“Warlick’s presented recommendations are positive, with all their negative details,” so interpreted the former RA Foreign Minister, founding member of restructured PANM Alexander Arzumanyan, on May 8, in the conversation with Aravot.am referring to the 6 elements on Karabakh settlement presented by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chair James Warlick. According to him, these 6 elements were not the first time opened to the public. “We have heard about these elements, and read in Muskoka and L’Aquila’s news. But this time, the interpretation of these 6 elements is given. The content of the negotiations is deciphered.” James Warlick had presented that it was only their interpretation and he is not speaking on behalf of the Co-chairs. However, Alexander Arzumanyan has no doubt that this view was agreed with other co-chairs. “It is not that Russia or France is against the interpretation of any of the elements. If so, there would already be announcements. This is a common approach.” Referring to the original content of the statement, Mr. Arzumanyan said, “It has been repeatedly said that the parties must demonstrate courage and talk to their people. Now, an attempt is made to introduce this compromise to the people. There are items here that might be unacceptable for us, but importantly the positive is that we understand what they are talking about. We should be demanding more from our diplomacy to make our complaints heard, and demand execution of approaches, which in our view will be more favorable to Armenians. In that sense, it contain pretty interesting provisions. Azerbaijan was constantly talking that there is a clear hierarchy, the first point is the withdrawal of troops, and this statement clearly states that such a hierarchy does not exist. The entire package must be agreed upon and then be implemented regardless of the sequence. Therefore, it is not accidental that the possible withdrawal of the troops does not come the first. Secondly, for the first time it clearly states that when we are talking about Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, the point is not about the sovereignty of the unitary state of the Republic of Azerbaijan rather than the restoration of the sovereignty of Azerbaijan over the territories, which are under the control of Nagorno-Karabakh. These are special commandments to the public to understand what the matter is about. In that sense, the statement is positive, we know what is put on the table and what we are discussing. The rest is up to our society to discuss, hold a discourse, or not.” To our question that the proposed elements state there should be a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, but it cannot encompass the whole of Lachin district, whether this was not a new specification, Mr. Arzumanyan replied that it was not news for him. “This is probably news for people who are talking about “no inch of land”. This is a clear commandment to say, Look, this is on the table regardless of your willingness.” Mr. Arzumanyan stressed that he had talked about acceptability or unacceptability of these elements 5 years ago. It’s another matter that finally it was given for discussion.”Earlier, the discussions were held on the emotional field, on the level of desires. Today, you have a document clearly put on the table. Whether it is acceptable or not, that’s another matter. The point is that this has a more objective basis for discussion. It is now up to our societies to decide to what extent they are acceptable. I am not interested in details now, I’m interested in the fact that the details are not only deciphered, moreover, the whole package is deciphered of what is put today on the table. It is a good basis for healthy debate and discussion. The rest depends on us and on the skills of our diplomats. I, as a liberal person, am a supporter of the transparency of any process. This process was not transparent. There was a document on the table, the basic provisions of which that were the outlines of the proposal were submitted. And each party was choosing the theses from the outline suitable of him and was presenting to the public. This is not the way to achieve success, because each sentence can contain both positive and negative things. At this moment, a package has been introduced to us, which means that our society has the opportunity to be more active and involved in the field of more rational discussion.”Mr. Arzumanyan advised not to give rise to emotions prior to making a decision. “Emotion is the last thing that should exist in diplomacy and politics. Now, it’s not the time to be given to emotions, remember the genocide and so on. We were just invited to participate in this discussion. Whether we will accept the invitation or not, it depends on the maturity of our society, and our readiness.”
Hripsime JEBEJYAN
