The Assistant to the President of Artsakh, Tigran Abrahamyan’s interview on recent events
– We had another victim on the frontline after the gentleman’s agreement of Geneva on reducing the tension on the borders made between the President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, and the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. Therefore, perhaps the commentators who qualified Geneva meeting ineffective or a step back to Armenia were correct.
– Each death case on the frontline draws us farther from the opportunity to achieve the peaceful settlement of the issue. The long-term negotiations have not brought us to an essential result, they have simply prolonged the recurrence of military operations. April of 2016 vividly illustrated it, when the activities of snipers, subversive groups, the activation of artillery turned into military actions. What to do? To leave negotiations? To refuse the format of presidential or any other kind of meetings? Perhaps – yes, and maybe – not. Well, what will we win from entering such processes? Whether we will not have victims at all? Will the situation become quieter? Will the negotiations recommence? Or will the issue receive a peaceful resolution? For starting a contrary process we should possess the answers of the aforementioned questions which are not rhetorical at all.
– How should OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs respond to this incident? Do you not think that if they do not respond, it will be an indirect support to Azerbaijan?
– 1994 onwards, we have always raised the same questions, being conscious of what we can expect from the intermediary states. A little sharply, a little roughly, believe – it will not bring forth a breakthrough in the relations. From a short-term perspective, maybe we will consider it a victory in a “mini fight”, but it will not give us anything in global process. It is better for the intermediaries to keep Azerbaijani leadership in tension by inner tubes all the time, trying to push a right stream than voicing announcements with wordplay making us unveil passwords transmitting the purport of change of situation of a primary importance to us.
– And what should the Armenian side do? Is it not odd that after Geneva meeting the President of the Republic of Armenia did not speak of Vienna and Saint Petersburg agreements. There was not a note of it included in the statement of Minsk Group Co-chairs. Artsakh Ministry of Foreign Affairs alone witnessed the former agreements bringing them to 1994 ceasefire agreement. What does this speak of?
– After the meeting at presidential level the announcement voiced by the President of the Republic of Armenia constituting that they had agreed upon taking measures to loosen the tension more as to have no more victims on the frontline, was a reference to Vienna ad Saint Petersburg meetings itself. The objective of the installation of investigative mechanisms on the frontline, withdrawal of snipers from the borders, as well as the enlargement of the Office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE incumbent Chairing Person is to achieve the weakening of tension which will logically lead to the essential decrease of death toll on the frontline.
– The former American Co-chair of Minsk Group, James Warlick announced in days that a tensed war situation is in place now and no aspiration for consensus and compromise between the parties. How will you explain this?
– What consensus do we speak about, if the main beneficiary of the issue does not participate in the process fully. After military actions of April a lot of movements are not present in the process, trust crisis is in place between the parties, but the present situation is difficult to qualify as a “tensed war situation”. As long as the conflict is not resolved or is not in the phase of active negotiation process at least, such risks and prediction will exist always, but in the present fragile situation the estimations of the situation should be substantiated to the maximum. If not, even such announcements may bring the situation to a certain escalation.
Nelly GRIGORYAN
‘Aravot’
