CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE GETS OFF TO A SCANDALOUS START

July 1 marked the start of Armenia's official chairmanship of the Council of  Europe's Committee of Ministers. Azerbaijan was not alone in opposing this in a well argumented manner, for how could a mission like this be entrusted to a country that has perpetrated acts of aggression against another state, continued to occupy 20 per cent of the latter's territory and been responsible for "ethnic cleansing" on the lands seized, something which is contrary to fundamental European values.

It is hardly surprising that Armenia's chairmanship got off to a scandalous start. Within its framework the Pan-European Conference "European guidelines for the rule of law and  monitoring the powers of the Council of Europe member-states" was held in the Armenian parliament [National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia] with more than 80 representatives of 32 countries and international institutions taking part.

At one moment, a Moldovan parliamentary lawyer, Aurelia Grigorio, went up onto the rostrum with her report entitled "Observation of human rights in frozen conflict zones". She stated straightaway that "Armenia had occupied 20 per cent of the Azerbaijan's territory and been responsible for genocide against Azeris". She also recalled that the Khojaly massacre was carried out by Armenians, and that this fact had been recognised by the international community. To the horror of those in Yerevan, some of the audience at the forum applauded their Moldovan colleague.

Then the deputy speaker of the Armenian parliament, Hermine Naghdalyan, rushed up to the rostrum to make a "statement in reply". She herself surely understood that she could not deny the main thrust of what Mrs Grigorio had said. So, the deputy speaker immediately resorted to offensive remarks, quite contrary to the ethics of parliamentary debate: "I don't know on whose orders you are doing this, but you can write down your speech for your clients to see. I think that high-ranking guests should express their disapproval of the fact that someone is trying to hijack a scientific conference for inadmissible discussions," she stated indignantly.

"I'm not going to go into details of the conflict, but I will just say that violations of human rights are unacceptable in frozen conflict zones," the Moldovan lawyer replied.

What happened next can only be called a disgrace. An apology was demanded from Aurelia Grigorio.  When she refused to comply, the "hosts" started to make threats.

Aurelia Grigorio later told the APA agency in an interview that in Armenia "they had recommended that she apologise, if she wanted to leave the country unhindered". To be honest, this reminds one of hostage taking. "Diplomats and people with whom I had constantly been in contact, said that I should apologise. These people were undoubtedly on the side of the Armenians," the parliamentary lawyer disclosed. Mrs Grigorio recalled how threats against her had appeared on Facebook. "I received phone calls in my hotel room, threatening to drag me out of my room by my hair, after which I would be dealt with. I did of course inform our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and my relatives about what had happened. My family also received threats. When I was supposed to leave, the chauffeur refused to take me and literally a minute later a message appeared on my Facebook page stating that many more surprises were awaiting me. I had received insults even before that. I think the fact that the driver refused to take me to the airport and then this message arrived a minute later indicate that all these acts had been co-ordinated. This was the stand taken by our hosts," Grigorio stated.

When the details of "Yerevan's hospitality" appeared in the media and on the worldwide web, in Yerevan they were forced to allow Aurelia Grigorio to leave Armenia.

Today many experts note that political conclusions may and should be drawn from what happened to Aurelia Grigorio. It is obvious that there is zero tolerance in Yerevan for those who differ in their assessments of Armenia's official line and do not agree with the statements and terms outlining the actual situation in the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict zone. It is hardly likely that the basic safety of foreign visitors whose opinions and views are at variance with official Yerevan can be guaranteed. Moreover, experts recall that the famous WikiLeaks "leaks" contained information on "politically motivated" attacks on foreign diplomats.

What is more, it should be noted that Yerevan's chairmanship of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers has only just started.

It has turned out that it is too early to say this matter is over. A number of political scientists in Yerevan are prepared to level criticism at the officials who, in the view of experts,  preferred to remain silent "for some reason". They criticise the Armenian National Assembly speaker, Hovik Abrahamyan, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who is said to have found it more pleasant to accompany Charles Aznavour, the French singer of Armenian extraction, on a visit to Yerevan rather than write notes of protest, and Hermine Naghdalyan's scandalous reply, is obviously regarded as quite "out of order". They are totally indignant that no countering arguments were to be found in the statements of reply.

It is obvious that even in Yerevan they are starting to understand that the campaign of threats and insults waged against the Moldovan human rights lawyer, has damaged the reputation of Armenia's political elite itself. Unfortunately, they are still not ready to admit the plain truth that the Armenians simply do not have those much-sought-after "counter arguments" which would allow them to refute Aurelia Grigorio's words. To all appearances, Edward Nalbandian and Hovik Abrahamyan, and even Hermine Naghdalyan, understand this. The talk of "self-determination for the kingdom of Artsakh [Nagorno-Karabakh Republic] etc, possibly leaves an indelible impression on the public within Armenia, but professional diplomats understand that it is not worth coming out with this argument in the international arena.

What is most important is that in Yerevan they are not prepared for the Armenian side to lose the "propaganda war" now. While the Armenians were able to reckon on applying  propaganda and lobbying in the diaspora, in Yerevan they could allow themselves not to think about who had actually perpetrated the acts of aggression in the region and carried out "ethnic cleansing". But today, as the world community's interest in Azerbaijan is growing and that country is gaining an increasingly solid reputation in the international arena, there are gradually "some small shifts" in the situation. In this sense, Aurelia Grigorio's speech represents a landmark event for Yerevan.

