“I suppose such a meeting will be initiated in Moscow, but with a different mediator,” said Boris Navasardyan, President of the Yerevan Press Club, referring to the trilateral meeting between Nikol Pashinyan, Charles Michel and Ilham Aliyev in Brussels during the discussion titled “The enclaves issue on the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agenda: Are the consequences calculated?”
According to Boris Navasardyan, there is an impression that the process tends to move forward. The main problem is the meetings with two different dimensions. He noted, “The difference between the mediators hinders Armenia first of all. Any option that is not provided by the two mediators in the system gives us an undesirable result. If, for example, the Moscow dimension becomes dominant, it will mean that many issues, the issues of the Artsakh Armenians, will be postponed, as Moscow officials state that they do not want to address this issue today. But not to address this issue, to talk about the general status, means to leave the agenda incomplete.
If the European side becomes dominant, it will arouse Russian jealousy. And it still has serious leverage for any process here. If the competition between Moscow and Europe continues, it will be more beneficial for Azerbaijan. It will be like an auction. Azerbaijan is auctioning off its further participation here, and naturally will try to recognize as a mediator the side that will offer a better option for Baku. And Azerbaijan has more to offer both sides. The only desirable option for Armenia is to bring these two processes as close as possible in order to get results.”
Read also
According to Navasardyan, the controversy that may develop between Moscow and Brussels will mean that there will be certain obstacles for the cooperation of those two players with Armenia. According to him, in any case, Armenia should strive to include the issue of the Artsakh Armenians in the peace settlement negotiations. “In the other two directions, Armenia should be interested in what the border should look like before the border talks, because otherwise there may be a lot of contradictions. It should be the best living conditions for all the border areas and communication issues. There should be guarantees for economic activity, so that people living in border communities can live directly.
If the border that de jure existed in the USSR is left, it will not be possible, because that border was a thin line without border infrastructure. Now, if there is infrastructure, it means that in case of a rather complicated line, they will not allow the residents of the border areas to carry out normal activities. The only solution here may be an exchange of territories that will allow Armenia and Azerbaijan to live normally in those border areas. I am not sure that Armenia will adopt that policy, I say my opinion. I do not see that approach at the official level. As far as I understand, the official side of the Republic of Armenia wants to enter the process, to formulate those principles only during the process. But it is always more effective if the approaches are agreed from the beginning.”
According to Boris Navasardyan, the statements spread after the Brussels meeting are worrying. “There was a sentence that the communications connected to the settlements of the Republic of Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan should be unblocked. Doesn’t that mean that the road through Tavush is hidden behind those settlements? It will appear in the same status as the territory of Syunik today.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
