HistoryofTruth.com - Armenian Allegations

Q: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan again insists on Azerbaijan’s recognition of independence of Nagorno Karabakh. Does this comply with the spirit of the currently discussed Madrid principles?

A: In fact, this is the old position of Armenia. Thus, unfortunately, there is nothing new in Sargsyan’s statement. The Armenian side adheres to these positions since the very start of peaceful talks. But the thing is that this statement does not comply with the essence of the Madrid principles. Meanwhile, the essence of Madrid principles is that the issue of the final status of the Karabakh region remains open and its definition will be held at the last stage. The gradual withdrawal of Armenian troops from occupied lands and return of local Azerbaijani population there is envisioned before that. Meanwhile, the moment indicated by Sargsyan is stipulated for coordination at the last stage. The fact that Sargsyan is trying to freeze the process of settlement by putting this complicated issue on the foreground is not a right step.

Q: What does he want to gain through freezing the said conflict?

A: The Madrid principle has been presented to both parties of the conflict and the Azerbaijani side has given its principal agreement to this document. Meanwhile, the Armenian side can neither agree on this document for internal political reasons nor reject it for foreign political causes in a fear to turn into the object of discussion by the world community. Therefore, considering this, in his interview to Euronews Sargsyan offered Azerbaijan to sign a treaty about non use of force though quite a different document is already being discussed on the negotiation table (Madrid principles) and its integral part is the paragraph on the nonuse of force. However, Sargsyan ignored the remaining moments of the Madrid  document and urges to sign only a document on the nonuse of force. That is this is just a populist appeal. Sargsyan’s interview to Spiegel is also one of these statements made to gain time, distract attention of the world community from Madrid proposals.

Q: What can be the result of such protraction of the settlement process by the Armenian side?

A: Naturally, there were a sufficient number of positive moments in the negotiation process in 2009. The negotiations were intensive and the co-chairing countries, along with mediators have held a huge work. It is important to preserve this positive dynamics in 2010. If this does not happen, which is sought by the Armenian side that seeks for grounds in order not to adopt the Madrid documents, there will be one of the two variants: either the status quo will be extended or the gradual preservation of this status will result in arms racing between Armenia and Azerbaijan and increase the cases of clashes on the front line. We may become witnesses of these dangerous tendencies. I think the status quo in Nagorno Karabakh is not stable for the long-term perspective and both the Azerbaijani side and the mediators are working much for its peaceful change. As I have already said, the Madrid principles are supported by the co-chairs and Azerbaijan will give its principal agreement on this. Only the Armenian side is left. If it adopts it, I think we will soon reach the agreement, based on main principles and this will pave way for the preparation of the peace agreement. But if does not adopts it, the status quo will be preserved and the cases of clashes between the sides will increase.

Q: How long may the status quo prolong?

A: This is a very difficult question and hardly anyone knows the answer to it. This factor is not based on rational forecast. The protraction of the status quo would mean that the sides will think rather of confrontation than of peace. And even if both sides have no intention to fight, these negative tendencies in the negotiation process, as well as frequent violations of ceasefire may further result in unexpected and undesirable implications for the sides. We witnessed such a case in March 2008. Neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani side wanted that clash but unexpectedly it occurred in period when President Ilham Aliyev was visiting the western region of Azerbaijan and many people died there. Thus, I would like to say that the protraction of status quo and ineffective talks will raise tensions on the front line which may result in war today, tomorrow or in two years. But the only thing we can be sure about is that this tension does not meet the interests of Azerbaijan, Armenia and international community.

Q: The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly state that negotiations on Madrid principles are the last line which leaves nothing to discuss, while the attitude of the Armenian side to these principles is well know. Does it mean that we are close to war?

A: War is possible in conditions of absence of peace. However, I would like to note that coordination of basic principles of settlement does not mean the achievement of peace. Basic principles are just a framework document. The coordination of principles fixed in them will be followed by a more complicated and a more important process of coordination of the final peace agreement. Both Azerbaijanis and Armenians have formed a wrong idea that the coordination of basic principles is automatically the solution of all problems. But this is not true because some time may pass from the coordination of basic principles and the final peace agreement. This may take some months and even years. This is an important moment which we often forget. Its implementation will start after signing the final peace document including withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani lands.

Q: You have mentioned that by the recent statements Sargsyan is trying to protract the negotiation process. Do you think the Azerbaijani side will manage to return the negotiations to the same way?

A: I think we should take into account the constructive cooperation of US, France and Russia on the Karabakh conflict. We did not observe such cooperation in the case of Georgia. But as for Karabakh issue they are closely cooperating and adhere to the same opinion that the Madrid document is playing a basic role in the problem settlement. In addition, the Azerbaijani side approves this Madrid document. Thus, it would be difficult for the Armenian side to reject it. It will be even more difficult that before when it rejected the package and staged variants of settlement. This means that the rejection of Madrid principles is associated with political risk both for the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides.

Therefore, the Armenian side is not going to reject this document, it is just trying to gain time and distort it and the most important is that it wants to include into it the procedure of defining the final status of Nagorno Karabakh as it is profitable for Yerevan. But this is not possible. By these requirements Armenians just want to gain time and protract the adoption of the document. But I think the document will remain on the table because Azerbaijan agreed with it, Armenia also mostly agrees with it and the most important is that the document is supported by all the co-chairing countries. Therefore, it is already impossible to reject this document. Thus I think the negotiations may become less intensive for some time but in the end the sides will go back to discussing this document.