Your Excellencies, My Lords, Distinguished guests, ladies and gentleman. Please allow me to express my thanks for giving me the opportunity to present to you today certain perspectives from Armenia. I am honored to be here and to address such a distinguished group of individuals.

I should also like to thank the British Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group for their continuous support to bring to bear issues that are important to establish a strong British- Armenian relationship.

Being here today reminds us of the one universal legacy and building bloc that has been instituted over the centuries in this very hall. As Armenia has established statehood after many centuries of statelessness and years of communism, we look for the example and inspiration that can be derived from your centuries old commitment to representational democracy and constitutionalism. As we try to implement the beginning steps to build a country based on laws, we grow ever more respectful for what the British Parliament has conducted for centuries. Being here today and seeing the lively debate with the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, reminds us of the challenges that lie ahead for us in our region to build a democratic civil society.

Britain, and Europe have come to represent what we aspire to emulate, if not immediately, certainly as an ongoing social and political evolution. Ever since our independence we have tried to communicate our interest to become part of Europe. To participate in its evolution, to contribute to and to benefit from its values, practices, as well as its institutions. In that sense, we are all very well aware that we have to continue to make conscious efforts to fulfill our engagements. We have no doubt that Armenia has been the first beneficiary of its own efforts trying to meet the standards of democratization. We have taken seriously the human and the civil rights component of the values embodied by Europe, because we believe that long term European security and stability, as well as ours, will be based in the application and implementation of these values.

However, it will be disingenuous on our part, as well as on the part of anybody else, to claim or to pretend that things were uniform or uniformly progressive everywhere in all the regions of emergent Europe. We recognize that our region, the region of the Transcaucasus, while very much eager to move towards closer relations with Europe, suffers at this moment from problems associated with transitional adjustments.

We as a country and the region as a whole are trying to adjust to the multiple stresses of post Soviet economic, cultural and political transformations. Clearly these conflicts can stress relations as much within states as among them. Armenia does not see, either itself, or the region, as being permanently condemned to marginalization, but rather it believes that European institutions, whether parliamentary, economic or security based, will help bring lasting stability and cooperation based on a sense of solid and shared emergent values.

We need and welcome Europe's role not as a policeman but as a guardian. Not so much as a supervision but as a guide and a role model. We need Europe and in this case, its institutions, to provide the inspiration that comes with its own historic achievements in overcoming centenary conflicts. We want its moral authority to stem from its pursuit of principles of fairness, equitableness, the renunciation of violence and the upholding of human rights.

Armenia seeks to become a member of the European Council and we are hopeful to see our acceptance this year. We appreciate the support that Britain has provided us so far and long forward to our continued cooperation. Membership in such institutions strengthens the underlying foundation on which we try to build a free and fair society at home.

While Europe and its achievements provide us the inspiration for the future, we are mindful that we are at this moment, witness to a precariousness that is not only characteristic of certain regions of the world, but of Europe as well. No one can remain a simple spectator and not feel affected by the unpredictable forces moving around us, least of all my country, the Republic of Armenia, only 8 years into its independence. Armenia is rightly anxious to make sure that peace and cooperation in Europe, and more particularly in its own immediate region, will afford it the security and stability necessary to develop and consolidate its human and economic resources and strengthen its democratic institutions.

As usual it is easier for those whose national aspirations are already fulfilled to transcend them into transnational, co-operative, integrative institutions. As we know, it has not always been so. It took multiple "nationalist" confrontations to bring part of Europe to its senses. Thus, while some parts of Europe are integrating with countries secure in their statehood and fulfilled in their national aspirations, other parts are disintegrating, with people trying to achieve independent statehood or clinging to their vulnerable sovereignty. These people, who call themselves nations, and whom the outsiders, discomfitted by their agitations, call ethnicities, have a very different idea of stability and status quo. What is usually blamed as the evil of nationalism is no more than the manifestations of frustrated national aspirations and the urge to achieve self-determination, without which security seems elusive to them.

It is important to see the Karabagh conflict from the security perspective of those whose national aspirations have been denied and trampled for too long. It is clear to us that the peaceful resolution of this conflict will permit to strengthen the region's stability and Armenia's development. With this in mind, we remain committed to all ongoing OSCE sponsored efforts pursued through the Minsk Group and its co-chairmen. While the guns have fallen silent, our willingness to help create a positive movement in the Minsk group process has already been communicated.

Since 1992 the OSCE has been an integral part of the process for finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh. It has been actively involved, through the various permutations of the Minsk process to define the elements for a durable peace and stability in the region of the Transcaucasus. Armenia, is part of this region, and recognizes the need for stability. It is committed to pursue every possible and credible attempt to resolve the conflicts that linger in the region. It is committed to explore every avenue for peaceful relations with all its neighbors, relations based on mutual respect and recognition. Moreover, Armenia believes that the conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh poses a special challenge since the parties to the conflict, the people of Nagorno-Karabagh and Azerbaijan, have valid claims to foundational principles of the OSCE. Previous efforts by the Minsk group and its co-chairmen had failed to recognize the equal legitimacy of the competing parties. That is why, both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh considered the previous proposals as being unacceptably one sided.

We have always advocated a more flexible approach on the part of the OSCE, through the co-chairs of the Minsk group, to try to reconcile seemingly incompatible principles. We have always remained opposed to one-sided orthodoxy. It is therefore with interest that Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh received the Minsk Group Co-Chairs' draft proposal during their latest visit to the region, last November. My Government, as well as the authorities of Nagorno-Karabagh, considered the Co-Chairs proposal a realistic effort in trying to address the thorny issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabagh, in a manner that minimizes prejudice to either of the competing claims. Unlike previous attempts, the Co-Chairs seem to have come to the realization that old orthodoxies and inflexible formulations will not be effective in moving forward the process for a negotiated settlement. Perhaps the boldness with which the Co-Chairs have proposed to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable principles of territorial integrity and national self-determination, grows out of their concern that the window of opportunity for a negotiated settlement is narrowing, and that cease-fires are inherently unstable.