For the moment one can only hazard a guess what response there will be to the changed conditions in Yerevan. The experts neither exclude other campaigns of emotional terror, nor a transition to physical terror, considering the tradition of political violence in Armenian society. Alas, very little points to the victory of common sense in Yerevan.July 1 marked the start of Armenia's official chairmanship of the Council of  Europe's Committee of Ministers. Azerbaijan was not alone in opposing this in a well argumented manner, for how could a mission like this be entrusted to a country that has perpetrated acts of aggression against another state, continued to occupy 20 per cent of the latter's territory and been responsible for "ethnic cleansing" on the lands seized, something which is contrary to fundamental European values.

It is hardly surprising that Armenia's chairmanship got off to a scandalous start. Within its framework the Pan-European Conference "European guidelines for the rule of law and  monitoring the powers of the Council of Europe member-states" was held in the Armenian parliament [National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia] with more than 80 representatives of 32 countries and international institutions taking part.

At one moment, a Moldovan parliamentary lawyer, Aurelia Grigorio, went up onto the rostrum with her report entitled "Observation of human rights in frozen conflict zones". She stated straightaway that "Armenia had occupied 20 per cent of the Azerbaijan's territory and been responsible for genocide against Azeris". She also recalled that the Khojaly massacre was carried out by Armenians, and that this fact had been recognised by the international community. To the horror of those in Yerevan, some of the audience at the forum applauded their Moldovan colleague.

Then the deputy speaker of the Armenian parliament, Hermine Naghdalyan, rushed up to the rostrum to make a "statement in reply". She herself surely understood that she could not deny the main thrust of what Mrs Grigorio had said. So, the deputy speaker immediately resorted to offensive remarks, quite contrary to the ethics of parliamentary debate: "I don't know on whose orders you are doing this, but you can write down your speech for your clients to see. I think that high-ranking guests should express their disapproval of the fact that someone is trying to hijack a scientific conference for inadmissible discussions," she stated indignantly.

"I'm not going to go into details of the conflict, but I will just say that violations of human rights are unacceptable in frozen conflict zones," the Moldovan lawyer replied.

What happened next can only be called a disgrace. An apology was demanded from Aurelia Grigorio.  When she refused to comply, the "hosts" started to make threats.

Aurelia Grigorio later told the APA agency in an interview that in Armenia "they had recommended that she apologise, if she wanted to leave the country unhindered". To be honest, this reminds one of hostage taking. "Diplomats and people with whom I had constantly been in contact, said that I should apologise. These people were undoubtedly on the side of the Armenians," the parliamentary lawyer disclosed. Mrs Grigorio recalled how threats against her had appeared on Facebook. "I received phone calls in my hotel room, threatening to drag me out of my room by my hair, after which I would be dealt with. I did of course inform our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and my relatives about what had happened. My family also received threats. When I was supposed to leave, the chauffeur refused to take me and literally a minute later a message appeared on my Facebook page stating that many more surprises were awaiting me. I had received insults even before that. I think the fact that the driver refused to take me to the airport and then this message arrived a minute later indicate that all these acts had been co-ordinated. This was the stand taken by our hosts," Grigorio stated.

When the details of "Yerevan's hospitality" appeared in the media and on the worldwide web, in Yerevan they were forced to allow Aurelia Grigorio to leave Armenia.

Today many experts note that political conclusions may and should be drawn from what happened to Aurelia Grigorio. It is obvious that there is zero tolerance in Yerevan for those who differ in their assessments of Armenia's official line and do not agree with the statements and terms outlining the actual situation in the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict zone. It is hardly likely that the basic safety of foreign visitors whose opinions and views are at variance with official Yerevan can be guaranteed. Moreover, experts recall that the famous WikiLeaks "leaks" contained information on "politically motivated" attacks on foreign diplomats.

What is more, it should be noted that Yerevan's chairmanship of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers has only just started.

It has turned out that it is too early to say this matter is over. A number of political scientists in Yerevan are prepared to level criticism at the officials who, in the view of experts,  preferred to remain silent "for some reason". They criticise the Armenian National Assembly speaker, Hovik Abrahamyan, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who is said to have found it more pleasant to accompany Charles Aznavour, the French singer of Armenian extraction, on a visit to Yerevan rather than write notes of protest, and Hermine Naghdalyan's scandalous reply, is obviously regarded as quite "out of order". They are totally indignant that no countering arguments were to be found in the statements of reply.

It is obvious that even in Yerevan they are starting to understand that the campaign of threats and insults waged against the Moldovan human rights lawyer, has damaged the reputation of Armenia's political elite itself. Unfortunately, they are still not ready to admit the plain truth that the Armenians simply do not have those much-sought-after "counter arguments" which would allow them to refute Aurelia Grigorio's words. To all appearances, Edward Nalbandian and Hovik Abrahamyan, and even Hermine Naghdalyan, understand this. The talk of "self-determination for the kingdom of Artsakh [Nagorno-Karabakh Republic] etc, possibly leaves an indelible impression on the public within Armenia, but professional diplomats understand that it is not worth coming out with this argument in the international arena.

What is most important is that in Yerevan they are not prepared for the Armenian side to lose the "propaganda war" now. While the Armenians were able to reckon on applying  propaganda and lobbying in the diaspora, in Yerevan they could allow themselves not to think about who had actually perpetrated the acts of aggression in the region and carried out "ethnic cleansing". But today, as the world community's interest in Azerbaijan is growing and that country is gaining an increasingly solid reputation in the international arena, there are gradually "some small shifts" in the situation. In this sense, Aurelia Grigorio's speech represents a landmark event for Yerevan.

For the moment one can only hazard a guess what response there will be to the changed conditions in Yerevan. The experts neither exclude other campaigns of emotional terror, nor a transition to physical terror, considering the tradition of political violence in Armenian society. Alas, very little points to the victory of common sense in Yerevan.