Remarks of FM of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan at Panel discussion with Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Georgia
Question: Minister Mirzoyan, after successfully wrapping peace talks last month, your Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the peace agreement is ready for signing. You’ve just heard from your Azerbaijani counterpart some of the concerns that Baku has before signing this deal. Is Yerevan willing to address those concerns? And what issues do you have with the deal, if any?
Ararat Mirzoyan:
Well, thank you very much for the invitation. I would also join my colleague in expressing appreciation to the organizers of this fantastic diplomatic forum.
Read also
Coming to your question, you know, it’s a matter of an approach. I don’t think that digging too deep into the past would be constructive right now and would help all of us to come to constructive, beneficial for everybody solutions.
I would rather prefer to focus on the present and on the future, because if we focus on the obstacles, if we focus on the issues of history, if we start discussing which territory belonged to whom, I don’t know, 100 years ago, or who killed more people of the other nationality, I think we would jointly come to another conflict. Meanwhile, the desire of the Government of the Republic of Armenia and the people of Armenia, at least from our side, is to build lasting peace in our region, including – and first of all, normalization of the relations with Azerbaijan.
You are completely right: after long negotiations, we succeeded to agree over the text of the draft peace agreement, and we also suggested immediately to start consultations on defining the venue and the time, the data for signing the peace agreement.
Is this peace agreement, is the agreed text answering all possible questions? Of course, not. And I believe there is no single agreement in the world that answers all possible questions and covers all possible issues. This is a basis, this is a start of relations. And of course, there are many remaining issues, and we can continue our discussion regarding all issues, we can continue exploring new possibilities of cooperation, because it’s just a start. And it’s important to note that in this agreed text of the agreement we have a provision which says that we are establishing a bilateral commission to discuss all the other issues, including the issues that may arise regarding the interpretation of this or that provision of the agreement, discussion of many other possible issues.
And again, it’s a matter of a decision, it’s a matter of an approach. What do we, as Ministers of foreign affairs, during this panel discussion, suggest to our societies? What do we as countries suggest to the region, to the world? Is that digging again into the past or building a joint future and prosperity for our citizens? So we are confident that we have all the preconditions, positive preconditions to sign this agreement, to start a new stage of dialogue, a new level, or if I may, to open a new era of relations, of peaceful relations and prosperity in the South Caucasus and beyond, in larger region. So this is our approach.
Minister Bayramov spoke about very concrete conditions or preconditions. You know, the Minsk structures. We have expressed several times our readiness to start, initiate the process of dissolution of Minsk structures. These structures can be dissolved when there is no conflict. So this is an interesting question. Do we have a conflict now or not? On the ground, no, we don’t have a de facto conflict. On the papers, we don’t have an agreement on establishment of peace and interstate relations signed and ratified.
So we can continue to philosophize on this issue, but the solution for us, at least for us, is obvious. We should sign the agreement, put an end to this conflict in an institutional way, dissolve on the very same day, if you want, in the same, I don’t know, ten minutes, one document after the other. And I’m not even saying which document should be the first. Let’s sign the peace treaty. Let’s sign a joint application to OSCE member states or the secretariat about the dissolution. Let’s establish the bilateral commission, which I just was talking about, and start discussion of all possible questions.
Minister Bayramov also spoke about the Constitution of Armenia. Okay, if you want, I can say: we do have a concern regarding the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan. And we are not saying this just to have it in the principle of mirroring the issues. We are not saying this to have an equal condition or concern. I can explain. The Constitution of the Republic of Armenia makes a reference to the Act of Independence, the document in which this Republic of Azerbaijan declares itself to be the successor of the first Azerbaijan (Democratic) Republic. And we all know that the first Azerbaijan Republic declared its sovereignty over much larger territories than today’s Republic of Azerbaijan, including, I don’t know, around or more than 60% of current sovereign Armenian territories.
So again, it’s a matter of approach. From which end are we beginning? Are we going to have all answers to all possible questions and only then establish relations? Or are we building on what we already have accomplished? Because, you know, we have an unprecedented situation: Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed on a text of an agreement between them, acknowledging each other’s territorial integrity within borders, which existed at the moment of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This sentence answers so many questions and so many concerns. Are we going to build on this or are we going to undermine this very tangible, historic accomplishment and then bring another issue to the table of negotiations, and then another issue? It could become a never-ending process. Are we focusing on the future or on the past? This is the question.
Question: So, Minister Mirzoyan, it sounds like you want the agreement to be signed and the issues to be ironed out at a later date. But we heard Minister Bayramov mentioning that Constitutional change, that you just addressed, in which the Armenian Constitution currently states that Karabakh is a part of Armenia. Do you acknowledge that that might be a concern for Baku?
Ararat Mirzoyan: Thank you very much for this issue. So I am officially saying, and our Constitution is a public document, you can check and correct me if I’m mistaken, but I assure you, I’m not mistaken, there is nothing in the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia saying that Karabakh is part of Armenia. There is nothing. On the contrary, I said that we have our own concerns regarding the Azerbaijani Constitution. But again, why aren’t we raising this issue continuously on and on? Because in the very same text of agreement, we have several provisions. One recognizes our respective territorial integrities in a way which is fully acceptable for you and for us as well, because we agreed on that. And also we have a provision saying that none of the parties can refer to their internal legislations in order to justify failure of implementation of this agreement. I mean, it’s really covered. And the shortest way to answer all questions, cover all possible obstacles, concerns, is signing and ratification of this agreement.
