Mr. Chairman and Excellencies,
Dear colleagues, 

Mr. Chairman,

Allow me first to thank you for extending this opportunity to me to address the Permanent Council on behalf of my country, the Republic of Armenia. There have been three Ministerials and one Summit since October 1998 when I last had the privilege to talk to this very important assembly. 

Mr. Chairman,

If you permit me, I will begin and end my statement with the role and significance of the OSCE, as my Government sees them. First in general and then as it pertains to the issue that concerns us most, though not exclusively, the Nagorno-Karabagh Conflict.

It has become a commonplace to say that the world, more particularly international relations, have changed since that tragic Tuesday, September 11, 2001, when thousands of innocents paid, with their lives, the price of a handful of zealotsղ fanatical hatred and of their murderous intent to ensnare the democratic progressive world into a battle of attrition and mayhem with the forces of obscurantism and reactionary intolerance.

First, let me in this respect state unequivocally my government's ongoing engagement in the battle against terrorism. We have made our national commitment known, and taken every step consistent with the international community's -- and the OSCE's in particular -- plans of action in combatting international terrorism. Our actions and initiatives have been recognized for what they are, and their utility appreciated.

However, while indeed the events of September 11 did have their impact and continue to do so on even the OSCE, its priorities, its operations and its challenges, the evolution of other relations and the realignment of regional forces preceded the preeminence of the fight against terrorism as our new battleground. It would not be an exaggeration to say that through its involvement in the various crises in the Balkans, the OSCE itself was transformed. Hence involvements also transformed its relations with the EU, and NATO, even as these institutions themselves were undergoing profound changes due to local, regional and global forces.

In the face of all these, it would have been naive to expect the OSCE to remain unchallenged about its role, about its structures, about the effectiveness of its methods, its tools, it modalities, its internal dynamics, as well as its intra-organizational equilibrium. 

The present impasse on the budget, coming so soon after a year of intensive efforts by the Romanian Chairmanship to reform the organization, is evidence that our difficulties are not simply managerial. The OSCE is being buffeted by the whirlwind of forces around it, and the desire of many Member States to position themselves vis-a-vis the various components of what has come to be known as European and Euro-Atlantic structures. There are of course pessimists and naysayers that predict the eventual demise of the OSCE, or its atrophy as a residual appendix of this or that other more effective or more muscled group. We neither wish, nor wish to predict, the sidelining of the OSCE. For us, it is not easily replaceable. For many reasons.

Let us first take the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

There are those that look at the OSCE's last ten years of involvement as a failure. There is no doubt we also wish that through the Minsk process, its derivatives and today's Co-Chair arrangement, peace were at hand. But it is not, and for that, we cannot continue to blame the messengers. My Government appreciates the coordinated efforts of the Co-Chairmen, who continue to look for creative solutions and we were gratified last year when the Co-Chairmen and through them the leadership of France, the Russian Federation and the US, moved the process forward in Paris and Key West. By framing the bilateral direct talks of Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian, the Co-Chairmen tried to establish benchmarks, which came to be known as the Paris principles, as a basis, an understanding, on which to build further progress. 

In Bucharest, we all saw Azerbaijan's concerted efforts to remove from the statement on Nagorno Karabagh any reference to Paris, to regional cooperation or to confidence building measures. To pursue discussion about cooperation or confidence building assumes a willingness to compromise, to find a solution acceptable to all. 

Such a solution must keep in mind that Azerbaijan's legal claim to Nagorno Karabagh is itself deficient. In 1920 the League of Nations refused to recognize independent Azerbaijan's claim of sovereign control over territory including Nagorno Karabagh, and on that basis rejected its membership application to the League. As for the second and current Azerbaijani Republic, its separation from the Soviet Union, coincided with Nagorno Karabagh's own separation from Azerbaijan along constitutionally prescribed steps by the Soviet constitution. Azerbaijan cannot base its claim on Nagorno Karabagh on Soviet laws and Acts, while simultaneously denying the validity of the Soviet constitution in providing for foreseen mechanisms for the independence of Nagorno Karabagh from Azerbaijan Հ mechanisms which were scrupulously followed by the people of Nagorno Karabagh. Ironically, it was these same mechanisms that Azerbaijan used for its own independence. 

It is against this background, Mr. Chairman, that we want to evaluate and appreciate the work and commitment of the Co-Chairs: their quiet, tenacious, patient activities to keep the process alive, reactivate it, give it another chance, and most importantly, not assume that the set-back is a fatal blow in this pre-electoral campaign year in both countries. We find the ongoing criticism and vituperations at the 10-year-supposed-failure of the OSCE in the Nagorno Karabagh conflict both disingenuous and unfair. In the absence of peace, the OSCE, its presence, its monitoring, the Chairman's Personal Representative, the Co-Chairs'| frequent visits and continuing engagement, as well as the Chairman-in-Office's recent tours of the South Caucasus all contribute to a relative calm. There is no shooting war. There is constant interest. There is even, now and then hopeful and anticipatory planning. For instance, you have all seen the Co-Chairmen's press release, detailing their latest proposals to keep the process active. By introducing some procedural new steps such as the appointment of presidents' personal representatives to keep conversations going in between presidential encounters, the Co-Chairmen have clearly signaled their ongoing engagement. They will convene and chair these new sessions of presidential representatives and in so doing explore additional items for mutual examination or discussion.