By rejecting the recent principles submitted by the OSCE, Azerbaijan has not taken a single step towards compromise. Nor has it shown any political will or disposition to take responsibilities for peace. Azerbaijan still believes that sooner or later, the resolution of this conflict will be on its own terms. Far from serving the purpose of peace, such unyielding attitude will lead to the kind of escalation that neither Azerbaijan, nor Armenia nor Nagorno-Karabagh can afford.

We feel strongly that the European institutions are best at adaptive, flexible , even innovative methods, which could eventually become models of operations. We should not suffer from the collective paralyzing fear of precedent setting. And the solutions we would seek, through the OSCE, are solutions exactly because the process lends itself to dealing with the particularity of every dispute. The implicit recognition of this principle also underlies the negotiations and the involvement of Britain, France and the U.S. in the Rambouillet talks regarding Kosovo. For us, peace in Nagorno Karabagh is of course the promise of transforming a situation of hostility and confrontation with our neighbor Azerbaijan into one of cooperation and mutually reinforced security. We would like to think of the day when Karabagh is transformed from being a chasm separating our countries to being a bridge built for the benefit of all the populations concerned.

The upholding and promotion of the fundamental values and principles enshrined in Europe will undoubtedly play a further role in strengthening cooperation and stability in the region beyond the mere establishment of peace in Karabagh. The strengthening of democratic institutions and the protection of human and civil rights in each country in the region must become the foundation that holds together the regional security space. Regional arrangements between states committed to democracy and the rule of law are more likely to result in the kind of dynamic equilibrium for lasting stability. Europe after World War II is a vivid example. For its part, Armenia is committed to further democracy at home by working consistently on improving its own constitutional processes and the guarantee of individual rights though the rule of law. For all this, it is important to dare to think broadly and not be confined in a Cold War mentality.

A few words about Armenia's perception of its own security, or rather its perceived threats to its security. Our geographic position and our long history have greatly contributed to our desire to define our security needs in terms which take into account very carefully the behavior and the intentions of our immediate neighbors. We look at our security not only bilaterally, but also regionally in the broader European context. We are convinced that in the long run, our national security must be anchored in regional stability. However, the actions and declarations of certain of our neighbors, not only towards us, but in the region as a whole, give us a pause and often cause for concern if not alarm.

Our own resources are objectively speaking no match to the size, strength or military capabilities of our neighbors with whom our recent history has had a tragic dimension. We would rather move from a position of anxious insecurity to one of positive, gradual and constructive engagement and resolve our differences through diplomatic dialogue and economic and regional cooperation. However, it is difficult to engage those who maintain their refusal to formalize diplomatic relations with my country. Turkey to this day, refuses to establish normal diplomatic relations with Armenia, while Armenia is ready to do so without any preconditions despite our historic grievances.

It is often said that a slavish attachment to history and an unreconstructed replay of historical memory are incapacitating traits afflicting certain peoples. It is said that these traits must be overcome if peaceful progress is to be achieved between former enemies or currently hostile and feuding neighbors. There is a certain inequity in the way certain mature democracies in Europe and elsewhere refer to these peoples as trapped by their history, as if, a long memory were a form of congenital incapacitation.

No nation can escape its history entirely, it can only transcend it. But to transcend it, two conditions must prevail. One, a country must confront its history, both internally and in relation to others. Second, those others, outside its borders, who as participants and actors have shaped that history, must also jointly confront theirs. There is no national history in a vacuum. For England and France, for France and Germany, the U.S. and Japan, in order to transcend their histories of conflict, war and hatred, they had to transcend the past together. This process is not yet completed in many parts of Europe. In our region and especially in our relations with Turkey, this process hasn't even begun.

We Armenians are often told to forget our history, even our recent history. We are told to forget the past and look at the future. To forget is neither feasible nor always very wise. It devalues the national experience that underlies so much of national identity, no matter how painful or glorious. To forgive and to be forgiven are equally necessary. Yet, it is difficult to forgive those who do not believe they need to be forgiven. To ask for forgiveness, one must at least recognize a mistake, admit to an injustice or a misdeed.

Perhaps contrition is too strong a word; it is not a word in the realm of international political discourse and it is better left to the guardians of our individual souls. But admission of an act of grave and deliberate abuse of the human rights and lives of another people, is the least one can do to reestablish the balance and transcend history. Armenians, as a nation who survived a genocide, are willing to forgive and to move on. We are hopeful that the day would come soon when the people with whom we have shared a long history are themselves ready to own up to the truth of their own history. Then and only then, can we move on together and build our regional cooperation and security arrangements on sound bases of trust and respect. Europe and Britain have also been witnesses to the Armenian Genocide. Many survivors owe their lives to the rescue efforts of many missionaries. Today, you could help us to do justice to those who perished and those who survived by recognizing the horrendous killings for what they truly were: an intentional Genocide by the Ottoman government against the Armenian population. By so doing, you could help us and our neighbors to transcend the past together and move forward into the future.

These thoughts about Armenia are not based on any idea of national exceptionalism. Every country`s history is unique, but no one's history is truly exceptional. Europe can and must be instrumental in doing all it can to help history move forward, and find ways to help old adversaries transcend together their troublesome past.

Thank you.