– Last week the former commander of the NKR army Samvel Babayan stated that the NKR has ceased being a military-political unit in the region as well as was segregated from the negotiation process only after Yerevan’s decision to neutralize the NKR in 1999. He also said that the third president of Armenia doesn’t have any connection with that and that these questions were clarified on December 15, 1999 during the session of the Security Council. In 1999-2000 you occupied the position of the RA defense minister and were a member of the Security Council. Have you discussed such questions during that session? Or is there any connection between the segregation of the NKR from the negotiation process and resignation of Babayan?
– No, there is no connection. Babayan resigned in December 1999. NKR was deflected from the negotiation process in late 1998 when Robert Kocharyan was elected president, who thought that the potential of the NKR in the negotiation process was worn out. And then the Kocharyan-Aliyev meetings started, where the NKR didn’t take part in. As of the Security Council session of the end of 1999 there we discussed the internal political situation created in the NKR. Moreover, the NKR was deflected from the NKR process before I submitted the post of the defense minister.
– If the NKR wasn’t isolated from the negotiation process would it be a full negotiating party now? In general, there is an opinion that the appointment of the NKR officials and policy is done by the Armenian government.
– When Armenia started to speak about the liberated territories it was considered an aggressor by the international instances. The liberated territories belong to the NKR and the NKR should have been the one to speak about them. There should be certain clarification about who’s negotiating for what and who should be responsible. Armenia is also a conflict party. The conquered territories of Armenia, communications, issues of the refugees living in Armenia directly relate to the Armenians and Armenia should negotiate around these issues. Armenia should also be the guarantor of the security of the NKR. I find the statement of NKR president Bako Sahakyan to make the NKR as a negotiation party very correct and relevant.
– Yesterday the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Mathew Bryza announced that the NKR and all the other territories will be part by part returned to Azerbaijan and that the refugees of Azerbaijan will return to their homeland. The presidents of Armenia and NKR Serzh Sargsyan and Bako Sahakyan state that they recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and that the independent NKR has never been part of Azerbaijan. What’s hidden under these contradictive statements?
– The processes of the region – Armenian-Turkish relations, opening of the border, genocide, NKR conflict are interconnected. First of all Turkey won’t separate these issues. And if there is no secret or no precondition in the signed road-map as mentioned by Nalbandyan then why don’t they publicize the contents of the document? If they don’t then I assume that there are some provisions about the genocide, opening of the border, Kars Treaty, NKR conflict, return of the 5 liberated territories. In fact the implementation of this project is split into several but the final goal is evident. They are trying to reinvigorate the role of this or other superpower in the region. But if we agree to the referendum in the NKR or return of the 5 territories then we return to the same 1988 status. We are starting from the zero and even from a worst start. And the interest of the superpowers is to deploy their peacekeepers in the region. Of course, Turkey would also like to have its peacekeepers in the region. This is the priority of the superpowers and not the status of the NKR.
– Bryza also mentioned that the status of the BKR will be based not on self-identification but on autonomy principle.
– Those are totally different expressions – identification is a norm of the international law and autonomy is a form of government. Karabakh used to have autonomy in the part of Azerbaijan. The difference is drastic.
– The return of the 5 territories, possibility of a referendum was discussed back in the president of Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
– It was a suggestion, which Ter-Petrosyan put to discussion in a Security Council session, presented it to the attention of the society, opinions were heard and now there is a signed document with unknown contents.
– The premier of Turkey Erdoghan yesterday stated that his country closed the border with Armenia due to the fact that Armenia had occupied Azerbaijan’s territories. “Return the territories and we will open the border,” said Erdoghan. In the meantime president Gull made milder statements. In your opinion this is a contradiction of attitudes or just diplomacy.
– They have divided the trends. Erdoghan speaks on behalf of the internal society and Azerbaijan and Gul speaks for Armenia, USA and Europe. Let me tell you that they have already won this negotiation process but Armenia hadn’t won yet. The issue of recognition of the genocide was delayed in the US. They have received the dividends of their short-term objective. Last year on February 8 Turkey announced that if the new leadership of Armenia applies to them to normalize relations they will accept that offer. It becomes the clear that the godfather of this willingness is the US and that this is a preliminarily planned policy. All the things that happened after that, including the soccer diplomacy are originated from that plan. But I think that in this case they haven’t decently calculated the echo of Armenia, NKR and the Armenian Diaspora.
– Will you concretize what mistakes Armenia had made during the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations?
– The mistakes are not new. They have been accumulated long ago. Let me repeat that the greatest mistake was to isolate the NKR from the negotiation process. Secondly, the government hadn’t justified yet why it is economically, politically and strategically important for Armenia to open the border with Turkey under the current political circumstances. It is obvious that the opening of the border is directly connected with the NKR conflict and the interests of superpowers in this region. Indeed the border should be opened but we should be ready for this. I see that our country is not ready because the corrupt system of our country would enable the Turks to solve many economic issues on their behalf. We shouldn’t have any doubt that Turkey will at a state level support its businessmen to “gain access” to the Armenian economy.
– Mr. Harutyunyan, on whose behalf has time worked since the adoption of the 1994 ceasefire?
– I think that from the moment when the NKR was driven out from the negotiation process and Aliyev-Kocharyan negotiations started, our wrong policy had begun and time had started to work on behalf of Azerbaijan.