Mr. Chairman,

My Government welcomes and appreciates this continuing OSCE role, and intends to fully support the Co-Chairsղ latest efforts. We are unable to easily identify alternate mechanisms or substitute organizations, though we also recognize, that in different phases of conflict resolution, especially in the post-conflict rehabilitation phase, the EU, together with certain countries may play an important crucial role. However, we are not there yet. 

When the Co-Chair of the Minsk Group, who were in Vienna last week, were recently in the region, they briefed both presidents and the leadership of Nagorno Karabagh. This because there has long been an understanding that the peace process cannot proceed without ultimately the participation of the legitimate authorities of Nagorno Karabagh. Based on OSCE's own norms and principles, nothing can substitute for free and fair voting to confer leaders legitimacy through democratic elections. 

Mr. Chairman

The population of Nagorno Karabagh cannot forever live in uncertainty and economic isolation. It has a yearning not only for peace but also for democracy and prosperity. For their legal and constitutional right for self-determination, as well as for their very self-preservation, they have fought, and won.

But the irony is that today, that same population is willing, ready and convinced that only a negotiated settlement that is just and fair will bring them what they fought for: the right to peacefully and securely live on their lands. Armenians are voluntary members of the OSCE because we believe in its principles: our individual security is indeed dependent on our collective security. We want to achieve the stability and progress that security brings, and we know there is no security without cooperation. We know also that this is as true for our neighbor as for ourselves. We hope we will be able to achieve such cooperation and security through this forum, together. 

Mr. Chairman,

May I say a few words on the current state of affairs in Armenia.

Our independence, this second one, is now 10 years old. In these very short years, like many others emerging out of the same old discredited belly, we have been through a lot: The initial collapse of an economy, the collapse of regional trade and exchange networks, armed conflict on our borders, the influx of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan and the war in and around Nagorno Karabagh. Of course there was and still is the blockading of our borders on the East by Azerbaijan, on the West by Turkey, and the precariousness of our northern borders with Georgia, where civil strife raged in the early years and where total calm has not yet returned. 

In spite of all this, Armenia has made substantial, observable, lasting progress. Our economy is on the rebound. We have had a constitutional, orderly transmission of presidential power, open and fair parliamentary elections, great strides towards an institutionalized free market. Reforms are under way in all domains, though the job is not yet finished. And improving human rights and the strengthening of a civil society remain at the center of our preoccupations and our Government's priorities.

In all of our endeavors through this difficult transition, our membership and participation in various European structures play a crucial role. Whether the Council of Europe, or the OSCE, or various forms of associations and cooperation with the EU, we are guided, prodded, assisted and judged in our performance and our progress. We appreciate their role. Our perspectives are European and our actions are designed to match our prospects to our perspectives.

Allow me Mr. Chairman, to express here my Government's appreciation for the work that the OSCE office in Yerevan has undertaken, and pursues with great success. Let me particularly mention the very constructive leadership of the Head of Mission, Ambassador Roy Reeve, who in just two years has engaged the cooperation and the participation of both the authorities and of the civil society. In all areas Հ from combating corruption, to reform, to environmental policy or civic participation, the Yerevan office has been consistent and persistent. Recently, its efforts with other missions in the South Caucasus have added the dimension of regional cooperation to its agenda, which we find timely and potentially very fruitful. We intend to fully support these initiatives, and are willing to examine every proposed project for cooperation with all our neighbors with utmost seriousness and good will. We also expect the OSCE and our partners to be similarly active in persuading all our neighbors, including Azerbaijan, to be cooperative, and to explore every opportunity for possible joint actions, to build confidence, to overcome hostility and rebuild trust. 

We especially encourage cooperation in the field of trans-border water management and look forward to a preparatory seminar in Baku, provided our neighbor, as host, together with the economic coordinator's office, make sure that a meeting tasked to investigate cooperation does so.

Finally Mr. Chairman,

On a more positive note, let us also praise the enormous contribution of which we believe the OSCE is capable, through some of its other institutions, namely ODIHR and the High Commissioner for National Minorities. They are uniquely qualified as instruments of democratization and conflict prevention. They are the evidence of this organization's comparative advantage. They must be given all the support and resources necessary for the conduct of their activities. Their reach and presence must touch every corner of the OSCE, without favoritism or discrimination. In order to operate fully, and speak with the moral authority that should be theirs, they must be backed by the moral authority of the organization that empowers them: that is the whole of the OSCE, its Permanent Council, its Chairmanship in Office and its Secretariat. Endowed by the practice of consensus, our organization must continue to realize that this principle is not just a burden, but it constitutes the guarantee of the OSCE's uniqueness and its strength. Sacrificing or compromising that principle for the sake of expediency is a temptation that must be resisted. Instead, we must avow that nothing contributes more to the workings of this organization as do transparency, openness, consultation, balance and a determination to practice what is preached.

Mr. Chairman,

All of us here, engaged in a battle against terrorism, new and old threats of national and ethnic frustrations, transnational crime, enduring economic marginalization, and persistent patterns of democratic deficit and human rights abuse, can clearly conclude that the work of the OSCE is not yet done. The vision of Helsinki remains unfulfilled.

My Government remains committed to carry on its unwavering participation and support. May I thus conclude by quoting Seneca, that wise old Roman: ՁIt is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; rather it is because we do not dare that things are in such a difficult state.


Thank you Mr. Chairman