“I do not find any acceptable point, or any objective point in this statement for me,” such opinion was expressed by RA former Foreign Deputy Minister, also RA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Arman Navasardyan, in the conversation with Aravot.am, assessing the statement of the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern regarding the Minsk Group American Co-Chair James Warlick’s statements.
Recall that earlier today, John Heffern noted that Warlick’s statement was not an announcement of a new policy on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and stressed. “He believed that it would be useful to once again repeat the principles, the six elements that are mentioned in the documents of the OSCE Minsk Group to refresh it for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan and to start a discussion on this issue. The goal was not announcing about a new policy. The goal was to start a discussion on the clauses of the peace agreement, so that the peoples of the two countries would be ready for the moment, when the moment of the peace agreement will come.” Arman Navasardyan noted, “One could find some rational points in Warlick’s statement on making reference to the Helsinki Final Act, and Heffern is making a general statement within the context of peace. Who is against peace? This is a diplomatic statement, just a diplomatic rope-dancing.” With regard to Warlick’s statement, “we do not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and I believe people will interpret my posts correctly.
There are two sovereign countries in the region, Armenia and Azerbaijan”, Mr. Navasardyan expressed the following opinion, “Well, what’s the matter then… this is a wrong statement, we are also guilty that 10 years ago, we somehow threw the NKR from the negotiation side to another side, we placed it into the margin.” Director of the Armenian Center for Political and International Relations”, Aghasi Yenokyan, said the following regarding the U.S. Ambassador’s statement, “I think John Heffern’s words were one of the objectives of Warlick’s statement. The other objective of Warlick’s statement was that they think that now Russia will start leading discussion to its benefit and create some kind of a condition, which they are trying to prevent.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
