Rovshan Ibrahimov

The Armenian FM has again stated the impossibility to attain progress in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict without Nagorno Karabakh’s participation in the negotiations on settlement. What is behind this striving, considering the fact that Armenia has once joined these negotiations as a guarantor of “NKR” interests?

Armenia has always insisted on Nagorno Karabakh’s being the main party to this conflict, saying it is just representing Karabakh’s interests because it is not recognized as a direct party to negotiations or the conflict. And in this case by trying to raise Karabakh to the level of the conflict party, Armenia attempts to gain its recognition at least de-facto as the subject of international law. Currently there are the subjects of international law that has a definite legal status. Among such states are unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recently Kosovo and South Ossetia. That is this is an intermediate period that presents these formations at least as the subjects of international law. Considering this it is possible to say that the negotiations will discuss at least granting independence to Nagorno Karabakh and then return 7 regions around Nagorno Karabakh as a compromise to Azerbaijan. That is here not the status of Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan will be at issue.

Is Karabakh’s participation in the current stage of the negotiation process substantiated?

It is not substantiated. Certainly, it is possible to find a preamble for this. For example, the negotiations will be held between the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of this region. We call it people’s diplomacy. That is, the work will be conducted not on the level of interstate or intergovernmental contacts but on the level of communities. Such dialogue is possible. But it will not lead to any legal or binding implications. On the other hand, under the international law, there are no grounds to involve Nagorno Karabakh into the negotiation process, if only Azerbaijan will not agree to this.  

The Armenian side refers to the fact that the ceasefire agreement was signed with Nagorno Karabakh not Armenia. What can you say about it?

The Bishkek protocol was really trilateral and it was signed by Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. But it does not mean that by signing this document Nagorno Karabakh has become the subject of law and that Azerbaijan has recognized this subject. All of the four resolutions of the UN Security Council said directly that Armenian armed forces are the party to the conflict. They do not speak of any self-defense forces or armed formations of the self-proclaimed country. They fix Armenia’s direct participation in this conflict and Armenia has been recognized the party to the conflict by all international organizations. In this case, the document on reconciliation was signed by Azerbaijan and Armenia while the signature of Nagorno Karabakh played a role of confirming the situation, it strengthened the document but had no legal effect. That is if the document was signed between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, it would not have the status of the international document and would not become an international treaty that should be ratified and presented to the depository of the UN agreements. And in this case the signature of Nagorno Karabakh was merely the confirming position of the fact that Armenia’s actions are support by the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh regime.

Azerbaijani side has accepted the updated Madrid principles of the conflict settlement. Does this statement contain a compromise from the Azerbaijani side?

Azerbaijan has made it clear to the world community that the Madrid principles are clear to us and they meet our requirements. Azerbaijan is constructive on this issue and it offers Armenia to approach the issue with the same constructiveness. The phased settlement of the conflict is at issue here and the first stage envisions for liberation of the Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno Karabakh which were occupied by Armenia in period of war of 1992-1994. This is a very constructive approach. At the same time we see the degree of destructiveness of the Armenian side and the side that supports it in this conflict in the relation to the possible settlement of the problem. The adoption of these principles by Azerbaijan is a very serious compromise. In this case not Karabakh but just the first stage is implied and Armenia should take this moment positively.

How do you evaluate the behavior of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, are they really attaining the fair solution to the Karabakh conflict?

Unfortunately, the positions of the co-chairs are neither clear nor constructive. If we define the status, positions and interests on each of the mediating states, in case of Russia it is clear that it wants the preservation of the status quo, that is the situation of “neither peace nor war” for the conflict to remain unresolved. In this case Russia has levers of pressure on both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The settlement of this conflict in anyone’s favor would mean that both Azerbaijan and Armenia will immediately start the open search of ways of integration into the Euro-Atlantic space. Naturally, Russia wants to prevent such an outcome. As for the United States, its natural interests require preservation of stability in the Caucasus for the successful implementation of energy and transport projects. In this case the necessary stability already exists and any additional steps even for the forced settlement of the conflict are undesirable for the United States. Thus, the status quo also meets the US interests. Meanwhile, France represents not only itself but also the whole European Union. European Union which is trying to continue successful integration in the European Continent does not want any conflict situations in the area. Thus, France is also interested in the conflict not to pass to the hot phase. EU does not care too much about who will hold Karabakh, they consider that Karabakh should belong to a party that will be able to hold control of it. We should not forget that Armenian Diaspora and lobby have strong positions in all mediating countries which makes these states apply double standards. 

Lala B.
News.Az