Tweet
KARABAKH FORCED OUT OF TALKS
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
28 Jan 05
- Mr. President, recently there has been certain fuss about the
problem of Nagorni Karabakh (Baku's undertaking at the UN, Atkinson's
report at the PACE, the upcoming visit of the OSCE mission to
investigate the situation in the territories controlled by Nagorni
Karabakh, the statement of the assistant of the US secretary of
state). In this context how well is the anxiety of certain political
scientists grounded that the Armenian side is yielding in the
negotiation process? - First, I want to clarify that two Armenian
sides have been involved in the conflict: Nagorni Karabakh and
Armenia. As the Karabakh side has been artificially isolated from the
talks, it would not be correct to give an assessment to its diplomatic
activities. As to Armenia, the regular meetings of the foreign
minister of Armenia with the foreign minister of Azerbaijan are
useful, indeed. But they cannot replace the complete negotiation
process with the full participation of Nagorni Karabakh. We must not
forget that the question of Nagorni Karabakh was raised by the people
of Nagorni Karabakh and it refers to the status of Nagorni
Karabakh. The rest is the consequences of the war imposed on us by
Azerbaijan, a country which does not recognize the right of the people
of Nagorni Karabakh for self-determination and therefore does not wish
to discuss the question of the status of Nagorni Karabakh. I think the
anxiety of political scientists, as you said, are motivated by the
latter consequence. - Do you think Yerevan and Stepanakert make enough
effort for preventing unfavourable formulations concerning Nagorni
Karabakh in international organizations? - The appearance of
unfavourable wording in documents of European organizations due to
Azerbaijan is also, in my opinion, caused by the absence of the
Karabakh party in the discussions of our problem in international
organizations. Talks and debates on the Karabakh issue mainly going on
between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, of course, suppose
occasional occurrenceof similar wording is. And it is not the degree
of efforts made that matters but the conceptual approach towards
principles and mechanisms of regulation. â=80` How possible is it that
the attempts of Baku to carry the issue of Nagorni Karabakh to other
international organizations will be a success and what will the
involvement of other organizations in the resolution of the problem
result in? Why, in your opinion, the format of the OSCE Minsk Group
does not appeal to Azerbaijan? - The Azerbaijani side is busy with
persuading as many international organizations as possible to adopt
various documents in which Armenia wouldbe presented as an aggressor
country, and Karabakh as an uncontrollable territory. Baku's
behaviour starts from its perception of the nature of the conflict as
aggression by Armenia against Azerbaijan. Therefore Baku does not want
to make concessions. Many countries that member international
organizations have no relationships with the resolution of the country
(and these are the majority) therefore Baku's tactics may produce
temporary political dividends.What is more, the procedure of decision
making at the UN allows the Baku authorities to do that. As to the
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group, the representatives of Russia,
the USA and France who mediate the process of negotiations, I am sure
they are well-aware of the motives of the confrontation, as well as
the circumstances which brought about the military and political
status quo in the conflict area, making Azerbaijan discontent. These
circumstances are not favourable for Azerbaijan, as you
understand. Therefore the Azerbaijani authorities seek to get reed of
the OSCE Minsk Group mediation which endorses the necessity of
compromise in the peaceful settlement of the conflict and does not
interrupt relationships with NKR. - In your opinion, isn't it high
time for Yerevan to put directly the question of participation of
Nagorni Karabakh in Negotiations? - First, the question is not
addressed correctly. Second, through ultimatums the conflict cannot be
settled peacefully. And indeed it cannot be solved without the full
participation of the Karabakh party. - The recent developments testify
to the increasing closeness of Russian-Turkish relationships. Do you
have anxiety that close relationships between Moscow and Ankara may
have a negative impact on the settlement of the conflict of Nagorni
Karabakh? â=80` In my opinion, Russia has clearly stated its
standpoint. As it is known, its standpoint is that the conflict
parties must solve the problem themselves, and Moscow may only support
them and act as guarantor of agreements achieved. Apparently, this
standpoint sets out from the interests of Russia and we may suppose
that it will keep to this position in the future too. Although,
nothing should be excluded. At least, Turkey which absolutely supports
Azerbaijan in the Karabakh problem will in my opinion try to influence
Russia for the latter to exercise pressure on Armenia and Nagorni
Karabakh. - What is the standpoint of Stepanakert in the question of
the future status of Nagorni Karabakh? â=80` The standpoint of the
Nagorni Karabakh authorities is based on the position of our
people.Our position is that security and prosperity of our people are
impossible under the Azerbaijani rule. Only the equal relationships of
two subjects of the international law may be concerned. The Republic
of Nagorni Karabakh has already demonstrated to the world that the
level of democratic reforms in our country is higher than in
Azerbaijan, and the NKR economy, culture and the social sphere develop
at high rates in independence from Baku, which would be impossible if
Nagorni Karabakh were within the Azerbaijani state. The numerous
foreign guests of NKR, including your colleagues, journalists confirm
this fact. Moreover, Azerbaijan, which imposed cruel blockade and then
war on us, did not and does not hide its intentions to force out or
exterminate the Armenian population from Karabakh. Hardly anyone can
accuse us of the fact that we defended our right to live in our
historical homeland with weapons in our hands. We acquired our
independence at the price of irreparable losses and therefore we will
never give in.
