Interview with the former deputy of NKR National Assembly Vahram Atanesyan
– The statement issued by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs recently regarding the incident happened near the village of Chinar on December 29 caused great dissatisfaction in Armenia. The RA Armed Forces raise accusations on the fact that they continue to keep the body of the deceased Azerbaijanis with them. Why were the co-chairs not so “consistent” previously and were not making earmarked remarks towards Azerbaijan?
– The only practical point in this statement refers to the handing over of the Azeri saboteur’s body about which Aliyev’s regime was talking in the last several days. I think that the matter here is not about the humanitarian law. Armenia has irrefutable evidence that Azerbaijan has carried out a subversive act. And handing over the body of the saboteur without investigation means to consider the incident, as they say in such cases, settled. In my opinion, unless Azerbaijan apologizes formally, the body no matter how it might be difficult for his family should not be returned. After all, the Azerbaijani society should also be convinced that the matter is not about the return of a shahid as they say in Azerbaijan but the body of a war criminal. In this case, the person does not matter, the crime is committed by Azerbaijan which should apologize in public and guarantee that similar incidents will not happen again. Otherwise, why should we cite to the international humanitarian law? Suppose, the Azerbaijani soldier was not killed but rather taken as captive. Can’t Armenia trial him as a transgressor and saboteur? The matter was to be considered in this light rather than the international humanitarian law.
– If we consider that Azeri subversive penetration is reported on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, what are the consequences of such reaction by the co-chairs? How can Azerbaijan use this?
Read also
– It is a precise observation. The mediators are actually putting a sign of equality between the line of contact of Azerbaijan-Karabakh armed forces and Armenian-Azerbaijan interstate border. While it was worth differentiate between the so-called front line and the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border. The impression is that Azerbaijan from now on can create tension on the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border in order to exert pressure on the Armenian side on Karabakh issue. This is just a nonsense.
– The CSTO’s reaction on this was also criticized a lot.
– The CSTO’s reaction is not important but the fact that Azerbaijan carried out a subversive act on the border of Armenia literally two or three days after the summit of the CSTO member states. What happened with CSTO Secretary-General Bordyuzha is also worrying. It is unclear why the CSTO member Belarus or Kazakhstan can block the appointment of the Armenian representative in the position of Secretary General of the Organization. And generally, what alliance is this where the interests of member countries are subordinated to the ambitions of non-member country…? However, we have what we have, and I think that the worst thing is not when Azerbaijan pursues some political objectives with the help of Belarus or Kazakhstan. We were forced to make a choice between bad and worse. It seems that the situation is balanced not only with serious relations between Armenian-Russian but also Armenia and NATO, Armenia and Iran. You cannot escape from the reality, the opportunity of choice is what we have … We need to think about the prospects. And for sure … least not to appear in the geopolitical trap…
– In your opinion, why did the president meet with and Armenian intellectuals in Karabakh in the end of the last year? Why did he state that his visit to Karabakh is an inner coercion? Saying, “Now, it is the time when both the army, the population and the citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh must be ready for hard times…”
– I cannot say how President Serzh Sargsyan’s wording is estimated in Nagorno-Karabakh. No such a discourse as far as I know is going on. However, it is very realistic and binding estimation. There is no reason for euphoria. Generally, in my understanding, we need to estimate the international situation soberly and be demanding, first of all, for our emotions. This is how I understand President Sargsyan’s words.
– First President Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s reminders about his approaches of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and the urgency thereof were also criticized a lot in Armenia. How are the things estimated in Nagorno-Karabakh?
– President Levon Ter-Petrosian, as far as I understand, has made reminders. He has sincerely presented his ideas. I would be very happy if one of the political actors has fully refuted his doubts. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this kind of analysis and projections, therefore I would like our political mind either to overcome Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s political aura or not to disregard considering the worst possible presumption in the public… Once, in the beginning of last century, we have missed this possibility and have compensated as described by Charents: “Hymns of our lives fell into the abyss. And are still chipping in bloody misty… ” God forbid such delusion!
