Tweet
AZERBAIJAN HAS 'TO MAKE COMPROMISES TOO' - ARMENIAN MP
news.az
July 27 2010
Azerbaijan
Tigran Torosyan News.Az interviews Tigran Torosyan, doctor of political
science, MP, Armenian National Assembly speaker from 2006 to 2008.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
From: A. Papazian
news.az
July 27 2010
Azerbaijan
Tigran Torosyan News.Az interviews Tigran Torosyan, doctor of political
science, MP, Armenian National Assembly speaker from 2006 to 2008.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
From: A. Papazian