Interview with Vahram Atanesyan, Chairperson of the NKR Foreign Affairs Committee
– The Crimean referendum is already an established fact, although it gives rise to conflicting approaches. How would you rate this new situation?
– As to why right after Yanukovych’s overturn, the Crimea decided to “go back to the composition of Russia”, it probably would be apparent to the coming generations. What happened, it seems to me, is a deal between Yanukovich and Russia, to which the European Union was not against, principally. Washington will also cope with the fact to whom they will constantly remind Kosovo and other “sins”: Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. A “new redistribution of the world” is taking place. This is the “pattern” that the history is recording a new race for the “zones of influence”. Who will win, who will lose, the future will tell.
– In the meantime, various comparisons were made between the Crimea and NKR. What parallels do you see?
Read also
– For us, it seems that it is important that one of the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, raises the issue of Crimea that the right to self-determination is prevailing the territorial integrity. In all other cases, the comparisons are irrelevant. NKR has become independent in the context of the collapse of the USSR.
– The leader of the Democratic Party of Armenia, Aram Sargsyan, expressed an opinion that if the referendum in Crimea ends with the decision to enter into the composition of Russia, and Armenia will have to express a position, first, Armenia needs to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, and then to such unifications. Do you consider this the best time and opportunity to recognize the independence of Artsakh by Armenia?
– I do not think so. Crimea is not becoming independent rather than it “is going back” to the composition of Russia, it is restoring the status which it had before 1954. The act does not need recognition, it is the task between the Ukraine and Russia of how they will be regulating their relations onwards. What has recognizing the independence of NKR to do with joining Crimea to Russia or staying in the composition of Ukraine? There is no need to provoke a situation.
– In general, don’t you think that in this situation the NKR parliament should be active, and sent a note to the international community, the Minsk Group Co-Chairs: the U.S. and European countries, which would recognize Kosovo being guided by dual standards, and Russia, which recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia with the same dual standard? Now, the developments in Crimea. Whereas NKR, perhaps, is the only one in all of these states, which in the prospect of international law, passed the whole process flawless.
– Whether or not the NKR National Assembly will refer to the world or OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries’ parliaments, it is a matter of political decision domain. We will welcome if the priority of the right to self-determination is also adopted by the European Union and the United States, but, I repeat, it is already very essential that the United States for Kosovo, and Russia for Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, are justifying their actions with the priority of the right to self-determination. I do not accept “dual standards”. With regard to NK, the international mediation concept is also based on the principle of exercising the right to self-determination. And if Azerbaijan continues to persist, the world will recognize the de facto independence of NKR. This is my belief. It remains for us to continue building a competitive democratic state. This is the question of questions.
Nelly GRIGORYAN
