that the Armenian party also had done manifold activities. Such working style must be of permanent nature. Only in that case, it will be possible to develop the achievements and refrain as much as possible from undesirable resolutions. Political scientists Tigran Abrahamyan talked about the discussion of the two anti-Armenian resolutions and voting results when being interviewed by “Armenpress”.

Mr. Abrahamyan, were the voting results of the anti-Armenian reports at PACE expected? Did the condemning statement made by the OSCE MG Co-chairs have any influence? 

The OSCE MG Co-chairs had expressed a rather clear position on the resolutions circulating within PACE. This could not but impact the further developments. The statement of the Co-chairs was important as it will not become irrelevant even in the future. This must be taken into account by all the institutions where an attempt will be made to start initiatives contradicting the logic of the negotiations. Simultaneously, it was notable that the Armenian party had done manifold activities.  This must be of permanent nature, as only in that case, it will be possible to develop the achievements and refrain as much as possible from undesirable resolutions.

It was being spoken before the discussion of the reports that in case they were voted in favour, they could disrupt the negotiations process. Now that we have the voting results, can we say that the danger has been neutralized?

We can state that the factors disrupting the negotiation process have in some regard been neutralized. Certainly, those resolutions are of consulting nature, but if we consider the European structure’s importance and promotional value of the resolutions, their adoption was not desirable.

The second report which includes a humanitarian issue connected with the use of water resources was adopted. Which are the results this may lead to?

Well, the international community, namely the MG Co-chairs, urged PACE some days ago not to take steps that might harm OSCE MG’s mandate or would complicate the negotiation process. This was followed by the reaction on the part of Azerbaijan, stating that the OSCE MG has no monopoly in the settlement process of the conflict.

This statement was made in case when it was obvious that the international community had handed the mandate for the conflict settlement to the OSCE MG.  It was obvious that the Co-chairs’ statement shocked Azerbaijan.  In this sense, it is needless to speak about the serious impact of the resolution on the negotiation process. By the statement the MG has already showed its attitude both towards Azerbaijan’s behavior and the resolutions of the like adopted in PACE.

By Anna Gziryan