June 27, 2008

Raffi Hovannisian at PACE
Summer Session, 23-25 June 2008, Strasbourg

(Provisional Transcripts)

2008 ORDINARY SESSION

(Third part)

REPORT
Twentieth Sitting
Monday 23 June 2008 at 3 p.m.

Statement by Mr Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

THE PRESIDENT called Mr Hovannisian.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – Last week, the well-known Turkish publisher and human rights activist Ragip Zarakolu was given a five-month conviction for publishing a book by a British author that mentioned the Armenian genocide. That has happened following the recent amendments to Article 301. On conviction, Mr Zarakolu said: “I was partly waiting for this result. But it is a struggle for the truth and it will go on. I do not accept myself as convicted. This is a conviction for official history and for denialism.” What is your comment, especially after the recent amendments and given the fact that there has been no closure of the tragic case of Hrant Dink?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Hovannisian. I call the Minister to reply.

Mr BILDT. – I am not aware of the details of that particular case. Of course, we are concerned about freedom of information in Turkey, particularly regarding Article 301. I note with satisfaction the changes to that article, as there have been significant improvements. There are issues relating to other aspects of the penal code that are still the subject of debate, and I can only hope that that will go forward.

Concerning the discussion of what we might term “historical issues”, including the one that was mentioned, there has been significant improvement in the climate in which they are discussed in Turkey. Books and articles are published in which different points of view are spelled out in a way that was nearly unthinkable some years ago. That does not mean that everyone is in agreement, and the tragic case alluded to clearly shows that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

2008 ORDINARY SESSION

(Third part)

REPORT
Twenty-first Sitting
Tuesday 24 June 2008 at 10 a.m.

5. Functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Çavuşoğlu. I call Mr Hovannisian.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – Thank you, Mr President. As the representative of the Heritage Party – the sole democratic opposition party in the Armenian Parliament – and as the carrier of a message from Armenian civil society, I have come to this wonderful Hall of Europe, perhaps for the last time, with the intention of approaching the report on Azerbaijan and the report on Armenia tomorrow in an equally critical fashion. But for that, we need ground rules; we need an absolute and even application of standards and European benchmarks.

But for paragraph 24 of the draft resolution, one might have wished well to our Azerbaijani colleagues in their trek towards European values and democratic development, but it is here that not Azerbaijan’s issue but the integrity, mandate and reputation of the Parliamentary Assembly is on the line. Every nation here represented can bring to the fore from its history and its contemporary affairs a reason why it cannot achieve the standard of democratic Europe.

No country – not Azerbaijan, not Armenia, not Turkey, or anyone else – should get a free ride. Nobody should be allowed to present excuses for failing democracy’s test. One will say, “Territorial integrity.” The other will say, “Self-determination. Past genocide. Current blockade.” But those must be divorced from the prime values of the Council of Europe: meeting democratic standards without exception.

Either we all get an escape hatch and an ability to excuse our democratic deficiencies, or none of us must be allowed to use that escape hatch. So there is a false conditionality in the report, dear colleagues, between sustainable democratic development and any other provision of international law or position of international politics.

Paragraph 24.2 in particular flies in the face of the truth. It does not present the whole picture. I look forward to the day when my Azerbaijani and Turkish colleagues, instead of repeating pronouncements on refugees and occupation, will look within and say, “Yes we share your pain.” There are 400 000 Armenian refugees. There are scores of Armenian historic settlements currently under occupation, but who talks of them from session to session? Who talks about the pioneering quest of Mountainous Karabakh to reject the legacy of Stalin and to decolonise in a legitimate way?

There must be no consolation points or “provisions gratuities” for anyone.

And what can we say about the good-will mission of our rapporteur, Mr O’Hara, who was going to launch his mission to find out facts and prepare a report on the state of the cultural heritage in south of the Caucasus range? Because there is prima facie evidence that in December 2005 on the territory of a member state, armed uniformed Azerbaijani personnel destroyed one by one the cross stones of the medieval Armenian cemetary at Jugha, Nakhichevan, he has been denied access there. This is not an issue solely for Azerbaijan or Armenia. The integrity and mandate of the Council of Europe and its rapporteur are under fire. The cross stones are gone for ever but it is within our province today to stay true to the principles of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

2008 ORDINARY SESSION

(Third part)

REPORT
Twenty-fourth Sitting
Wednesday 25 June 2008 at 3 p.m.

5. Debate under urgent procedure: implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hovannisian.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – There is no shame in accepting the truth. For Azerbaijan, it is the right of mountainous Karabakh to live in liberty on its ancestral lands, owning up to the barbaric attack on the Armenian, thus European, heritage at Djulfa, Nakhichevan. The Council of Europe stands by in geopolitical silence, even offering special concessions to select, well-caressed members.

There is no shame for Turkey in facing the truth. Hopefully, in tomorrow’s debate and beyond, someone will see the imperative and have the political courage and moral fortitude to analyse the issues in a broader context. The philosophy of the state, as well as the exclusivist legacy of the Armenian genocide and the great Armenian dispossession of 1915, demonstrate the importance of community rights, human rights, Article 301 and the freedom of speech.

This is a truly European opportunity for our Turkish colleagues – not a problem or a threat or a challenge. It is in their interests for the future, and we wish them well. The same could be said of our friends in Georgia, who could do a better job in respecting Armenian, Azerbaijani and other minority rights, and taking care of the properties that belong to the communities. None of the aforementioned should ever be used to excuse Armenia’s democratic shortcomings. It is clear – Armenian civil society demands that we address this – that Armenia has not passed democracy’s test on all counts. Scores of prisoners of a political character remain detained and incarcerated, and they must be released forthwith, not in January.

Several politically active citizens continue to be harassed for their political point of view. The 1 March government crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and the fatal opening of fire that killed eight civilians and two policemen have not led to the opening of individual criminal cases. To date, there are no suspects: no-one is alleged to have ordered the firing or to have executed them. That is a travesty of the judicial process. We all know the famous quote by the Polish author: if you want to see a county’s true face look at how it tries its citizens. Even private hotels have been pressured not to allow meetings of civil groups and opposition parties.

Finally, the right to assembly, free association and free speech remains at the discretion of security agencies and, later, a judiciary that is far from independent. To date, there has been no meaningful dialogue on the Armenian scene.

It has been merely window dressing. Each and every initiative of the Heritage Party to launch a dialogue, in process and in substance, has been refused.

I do not know about the Assembly and its criteria, but it is evident that for the time being the Republic of Armenia and the Council of Europe do not deserve each other. Hence, I wish you success in your future deliberations, your voting and your future monitoring, but I hereby suspend my participation in the affairs of the Assembly until such time as Armenia meets standards – its own and Europe’s – and Europe rises to the realisation of its own values, rights and benchmarks.