It is extremely unpleasant to make the situation around the Coordination Council (CC) of the Armenian National Platform (ANP) of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (CSF) subject for public discussions. However, the decisions of this body, September 16, 2010, consecutively the dissemination of a press release on September 23, force me, as a National Facilitator, to come up with a response. I consider that the decisions rendered, specifically the no-confidence motion passed against me, as the National Facilitator, are absolutely baseless, get beyond the competence of the Coordination Council and are purely stipulated by the malcontent personal ambitions of some CC members. In the end of August 2010 the information regarding the approved list of the participants of the Civil Society Forum’s second meeting was released. The preparation for this event, which is scheduled for November 18-19, 2010, in Berlin, and is viewed as another important step towards an increased role of civil society organizations in this crucial EU initiative, entered its final stage. Through their 26 delegates, Armenian NGOs obtain an opportunity to share ideas, suggestions and initiatives at the Forum, and to engage in networking with international peers, to exchange plans on promoting the Eastern Partnership priorities in various realms. Unfortunately, recent developments at the Coordination Council of the CSF Armenian National Platform seriously impede effective activity in advance of the Berlin meeting. The Armenian civil society had great expectations from the National Platform. Immediately following the Forum’s first meeting in November 2009, the participants of the meeting from our country, at the National Facilitator’s initiative, joined to form the Initiative Group and embarked on the road towards establishing a National Platform. The initiative was a success, and on June 7, 2010, Armenia became the first of the six Eastern Partnership countries to establish a National Platform that united 145 NGOs, with a Coordination Council elected and 4 working groups formed. At the same time, a warning sign could be observed back at the Foundation Meeting, as the majority of the participants refused to accept the recommendations of the Initiative Group, insofar as the election of the Coordination Council was concerned, and sometimes, the environment of the Meeting could be best described as confrontational. As a result a number of organizations that had essentially contributed to the forming of the Platform and to the promotion of EU initiatives in Armenia did not enter the managing body of the Platform. As the further developments showed, the present composition of the Coordination Council was unable to preserve the Initiative Group’s tradition of addressing the issues on the agenda in a constructive and consistent manner. The fashion was set by people who seek opportunities not as much for effective cooperation as for appropriation of the Initiative Group’s achievements, a control over the National Platform, imposing invalid claims - with no granted authority - upon the National Facilitator and the CSF Steering Committee. The first session of the Coordination Council chaired by the National Facilitator was held around the issues related to further consolidation of the ANP and preparations for the Berlin meeting. In particular, it identified those responsible for organizing the working group meetings and developing respective proposals for the Forum. The National Facilitator assumed no additional responsibilities at that period while focusing all efforts on the process of selecting the Berlin meeting participants, preparations for holding and chairing a regular session of the CSF Steering Committee, and other issues not directly related to the National Platform. NGOs, striving for leadership in the National Platform, received all opportunities for demonstrating their capacities and organizing skills. However, they failed. The members of the ANP working groups within three months received no signals from their self-promoted coordinators regarding their action plans. Moreover, organizations, represented in the CC, which undertook responsibilities to perform the work of the Secretariat and the Returning Board of the Foundation Meeting, submitted to the Chairman of the Foundation Meeting no respective protocols even more than three months after the Meeting. Naturally, these important founding documents remain unsigned, which causes serious concerns regarding the significance and legitimacy of the existence and activity of both the National Platform and the body it has elected. These issues become more topical in the light of the decisions, rendered by the CC last week. The only beneficial action of the Coordination Council for the last three and a half months was its involvement in the National Facilitator’s work of designing a national shortlist of the candidates for the Berlin meeting participation. Yet, most of the CC members, who later launched a criticism campaign, failed to display significant activity and to affect the selection process. Of 21 members, only 13 responded to an invitation of taking part in the shortlist formation, and only 9 members expressed their opinion in one form or another regarding the candidacies. The reluctance of those who never spoke out may have various explanations, such as: a) they did not receive an invitation for technical reasons (this option accounts for the least number of people, as it turned out); b) they trusted the choice of their colleagues and failed to speak on the matter due to the lack of time (again, true for very limited number of people); c) disagreed to the procedure and expressed their disagreement (with no one openly taking this stand); d) attached no importance to the process and did not want to waste their time; e) preferred to avoid taking the responsibility, opting to reserve the right for criticizing those who assumed the responsibility. Unfortunately, as the further developments showed, namely the last two reasons proved to be the most substantive ones. Instead of performing their direct responsibilities, some members of the Coordination Council focused all their energy on criticizing the actions of the National Facilitator insofar as the selection of the Berlin meeting participants is concerned. Despite the greatest possible degree of transparency ensured through the selection mechanisms, with the National Facilitator providing a detailed statement regarding the selection process and results in his message to the Coordination Council, which was supposed to remove all doubts regarding the results’ full compliance with the set rules and procedures, a number of the Coordination Council members kept questioning the legitimacy of the selection process. It probably goes without saying that, it is not by chance that the most zealous critics and those who failed to perform the assumed duties are the same members of the Coordination Council. This comes to testify the lack of a healthy working environment in the Coordination Council, the misunderstanding about its functions and mission shared by some of the CC members. The latter perceive the Coordination Council as a means for appropriating the efforts and achievements of others to raise their own authority and image, and as a launching pad for a guarant

---