Aravot interviewed Vahram Atanesyan, former member of the Artsakh Parliament and former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.
– The Armenian side has recently been saying that the OSCE Minsk Group should resume its work, but the Russian-Ukrainian war seems to deepen the deadlock in which the Minsk Group found itself. Is a dialogue between Russia and the West possible on that platform? How do you imagine the further course of the talks, especially since Artsakh openly declares that the co-chairs simply refuse to go and work? During this period, only the Russian co-chair spoke publicly about the need to continue the work of the group.
Read also
– The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, if I am not mistaken, stated before the Kazan meeting that their imagination is exhausted, they can not offer anything other than the negotiating table. They were, in fact, idle already at that time. I do not understand the focus of the Armenian parties on a format where there has never been and could not be a consensus, except for one thing, the problem must be solved step by step by logic. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have rejected that concept for the last twenty years.
That is the main reason for discrediting the mediators. As for the dissatisfaction in Artsakh today, let them ask a question. What should the mediators who visit Stepanakert have to say if they pass a law that Aghdam is occupied by the enemy and must return under the jurisdiction of Artsakh? It is already the fourth day that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has made a very principled statement that, from the point of view of international law, respect for territorial integrity is applicable only to those countries that guarantee the right of a minority to self-determination and do not hinder its realization. And, as strange as it sounds, there is no response from the relevant bodies of Artsakh, from political actors. Meanwhile, Lavrov also gives the key to the NK settlement.
This is a much more weighty justification than the OSCE concept and some amorphous proposal of the mediators.
– Do you think that Lavrov’s remarks also apply to Azerbaijan, and that the violation of the Artsakh people ‘s right to self-determination will have consequences for Azerbaijan? And in your opinion, why is there no response to this from Artsakh or Armenia?
– Lavrov did not make a discovery, he only referred to the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Principles of International Law, quoting almost verbatim. Yes, the territorial integrity of a state that does not violate the right of a minority to free self-determination and represents all the peoples of its territory is respected. This principle is applicable to Azerbaijan. And a diplomatic initiative must be shown in that direction. I can not say why there are no responses from Armenia and Artsakh. It is a matter of competence and political principle. Otherwise, to keep repeating like a mantra that Artsakh will never be part of Azerbaijan has no practical significance. Before that, for thirteen years, they assured that there would be no return to the past, neither in terms of status nor territories. We saw the result. I do not know, we have an imperative to get serious.
– Was the anti-Russian rally in Baku not strange, as in dictatorial Azerbaijan such events are possible only with the sponsorship of the government? So what did Ilham Aliyev want to say to Vladimir Putin?
– No one doubts that the rally was organized by Aliyev. Why was it organized? In my impression, Aliyev is trying to raise the stakes. He shows Moscow how difficult it is for him to resist public pressure and remain neutral on Ukraine. Russia, however, rejected the option of negotiating with Ukraine in Baku. It is a signal.
– In recent days, it has become a matter of public debate: how did it happen that the West helped Ukraine, stood by Ukraine, while during the 44-day war, and with a considerable delay, only statements were made, mostly equating the parties.
– It is an Armenian disease. And when the international community urged Azerbaijan to return the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh for a quarter of a century, what did we say? We used to say, “The Artsakh issue is solved, let the world think.” If Ukraine launched hostilities in Moldova, the international community would condemn the Kyiv authorities and support Chisinau.
– But all the former presidents of Armenia have stated that they are ready to compromise and have been accused of being willing to hand over the liberated territories.
– Armenia was ready to compromise once, in 1997. The rest was not readiness, it was an imitation, a simulation that turned into a simple adventure in the case of Nikol Pashinyan.
Nelly GRIGORYAN
