Interview with Tigran Torosyan, doctor of political science, MP, Armenian National Assembly speaker from 2006 to 2008.
Q: What can you say about the negotiating process on the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict, in particular, the updated version of the Madrid principles which the mediators would like to see as a basis for talks? Is it possible to say that the negotiating process has stalled?
A: The president of Armenia has responded [to Azerbaijani accusations that Armenia is dragging its feet on accepting the Madrid principles] by saying that the St Petersburg proposals have not been accepted by Azerbaijan. As far as the updated Madrid principles are concerned, I think it is obvious that they remain only suggestions. This viewpoint is reinforced by the fact that the Muskoka statement of the Minsk Group co-chairs contains the same six provisions that were already stated in the L’Aquila announcement a year ago.
It is worth mentioning that publicizing the provisions of a document under negotiation before the end of the negotiating process is an unprecedented phenomenon except in the Karabakh settlement process. This apparently stresses how interested the co-chairing countries are in regulation of the conflict. However, there has been no progress in the past year. What is the reason? I think it is the fact that although the Madrid principles define the international law framework through which the conflict should be solved (although this is not necessary, since the principles are stated in the Helsinki Final Act and fundamental documents of the UN), the intermediaries are not keeping the process on this path and are not specifying concrete steps towards a solution based on these principles. Moreover, the formulations of six steps in these documents and the uncertain announcements that followed served as a basis for further speculation. Of course, it is common practice that in order to ensure their flexibility the intermediaries always try to allow for a margin in discussions, but when this is done unskillfully it results in the reverse effect. The key to ensuring real progress is the clear definition by the intermediaries of the objective, mode and conditions of the exercise of the right to self-determination. The norms of international law say that it is only the people (i.e. the people of Nagorno-Karabakh) that are eligible to exercise the right to decide their status which can be the declaration of an independent state, separation and unification with another state or any other status of people’s choice. Of course, the co-chairs know this perfectly well, but they are also aware that Azerbaijan will never sign any agreement that implies the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. The only solution is, therefore, via the path that was earlier taken by Kosovo.
Q: What is behind Yerevan's reluctance to accept the updated Madrid principles and the failure of the meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Almaty? What is Armenia concerned about? The Madrid principles or something else?
A: Of course, it would be better if you asked the Armenian authorities for their interpretations. As far as the “updated” Madrid principles are concerned, here I think there are two circumstances. No matter what you name the consecutive suggestions of the co-chairs, these proposals are presented to the sides, the sides' opinion is received and the co-chairs continue their work based on the feedback.
In answer to your previous question, I said that the June statement of the co-chairs showed that in the last year the Madrid principles have not changed. Consequently, there are no “updated" principles. It can be suggested that representatives of Armenia have not accepted some of the suggestions of the co-chairs, but the Azerbaijani side tried to manipulate the situation when the foreign minister announced that Azerbaijan had accepted the “updated” principles but with some reservations. Does this mean that Azerbaijan has accepted something that Armenia has rejected? I think the same story lies behind the Almaty “failure”. At a time of negotiations behind closed doors, especially when there is no progress, the rhetorical abilities of the sides become the main factor and this is dangerous from the point of view of conflict resolution, especially, when things end up with falsehood, hate speech and bellicose announcements.
Q: Opposition leader and former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan has said that without resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, Armenia has no chances of improving security, economic development and demography, regardless of who is in power. Do you agree? Why doesn’t Yerevan make a compromise?
A: Of course I don't agree. Although domestic and foreign issues are interrelated to a certain degree, he confuses the level of their impact on the situation. Ter-Petrosyan led Armenia for eight years and had opportunities to present and implement his vision. When he had to leave the post of president, he “foresaw” that Armenia would very soon fail in all areas. However, despite the existing problems and difficulties, the decade that followed Ter-Petrosyan’s presidency was way more successful than the years of his leadership of the country. His political knowledge and views, therefore, cannot be trusted.
Of course, mutual compromise is an important principle in the resolution of conflicts, but the framework for it is no less important. If one of the sides tells you that he will strangle you if you do not obey his demands, then this cannot be formulated as mutual compromise, this is blackmail. Both of the Armenian sides have already made a number of compromises. Nagorno- Karabakh has chosen not to unite with Armenia (although, it has the full right to do so under international law), but has opted for a declaration of independence as the way to exercise its right to self-determination; Karabakh has also agreed to be temporarily represented by Armenia at the negotiating table and Karabakh has even agreed to discuss the issue of a new referendum. So Azerbaijan also has to make some compromises in return and only after that should the issue of further mutual compromises be discussed. I am confident that the issue would be resolved soon if Azerbaijan fulfilled its obligations as a UN and OSCE member state and acknowledged the right to self-determination of Karabakh.
Q: You said recently, “Armenia should say openly that it will not participate in senseless meetings with an unpredictable party, which is unable to regulate even its own armed forces, and produce irrefutable information about Azerbaijani provocation.” What did you mean by this?
A: You probably know that this concerns the incident that took place right after the meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents which resulted in the killing of Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers. All the corpses of the soldiers were found in the territory which is under the control of the armed forces of Nagorno-Karabakh. Even some Azerbaijani experts question Baku's announcements, especially since the Nagorno-Karabakh side did not have any motivation for the attack. This incident was unprecedented as the attack of the Azerbaijani military took place only few hours after President Aliyev's return from St Petersburg. I do not think that President Aliyev is unaware that this is outside the commonly accepted procedures for negotiations and that refraining from the use of force and threat of force is one of the three main declared principles (which is also an obligation of any OSCE member country, according to the Helsinki Final Act). Since official Baku refuses to accept responsibility for this attack, it can only be assumed that Azerbaijani soldiers, stirred up by the bellicose announcements that are made almost every day by their country's top officials, tried to solve the conflict through the use of force. But this is no justification either. For negotiations to be effective, the sides have to fulfil their obligations, otherwise the negotiations make no sense.
B.A.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
