European legislators moved by financial interests are prone to defend the stance of Azerbaijan: Ana Maria Gomes

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 28, ARMENPRESS: Many international organizations have expressed their concern and criticism over criminal Ramil Safarov extradition to Azerbaijan. European Parliament Member Ana Maria Gomes joined the statements and commentaries. Armenpress had an exclusive interview with MEP Ana Maria Gomes on ''Safarov'' scandal and the resolution adopted by the European Parliament.

-Mrs Gomes, after the resolution on Safarov's case, what are the next steps to be taken by the EU as a whole and the European Parliament (EP) in particular? Or do you believe the resolution was a final say of the EP?

-We need to be aware of the very fragile situation surrounding NK and the possibility of "defrosting of the frozen conflict". The statements from all sides were very unhelpful and showed that the situation is very tense. Obviously, the Parliament can not be satisfied only with the passed resolution on Safarov's case, where many believed this was not necessarily about human rights. I believe we in the EP must be more attentive to the security situation and its implications and should put efforts towards rebuilding "human ties" that will prevent the escalation into war.

-It became known that your party did not want to participate in the adoption of the resolution and that ALDE refused to vote. Could you please elaborate on that?

-My Group wanted a full debate in the presence of HR/VP Ashton on the pardon of Safarov by the Azerbaijani government and the implications of this step to an already fragile and tense security situation in the region. Such a debate would have put the situation right at the center of the EU foreign policy agenda. However, the EPP, the Greens and ALDE wanted to treat it only as a human rights issue,a much more modest approach. Still, when this decision was reached by the majority in the EP, we participated constructively. We prepared our own draft resolution, which was very critical of the actions of the Hungarian government and condemned the pardon granted to Safarov by the president Aliyev of Azerbaijan. The EPP, however, wanted to exclude from the resolution any language that was critical of the Hungarian government, since it belongs to the same political family. In the end they succeeded in doing that by rejecting our amendment that was critical with Hungary. I don´t know exactly what reasons prompted ALDE to withdraw from the resolution. But what I know is that there are people here in the Parliament who are normally very prone to defending the stance of the Azerbaijani government.

-The lobby groups are very active in the EP and bring "polarization" to the institution. There is also a growing Azerbaijani lobby. Do you see a possibility of reaching and showing a more balanced approach within the EP?

-I do not belong to any of these camps, I belong to the camp of human rights, the rule of law and human security which is a very important camp and one that should prevail in the EP. I see these sympathetic camps being very vocal, because there is much money involved . See the example, the case of Safarov, where strong suspicions exist that indeed a bail out of 2-3 billion euros was promised to Orban's government.

There are some who are concerned with security elements, but in a narrow perspective, focusing only in the a security of energy supply to the EU, which tends to make them particularly receptive to the points of view of the Azerbaijani government. Moreover, I do imagine that some people may be moved by some kind of financial interests

Though my Group wanted a full debate and resolution with HR/VP Ashton on all the implications of this case for the regional security, and not just a human rights resolution, we decided to join the majority, since we felt there was a need to express our dismay at the action of both Hungarian and Azeri authorities endorsing this act of inciting ethnic hatred, that obviously should be punished. Furthermore, a number of destabilising comments were made in reference to NK, which could not be left without issuing our opinion on that. We wanted to be constructive and help the parties to tone down acrimony and eventually, ideally, go back to a negotiating stance. This requires a lot of engagement and involvement. We urged the EEAS to make whatever is necessary to defuse the tension, to help both sides and also the Minsk Group not to lose their efforts. I can assure you, we are closely following the situation.

By Emma Argutyan