Question: Is your Government willing to consider possible changes to the Constitution, even though it might be domestically unpopular?
Ararat Mirzoyan: Once again, thank you for this opportunity to reply to my colleague’s remark, because I thought you would immediately ask a question to our distinguished Georgian colleague, and I’m very sorry, Maka, but I must reply. So, if we go into legal, or if you want legalistic details, then I will now give a very short explanation. You know, legally, indeed, there is a reference in the preambular part of our Constitution, there is a reference to our Act of Declaration of Independence, but legally, only those provisions of our Declaration of Independence have legal significance and are imperative, only those that are literally quoted in the body of the Constitution. The sentence about which our colleagues from Azerbaijan have concerns is not quoted in our Constitution. There is only a general reference to the Declaration of Independence, saying that based on the Declaration of Independence, the people of Armenia declare this, this, and then the body of the Constitution.
Legally, in the world there is only one body that has the right to interpret, to comment on our Constitution, and it is the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia. And last September, our Constitutional Court gave a conclusion regarding another document, which was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan – the regulation on joint works of respective border commissions, commissions of delimitation, basically. And in this regulation, it is mentioned that the delimitation is taking place on the basis of Alma-Ata Declaration, which says the same, more or less, the same sentence, that our borders are the same borders that existed between us – as Soviet Socialist Republics – at the time of the dissolution of Soviet Union. So, last September, our Constitutional court said, and it is a public document, that this principle, principle of borders, which also means that we do not have territorial claims beyond that borders, this principle is fully complying with our Constitution, and that’s it.
So, now, if we sign this treaty within the process of ratification, again, this agreement will go to the Constitutional Court. If our Constitutional Court once again says that this document complies with our Constitution, that is another proof that the issue is covered, addressed, and there is no obstacle. If, theoretically, our Constitutional Court says something else, that would be another situation. We will come back to you and we will discuss other possibilities. That’s it.
But again, you know, it’s a matter of political will. It’s a matter of orientation. It’s a matter of the subject on which we are focusing. Are we building peace, are we going to use the opportunities, or are we going to close the process, having the concerns? If we do have the will to use the opportunities, we will find the way.
Question: Given how fragile the trust is, are there ways that the Armenian leadership could reassure its counterparts in Baku that Armenia’s current path is irreversible, even if political winds at home change or political winds in the region change?
Ararat Mirzoyan: Well that was an interesting contribution, thank you. Of course, I can agree with some of the approaches and considerations and disagree with the others, but in one specific part, you were very precise: Armenian society feels vulnerable, indeed, in terms of security first, but also in terms of economic cooperation or closed borders. An ordinary citizen of Republic of Armenia can hear several assurances from the Government of the Republic of Armenia in the same day, assurances regarding the peace agenda, assurances and proposals to build peace with the neighbours, to open the borders, to turn the page of enmity in the region, to open a new era.
And we all remember that there are still very sensitive issues. The wounds are very fresh and it’s difficult to speak about possible cooperation, but an ordinary citizen of the Republic of Armenia can hear or watch in his or her daily life in the newsfeed many assurances about this. At the same time, an ordinary citizen of Republic of Armenia in the very same day can hear several threats, including threats to, again, to use the force, including threats not to acknowledge the territorial integrity, including threats which contain some claims on internationally recognised territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia from the Azerbaijani side, I don’t know, on the level of a Member of Parliament, on the level of the media outlets strongly affiliated with the Government, on the level of high officials. So, there is this threat in the air.
There is a choice for us, for our Azerbaijani friends, for our Georgian friends, for our Turkish friends. There is a choice to wait for another one or two hundred years to see that the changes are irreversible, or to start a process of putting a brick, and then another brick, and then another brick, and in this way building a peaceful region here, establish cooperation: energy projects, transit projects. You touched upon the topic of aerial connectivity, I can also elaborate a little bit more on that. There are so many ways of cooperation, and I believe Georgia can lead the region here. We can connect the two societies, not only the two societies of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but Georgia and Türkiye.
We live in the 21st century. Again, it’s a matter of – my hope is that I’m expressing this idea precisely – it’s a matter of choice. You can wait for another 200 years, or you can start putting bricks and building a solid wall. We choose cooperation, but we cannot cooperate with ourselves. There should be another neighbor on the other side willing to cooperate with us as well.
For instance, not to sound too idealistic and avoiding concrete details, I will bring an example. We just made a proposal to Azerbaijan regarding connectivity, according to which they gain access to our railway infrastructure, we gain access to their regional railway infrastructure. We understand that there is 45 kilometers in the south of Armenia, which is possibly and obviously the shortest way to connect two parts of Azerbaijan, and we suggested using modern technologies. There are electronic scanners which will allow us to avoid physical check of the goods, of the cargo, to use electronic declarations, which could be exchanged between respective agencies, again, allowing us to have this transit at its maximum possible speed etc. We made a very concrete proposal, no positive answer. Probably they have their grounded concerns, I don’t know, but it’s a matter of choice.