REGNUM.
28-01-2005
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
28 Jan 05
- Mr. President, recently there has been certain fuss about the
problem of Nagorni Karabakh (Baku's undertaking at the UN, Atkinson's
report at the PACE, the upcoming visit of the OSCE mission to
investigate the situation in the territories controlled by Nagorni
Karabakh, the statement of the assistant of the US secretary of
state). In this context how well is the anxiety of certain political
scientists grounded that the Armenian side is yielding in the
negotiation process? - First, I want to clarify that two Armenian
sides have been involved in the conflict: Nagorni Karabakh and
Armenia. As the Karabakh side has been artificially isolated from the
talks, it would not be correct to give an assessment to its diplomatic
activities. As to Armenia, the regular meetings of the foreign
minister of Armenia with the foreign minister of Azerbaijan are
useful, indeed. But they cannot replace the complete negotiation
process with the full participation of Nagorni Karabakh. We must not
forget that the question of Nagorni Karabakh was raised by the people
of Nagorni Karabakh and it refers to the status of Nagorni
Karabakh. The rest is the consequences of the war imposed on us by
Azerbaijan, a country which does not recognize the right of the people
of Nagorni Karabakh for self-determination and therefore does not wish
to discuss the question of the status of Nagorni Karabakh. I think the
anxiety of political scientists, as you said, are motivated by the
latter consequence. - Do you think Yerevan and Stepanakert make enough
effort for preventing unfavourable formulations concerning Nagorni
Karabakh in international organizations? - The appearance of
unfavourable wording in documents of European organizations due to
Azerbaijan is also, in my opinion, caused by the absence of the
Karabakh party in the discussions of our problem in international
organizations. Talks and debates on the Karabakh issue mainly going on
between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, of course, suppose
occasional occurrenceof similar wording is. And it is not the degree
of efforts made that matters but the conceptual approach towards
principles and mechanisms of regulation. â=80` How possible is it that
the attempts of Baku to carry the issue of Nagorni Karabakh to other
international organizations will be a success and what will the
involvement of other organizations in the resolution of the problem
result in? Why, in your opinion, the format of the OSCE Minsk Group
does not appeal to Azerbaijan? - The Azerbaijani side is busy with
persuading as many international organizations as possible to adopt
various documents in which Armenia wouldbe presented as an aggressor
country, and Karabakh as an uncontrollable territory. Baku's
behaviour starts from its perception of the nature of the conflict as
aggression by Armenia against Azerbaijan. Therefore Baku does not want
to make concessions. Many countries that member international
organizations have no relationships with the resolution of the country
(and these are the majority) therefore Baku's tactics may produce
temporary political dividends.What is more, the procedure of decision
making at the UN allows the Baku authorities to do that. As to the
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group, the representatives of Russia,
the USA and France who mediate the process of negotiations, I am sure
they are well-aware of the motives of the confrontation, as well as
the circumstances which brought about the military and political
status quo in the conflict area, making Azerbaijan discontent. These
circumstances are not favourable for Azerbaijan, as you
understand. Therefore the Azerbaijani authorities seek to get reed of
the OSCE Minsk Group mediation which endorses the necessity of
compromise in the peaceful settlement of the conflict and does not
interrupt relationships with NKR. - In your opinion, isn't it high
time for Yerevan to put directly the question of participation of
Nagorni Karabakh in Negotiations? - First, the question is not
addressed correctly. Second, through ultimatums the conflict cannot be
settled peacefully. And indeed it cannot be solved without the full
participation of the Karabakh party. - The recent developments testify
to the increasing closeness of Russian-Turkish relationships. Do you
have anxiety that close relationships between Moscow and Ankara may
have a negative impact on the settlement of the conflict of Nagorni
Karabakh? â=80` In my opinion, Russia has clearly stated its
standpoint. As it is known, its standpoint is that the conflict
parties must solve the problem themselves, and Moscow may only support
them and act as guarantor of agreements achieved. Apparently, this
standpoint sets out from the interests of Russia and we may suppose
that it will keep to this position in the future too. Although,
nothing should be excluded. At least, Turkey which absolutely supports
Azerbaijan in the Karabakh problem will in my opinion try to influence
Russia for the latter to exercise pressure on Armenia and Nagorni
Karabakh. - What is the standpoint of Stepanakert in the question of
the future status of Nagorni Karabakh? â=80` The standpoint of the
Nagorni Karabakh authorities is based on the position of our
people.Our position is that security and prosperity of our people are
impossible under the Azerbaijani rule. Only the equal relationships of
two subjects of the international law may be concerned. The Republic
of Nagorni Karabakh has already demonstrated to the world that the
level of democratic reforms in our country is higher than in
Azerbaijan, and the NKR economy, culture and the social sphere develop
at high rates in independence from Baku, which would be impossible if
Nagorni Karabakh were within the Azerbaijani state. The numerous
foreign guests of NKR, including your colleagues, journalists confirm
this fact. Moreover, Azerbaijan, which imposed cruel blockade and then
war on us, did not and does not hide its intentions to force out or
exterminate the Armenian population from Karabakh. Hardly anyone can
accuse us of the fact that we defended our right to live in our
historical homeland with weapons in our hands. We acquired our
independence at the price of irreparable losses and therefore we will
never give in.
REGNUM.
28-01-2005