“I allow myself to treat with reservations the statement of Eduard Nalbandyan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, that the international community has strongly condemned the extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov,” Vahram Atanesyan, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Nagorno-Karabakh National Assembly, said during a conversation with www.aravot.am yesterday, adding, “Some member states of the OSCE Minsk Group such as Turkey, Belarus and others haven’t talked about this phenomenon at all. Not Safarov’s extradition, but rather his pardon has been condemned by the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group with different emphases. I cannot say that there has been a consolidated, consensual condemnation.”
According to our interlocutor, in such situations, the Foreign Ministers of the Minsk Group co-chair countries or the three co-chairs usually make a joint statement. However, we first saw the response of the US State Department, then the response of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and only then the response of the Russian Federation Foreign Ministry press secretary. “I don’t think that as a result of Safarov’s extradition, the international community did not perceive the actions of Azerbaijan the way it should have done,” Vahram Atanesyan thinks as opposed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. Let us remind that yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs, talking about the meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Minsk Group co-chairs that had taken place in Paris, said that the main purpose of it was to bring Azerbaijan to constructive negotiations.
He also noted, “The international community expressed its attitude toward Azerbaijan’s behavior with a respective response. There is no country, no organization, which hasn’t strongly condemned, hasn’t expressed its indignation with this step,” he said, adding that the only unchanged thing was the necessity for Armenia and the co-chairs to make Azerbaijan agree that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had to be solved by peaceful means. “Before that, Azerbaijan took a step backward not only in Kazan, but also in Sochi before that, earlier in Astrakhan, St. Petersburg, actually rejecting all offers made by the co-chairs with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement, it created a situation, in which Azerbaijan, rejecting the negotiation process, actually, wished to disrupt negotiations. Thus, one should have taken [a step, ed.], in order that negotiations continued. If there is a party that wants to disrupt the negotiations, it is the Azerbaijani side. The three co-chairs initiated the return of Azerbaijan to the negotiation table,” the Minister said, adding that the story related to Safarov was a blow to the negotiation process.
“I have said and stick to my opinion that it will be hard for the Armenian sides to negotiate with Azerbaijan from now on,” Vahram Atanesyan said, sharing Nalbandyan’s opinion that in Kazan, Astrakhan and St. Petersburg, Azerbaijan had undermined the negotiations, but as a Nagorno-Karabakh Republic politician stuck to his personal opinion that Azerbaijan would continue to reject all offers to peacefully settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and he thought that having expectations that one could make Azerbaijan be more constructive, bring it to the negotiation table was too optimistic, to say the least. “Azerbaijan doesn’t have an intention to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It has rejected, rejects and will reject all offers. Certainly, Armenia, as a member of the international community, the UN, a party directly involved in the OSCE Minsk Group process, should show a positive attitude toward any attempt to resume the negotiations. In this regard, the Foreign Minister’s optimistic assessments are understandable and acceptable – we should do everything not to waste an opportunity to continue the negotiations,” our interlocutor states, drawing the attention of the international community, mediators and co-chairmen once again to the fact that there is only one option of settling the conflict for Azerbaijan – to restore what is written in their Constitution, in which the term “Nagorno-Karabakh” is not mentioned.
Read also
Vahram Atanesyan thinks that in this case, the issue should gradually be turned into the course of de facto recognizing the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, “So the logic should be applied that if Azerbaijan rejects any offer of the mediators given the political elite’s intentions, an alternative to that is the international community’s legitimization of the actual situation. In that sense, I welcome Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan’s optimism. Yes, one should continue, one should try to convince the international community around the negotiation table that Azerbaijan has no intention to settle the conflict peacefully, in order that the international community draws a respective conclusion. Certainly, strengthening the defense capabilities of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Armenia at the same time, to increase the army’s armaments, solve practical, concrete issues, as, for example, putting the Stepanakert airport into operation.”
N. GRIGORYAN
