In this way the head of
the "Republic" party city soviet Aram Sargsian argues his consent to
the circular agreement.- The OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen elucidated the
principles of the NK conflict for the first time during the negotiations. And
political powers can already express a clear position, whether they are for or
against the proposed principles.- We are for the fast and mutual concessions
of the problem and we have already declared it. It’s another matter that we have
stressed for many times that the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which
don’t have public resource; they don’t have an opportunity to say "yes"
or "no" to the proposed package. We don’t believe that these authorities
will settle the conflict; the authorities of both countries are for freezing the
problem.- Separate oppositionist powers are for adoption of the proposes principles
of the settlement. And the ARF, which is the part of the authority, arguing that
these principles foresee the return of territories and the problem of status still
remains unknown, is against this version with which the official Yerevan has agreed.
Which is the reason of such strange situation?- I think, the ARF expresses
the standpoint of its real leader, Robert Kocharian, who isn’t inclined to settle
the problem .- There is a question here, to continue the negotiations, or
we must constantly insist that we are for the principle of nation’s self-determination,
and the Azerbaijanis, that they are for territorial integrity. The OSCE Minsk
Group American cochairman Mathew Brayza made a new declaration in the interview
given to "Azertaj" agency that the US supports territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan but "at the same time we believe in the right of peoples’ self-determination".
He also has mentioned that in case of Karabakh and Georgia conflicts these two
principles oppose each other. That’s why the international community has formed
an appropriate format for comparing those discrepancies.- You insist that
Robert Kocharian isn’t inclined to settle the conflict. While the authorities
of Armenia constantly mention that Armenia has agreed with the proposals of the
arbitrators but Azerbaijan hasn’t. But Mathew Brayza affirmed in the interview
given to "Azatutiun" b/s that "both presidents share the responsibility
for not reaching the agreement and I wouldn’t say that one of them was more responsible
than another". In your opinion who does tell the truth?- I share the
standpoint of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen in this that both presidents equally
share the responsibility. They prolong their authority in this way.- In your
opinion did the cochairman have an intention to involve the public into dispute
by such elucidations or whether it was an ultimatum before the summit of the Great
Eight which will be held in July, trying to settle the conflict in 2006.-
First of all I must stress that both Armenia and Azerbaijan gave negative replies
to these elucidations and threatened. For example, the press secretary of the
president threatened the Minsk Group and especially the US that they would elucidate
the results of all previous negotiations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia
also threatened that in case of continuation of such policy they would insist
on direct negotiations with Karabakh. Yes, it is obvious that the cochairmen try
to involve the public into discussions. 8 years, two presidential terms, Robert
Kocharian together with his team has had an opportunity to settle the conflict.
Now that term is expired and if he doesn’t settle that conflict neither the outside
word nor Armenia need in him.- If the summer break isn’t effectively used
and everything remains as it is, in your opinion what dangers can cause the negotiating
process? For example, will Azerbaijan be able to realize what Ilham Aliev declares
or it will try to take Karabakh back by all possible ways, it is supposed by military
way, too.- When there aren’t negotiations and both parties insist in their
own principles, which oppose each other, the alternative way is the war, which
I apprehend very much. For that reason I’m for the adoption of the current document
as the base of negotiations and let’s continue finding settlement round that document.Anna
Israelian
