The theme of “Aravot” online “Face to Face” program is debated between political scientist Hrant Melik-Shahnazaryan and former member of the Supreme Council, Azat Arshakyan.
Lusine Budaghyan – On June 20, after the Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting in Saint Petersburg, the parties came up with contradictory statements. Head of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration, Novruz Mammadov, announced that S. Sargsyan and I. Aliyev allegedly have agreed to solve the problem by the option of phases, first of all, as he said, “the 5 regions of Azerbaijan must be liberated, then two more, the question of the corridor will be decided and then the status of Nagorno-Karabakh will be determined.” This was followed by RA foreign minister’s the so-called denial. He said that Mammadov had never attended the talks and no agreement was reached in St. Petersburg on the settlement of the issue. A day before, Russia’s MFA press secretary qualified Mammadov’s statement as “unscrupulous and distorted.” Mr. Melik-Shahnazaryan, how would you comment on such stance by Azerbaijan, and whether this was the next step to raise the reputation of the government authorities in the eyes of its own people, even at the cost of disseminating disinformation?
Hrant Melik Shahnazaryan – I think that this lies in the core, we must take into account that this is not the first case by Azerbaijan authorities that they leave the negotiations and promptly make a statement, which does not meet the reality, moreover, they are talking about completely opposite things. Incidentally, it is not the first case that Novruz Mammadov is talking about it.
Before the beginning of the tripartite meeting, during the meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg, I. Aliyev voiced their negotiating position. He announced that the status quo is unacceptable and everybody agrees with it, and to change this situation, the process of de-occupation must commence now. He expressed hope that there will be a progress on this issue during the negotiations. Whereas, after the tripartite meeting, when the statement of the 3 presidents was issued, we saw that there was no single word in it about the negotiation posture previously issued by Azerbaijan nor a hint about Aliyev’s demand and the outcomes of the meeting. Naturally, a question was to be raised in Baku about why it happened so, after all, they had gone to bring Karabakh but instead, he brought only a consent on increasing the number of the international observers. And it is obvious that to prevent these rumors and to make his earlier militaristic promises more realistic, it was decided to issue such a disinformation, which was uttered from the lips of semi-legitimate but not the highest responsible official. I must say that Azerbaijan appeared in quite a difficult situation for there was quite a tough-worded response with almost unprecedented qualifications for the diplomatic language. And now, no one in Azerbaijan continues to urge upon this statement.
Read also
l.B – Mr. Arshakyan, is it possible that Mammadov actually has said the truth, and therewith, he revealed Moscow’s intentions, simple he said it earlier than it should be?
Azat Arshakyan – I think that it is possible that we are dealing with a situation where the parties are correct. This is the diplomacy, as long as there is a side, each one understands these special formulas as they wish. They are made up just for this reason: non-use of power, the right to self-determination of nations and immunity of borders. We’ve reached an important standpoint that we have different certificates of ownership on the Karabakh issue. We cite Hayk the Tribal Chief and Paskevich, we can cite the 1994-95 known ceasefire protocol, they can cite the Kazan document, others – the Madrid document, in other words, there are numerous documents. The basis and the foundation behind it are completely different: the presence of the armed forces in these territories. Our armed forces as long as they are in place and in that section of our homeland, all the papers are disputable. For example, the 1918 Entente statement is a very good document that this territory is disputable, it is, by the way, the most legitimate document compared to the Caucasian Bureau decision. Who would think some 20 years ago that such a thing would happen in Syria?
There were a thousand pieces of document about the immunity of Syrian borders, not to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria, a homogeneous state and being secular but what we see, all these are destroyed and gone. Another document should work. The same for Iraq. But who said that the act of the inviolability of Georgian borders was weaker than that of Azerbaijan? As long as Armenia has combat armed forces, this territory will remain ours, be it thousand years or hundred years, I do not know. As long as Armenia has will and patriotic homeland citizens, the Karabakh issue is solved finally. If God forbid a disaster happens that we decide to leave our homeland and do not keep our army, then we will talk about new solutions then. Now, the Karabakh issue is solved
Lusine BUDAGHYAN
