“All this speaks of low-quality or negligent diplomacy of the Armenian side. If we look at the issue narrowly, in terms of whether or not to accept a resolution as a result of the discussion in the UN Security Council,” characterized Tevan Poghosyan, head of the “Center of the International Human Development” and former member of the National Assembly in a conversation with Aravot.am., the non-acceptance of the resolution due to the UN Security Council discussion on the closure of the Berdzor corridor.
Let’s remind: a few days ago, the Ambassador of Azerbaijan to the EU, Vagif Sadigov, thanked Albania, Russia, the UAE, and Great Britain on his Twitter page for defeating the adoption of the UNSC statement on the Lachin Corridor issue, and noted that on that day, France lost for the second time to Azerbaijan, “overturning the biased pro-Armenian statement of the UNSC on Lachin, which caused a sharp reaction from other members of the UNSC.”
According to “Azatutyun” radio station, on December 31, Dmitry Polyansky, the first deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, wrote in his Telegram channel that “the statement on the Lachin Corridor was not adopted in the Security Council, not because of the position attributed to Russia, but the draft statement, due to the unscrupulous actions of France.” He wrote that the French coordinated the process at Yerevan’s request, ignoring most of Russia’s proposals but considering the amendments presented by other members of the UN Security Council. According to Polyansky, “Russia was ready for constructive work, but France resorted to dirty methods, and in the case when the Russian side is in Nagorno-Karabakh, including in the Lachin Corridor, it deals with the settlement of the conflict not by words, but by deeds.”
“Russian peacekeepers ensure security and try to resolve disputed issues through contact with the parties. Regardless of the current tension, the basis of the settlement remains the four joint statements adopted at the highest level,” Polyansky wrote , adding that the authors of the UN Security Council draft statement did not mention “the importance of those documents and the role of Russian peacekeepers” in the text.
Read also
offers to consider the issue in the context of broader developments and recalls several events of those days, in particular, the statement of the Secretary of the Security Council Armen Grigoryan that there is pressure on Armenia to join the Union State. “It is clear that from the Russian side, Belarus would hardly put pressure on Armenia. If we look at this whole picture, there are perceptions where, indeed, there are some points of view in what the Russian representative at the UN said, which can be understood, for example, when France tried to pass the resolution, but at the same time, probably tried to advance other interests of his state, which, for example, was diplomatically formulated as “negligent” by the Russian Federation representative.
It is clear that Great Britain, Albania, and other states are guided by their interests, and we must finally understand one thing; in the world, in diplomacy, if they once talked about some values and systems, however, everything is based on simple interests. And within the framework of simple interests, the action that was supposed to be aimed at the interests of Armenia, every country tried to cover its other claims as well, and the scope of these different interests caused a more significant conflict, and they forgot about us. When we say: 120 thousand of our brothers and sisters and then do nothing, this was the result of doing nothing. Because when we appealed to a country to come to present the initiative, we had to explain that we understand that others also have their interests.
We know our enemies will work against us, so let’s write such a text that there is no chance of the resolution not coming to the table and not voting. There were points in the resolution where the Russian peacekeepers and the role of the Russian Federation were not addressed correctly, or maybe there were accusatory things. And how do you imagine a resolution where the Russian Federation is despised or even criticized, should Russia have voted in favor of it?”
Nelly GRIGORYAN
