“There can be no question of any integration, reintegration,” this is how the guest of the “Aravot” “Areresum” (“Confrontation”) program, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Artsakh, representative of the President of Artsakh, David Babayan, responded to the statements of the Azerbaijani side that on March 1 Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh at the tripartite meeting between Karabakh representatives and the commander of the Russian peacekeeping force, “the reintegration of the Armenian residents of the Karabakh region into the Republic of Azerbaijan by the Constitution and laws of Azerbaijan was discussed.”
David Babayan insisted: “The people who participate in these meetings are not authorized to negotiate on political issues, but during the meeting, the representative of Azerbaijan can say: you know, we consider you our citizens, you should integrate, or something like that. Our people say this is unacceptable; this meeting aims to settle completely different issues. But only the fact that the Azerbaijani side raises this issue allows them to say that they have discussed it.” David Babayan emphasized that these meetings do not have any political implications.
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Nagorno- Karabakh Republic, RA Ambassador Extraordinary, and Plenipotentiary Arman Melikyan drew attention. “The conditions necessary for Artsakh’s livelihood should be resolved by the persons and states that signed the tripartite declaration. But we see that the tripartite declaration does not work in this regard, and Artsakh is being forced to enter into dialogue to discuss issues corresponding to the text of that declaration.”
Then he added: “Artsakh did not sign the statement, did not participate in it, and was not allowed to participate. But here and there, Artsakh is forced to interfere with the conditions stipulated by their signature, not to say, as a requester but as a directly interested party, the interests of which have been guaranteed by parties to be secured, and none of them are securing these interests today.”
Read also
At first, it was necessary to establish international mechanisms and only sit at the negotiating table, political scientists note, predicting that one fine day the same environmentalists will stay in the mine area and not go anywhere. Then they will say hand over the surrounding villages, and another thing.
David Babayan responded. “Of course, everything is possible. But well, what do we do? Shall we wait and torture 120 thousand people? Shall we continue this policy? We can do it like that: let’s say go ahead and let Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan discuss these issues. And here we have 30 thousand children, and here we have older adults, sick people. Natural gas supply can be cut 3-4 times a day. The problem is not in changing the format. I understand Melikyan’s concerns; we all have those concerns. But the problem is that local issues should also be settled.”
Arman Melikyan voiced an idea. “I would suggest to our colleagues from Artsakh that the body authorized to negotiate with representatives of the Azerbaijani side should have an official name and be called a “special diplomatic mission.” There was such a precedent, and this status was held by the Palestinian side, which over time was also confirmed by the United Nations. The Palestinian side employed that “special diplomatic mission” primarily to conduct negotiations with Israel and act on international platforms. Today, this may be the first step taken by Artsakh, which will also be binding for the Azerbaijani side because if this mission is diplomatic, then accordingly, it will be an assurance of equality of status by the Artsakh government, which is essential.”
David Babayan reacted to the offer like this: “We have to think over since they are not of a political or diplomatic nature; we need to make sure that the process moves forward and these poor people have a chance to live. If that body is called “diplomatic, “Azerbaijan may tomorrow block again and not take any steps for another six months, then we will have to rename it. “The idea is good, but we must consider it with all the positive and negative consequences, and only then may we come to the common denominator.”
The entire conversation is in the video
ANNA ISRAYELIYN
