“Nobody says that we do not seek peace or that we do not want to clarify the borders with our neighbors. Neighbor, that is, the conflicting party must first become a neighbor, and this is the first precondition,” the head of the Armenia faction Seyran Ohanyan stated at the NA plenary sitting on Monday.
The issue of adopting the NA statement on delimitation and demarcation authored by the faction is included in the agenda of the plenary sittings. The Committee on Foreign Relations gave a negative conclusion to the project. The CP finds that there are internal political formulations in it.
“Conditions for peace must be created so that there is a demarcation or delimitation. We think that premature actions will seriously damage the territorial integrity of Armenia, the sovereignty of Artsakh, and a big stone will be laid on the prospect of Artsakh’s self-determination,” Ohanyan said, proposing his colleagues to vote in favor and discuss the issue at the plenary session.
Read also
Member of the NA Committee on Foreign Relations, Civil Contract MP Hripsime Grigoryan presented that a part of the text of the statement has internal political vocabulary, “The legitimate government of the Republic of Armenia is called to stay within the limits of the constitution. Besides, it is in our interests not to connect the demarcation with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but to separate it, because the demarcation refers to the RA-Azerbaijani border, and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not a territorial issue, but a matter of peoples’ self-determination. It is unacceptable for us that this is connected with the mentioned issue. As for the other parts, the National Assembly has already made condemning statements four times.” The draft was not included in the agenda of the plenary sessions; 33 deputies voted for and 64 against.
Artsvik Minasyan from the Armenia alliance stated that in this way they tried to invite the government to a discussion in the NA hall, but they were refused. “What is the parliament for, if such issues should not be discussed in this hall? Instead of making a loud statement, make suggestions, and let it be a public, open debate. What is the obstacle?”
Hripsime Grigoryan responded that in one part of the text, there was no news, in the other there was internal political vocabulary, and the government has objections to the third․ “It cannot be said that the discussion that lasted more than five hours in the commission is a failed discussion.”
Luiza Sukiasyan
