On Monday, September 6, 2010, News.am published an article in which Göran Lindblad (Chairman of The Swedish Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE, and Chairman of the sub committee on External Relations) had made the following statement in regard to the upcoming parliamentarian elections in Sweden and the recognition of the Armenian genocide: “If the Left Block wins the elections, the issue will be brought up in EU and UN. They [Left block parties] have already reached an agreement about this and will also include teaching about the genocide in Swedish schoolbooks. In order to stop their plans you should vote for the Moderates [Lindblad’s party] or any of the [governing] Alliance parties.”
The Union of Armenian Association in Sweden contacted Mr. Lindblad, asking him to comment on the quotation. Mr. Lindblad replied that he “refereed to the principle that this kind of issues are not for parliaments to vote on… A vote for the alliance will guarantee that parliament is not acting in [this] type of historic issues again no matter if it [is] for or against a certain interest.” He concluded: “otherwise correctly.”
Prior to contacting Mr. Lindblad, it came to our attention that he has introduced two new resolutions in the Swedish Parliament: one for recognition of the genocide committed in Ukraine 1932-33 (2009/10:U9, dated March 23, 2010) and another (2009/10:U8, dated March 23, 2010) requesting the Riksdag to release a statement regarding the European Council-members who indulge in armed conflicts, namely Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Karabakh-conflict. The resolution calls for a peaceful solution to the conflict “through compromises on both sides,” which, per se, is a sound and desirable approach. However, Lindblad continues: “All armed hostilities should be ceased and, in regard to the territorial integrity, all troops must be withdrawn within their own borders.” He also demands the return of all refugees or “providing them with good alternatives to new settlements.”
The Union of Armenian Associations in Sweden asked Mr. Lindblad (September 6, 2010) to comment on the following four questions:
1) If he opposes parliamentary decision-making in regard to genocide, why has he then introduced a new resolution demanding recognition of the “1932-1933 genocide committed in Ukraine”?
2) Even if Mr. Lindblad opposes the Riksdag’s decision on genocide due to a “matter of principle,” why does he oppose the inclusion of the Armenian genocide in Swedish schoolbooks? Does he challenge the existing consensus among world’s leading scholars, including that of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), as well as the Swedish authority, Forum for Living History, who also teaches about the Armenian genocide?
3) Why would the Vice President of PACE and its co-repporteur on Armenia, who should maintain an impartial stand, introduce a parliamentary resolution in regard to the Karabakh conflict which obviously contradicts the existing proposal by the OSCE Minsk Group? Lindblad’s demand based on territorial integrity is the rhetoric frequently used by Azerbaijan and is in contrast to, among others, the Madrid article (b) on withdrawal only from “territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh” and securing a corridor link between Armenia and Karabakh, namely that of the Latchin Corridor and Kelbajar. Does Mr. Lindblad challenge the role of OSCE and the Minsk Group?
4) The leadership in Baku has at several occasions uttered its frustration about the slow progress in resolving the Karabakh conflict and President Aliyev has indicated the possibility of renewal of hostilities (e.g. “Azerbaijan Threatens Force Over Nagorno-Karabakh”, ABC News, November 21, 2009; “Our patience also has limits”, Euronews, February 2, 2010). This is also evident in the recent frequent ceasefire violations from Azeri side at the line of contact. Does Mr. Lindblad, the Swedish Government, the Foreign Ministry or PACE any statements or views in this regard?
Mr. Lindblad replied shortly by one single sentence, only addressing the issue of the Ukraine genocide resolution: “That was only to provoke and prove the point.” Thus, he totally ignored the three remaining questions. Whether it is reasonable for the Swedish Parliament to spend taxpayers’ money on administrating and discussing similar “provocations” to “prove a point” is left unsaid.
Mr. Lindblad was contacted a third time (early morning on September 7, 2010) and asked to comment on the three remaining questions, but he has yet not provided any answers or comments.
