– What is your opinion about the publicized Madrid principles? Were they favorable for the Armenian side?
– In order to clearly understand and evaluate the publicized principles it is necessary to understand the reason why those were publicized. It is evident that after the Russian-Georgian war the struggle of dividing influences in the south Caucasus has intensified. The US received Georgia, where it was fully strengthened. Russia was fully ousted from there. If the US succeeds in attracting one of the other two states of the region to its side it will be able to have a full influence in the region. Indeed, Russia acquired and maintained Abkhazia and Ossetia. But in order to maintain its role in the region it needs to strengthen its positions by either attracting Armenia or Azerbaijan. It also needs to maintain the status quo in the region. It is obvious that in this case the NKR is becoming to be the platform, where the relations of the two states will become tense. Russia won’t benefit from the violation of this status quo because otherwise, regardless of the solution, Armenia or Azerbaijan will be dissatisfied by the results and the necessary of a Georgia-2 model will ripen. And in that case, the west and more accurately the US will receive two states and have an immense influence in the region. By the same logic the US would favor from the violation of the status quo. They don’t even much care whether Armenia or Azerbaijan would benefit from the violation of the status quo.
– Can we assume that after the resolution of the NKR conflict the US will have the leading role in the region as one of the states will be dissatisfied anyway?
– It depends on when the solution will be but I think we should return to the statement. Last November Russia tried to grab this initiative by the Memorandum signed in Moscow. Then we should have expected the answer from the US. Perhaps the answer was a little late but it was worth for the US as the way the principles were publicized in the presence of the three presidents this caused more noise and publicity. The memorandum of Russia was signed only by one mediator and only two of the conflicting sides – Armenia and Azerbaijan. Thus the format didn’t look full. In this case the response of the US was fuller because all three mediators signed it. But here is one question. If this was the response of the US to the memorandum of Moscow then why did Russia play its part here? It’s quite easy. No mediator can refuse to sign a document, which says that the conflict should be resolved peacefully and shortly. Regardless of interests, peace and stability are those few things, against which nobody can at least publicly oppose. The next important issue is the contents of the statement, which says that the Madrid principle relies on the three points defined by the Helsinki Act – territorial integrity, right of self-determination and exclusion of force. Recently the government often states that this is a great achievement and that this is the first precedent that the right of self-determination is defined on paper. Let me first say that the co-chairs and the countries of the latter didn’t do us any favor. The right of self-determination was included in the Helsinki Act among other basic points. Besides that there are two more documents, where the right of self-determination is fixed. One of those is the PACE resolution 1416 adopted in 2005, which says that the NKR may annex from Azerbaijan in a democratic way and by the support of the people living in the NKR, i.e. by self-determination right of the people, which should be conducted by a referendum. As a response to that the CoE Committee of Ministers adopted a document, which fixed that the issue must be regulated based on the principle of territorial integrity. Afterwards, a long-lasting work was done to persuade the mediators that the right of self-determination should be one of the cornerstones of the NKR conflict resolution and in 2007 they fixed the Madrid principles.
– There is an opinion that the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity contradict each other in the case of the NKR conflict resolution.
– No, this is the second confusion of the government, which originates from the beginning of the 90s. Moreover, they were even thinking that the second overwhelms over the self-determination right. The Final Helsinki Act contains the definition of these two principles and any knowledgeable person by reading this can understand that the principle of territorial integrity works within the OSCE states. The principle of self-determination works between the NKR and Azerbaijan. Once Bernard Fassier publicly accepted that there are three sides and two pairs of the conflict – Armenia and Azerbaijan, where the principle of territorial integrity works and the NKR and Azerbaijan, for which the principle of self-determination works. For example, Artsvashen is an occupied territory and is currently under the sovereignty of Azerbaijan but belongs to Armenia. In this case the principle of territorial integrity should work.
– Why does our government not raise the issue of the territories of Artsvashen and Shahumyan?
– For a quite long time our government was trying to narrow down the circles of issues by hoping that it will conduce to the solution. However, it does the exact opposite. The issue of the Armenian refugees has never been presented, the occupied parts of Martini and Martakert, which are occupied by Azerbaijan. We should also mention the issue of Shahumyan district, which also participated in the referendum in accordance with the USSR legislation and was part of the NKR. The Armenian side has never used the issue of Nakhichevan during negotiations, during which the Azerbaijani destroyed the Armenian population there. Even Vladimir Kazimirov would say that anybody who doesn’t know about Nakhichevan he/she cannot have sufficient understanding of the NKR. Although during the last years the Armenian emphasizes that the self-determination issue must be the basis of negotiations but it’s done in a quite timid manner because even the government of Armenia doesn’t have a clear understanding about the norms of the international right. For over two decades Armenia cannot take advantage of its greatest weapon – the international right.
– Nevertheless, what do you think about Madrid Principles?
– There are serious contradictions in those principles. The first principle mentions that the neighboring territories of the NKR should be returned to Azerbaijan. It is obvious that in this point there is an unclear definition. The definition about the future status of the NKR is also unclear. It reads that this process must be done as a result of the free will of the people of the NKR and must be legally binding. But it doesn’t say for whom it should be binding or whose free will should be taken into account – the people of the NKR or Azerbaijan. Around what aspects this conflict should be resolved – sovereignty, independence or others? This unclearness leaves a space for any kind of speculation. The right of self-determination belongs only to the people of the NKR. Nobody – Armenia, Russia, USA, UN, OSCE, has the right to meditate the process in this regard. The axis of the conflict is the status of the NKR and so the axis of the regulation should be the status. However, it is not hard to notice that the principles, which the co-chairs prepared, show that the issue of the status is not a priority, as a result of which two artificial principles were added about the temporary status and the deployment of security guarantees. The NKR by itself reached peace and made Azerbaijan to sign a peace treaty in 1994 and the NKR was able to make all the parties to maintain this peace for 15 years now. There is no need for any peacekeepers. Peacekeepers are always used to favor the interests of the mediators. The factors of the security of the NKR are the factors, which have imposed peace since 1994 – independence, army, borders and neighboring with Armenia. The logic of the publicized principles, formulations and sequence of fulfillment are absolutely unacceptable for the Armenia side. There is only one logic here – create indefinite formulations, which can be construed differently by different countries. For example, they can create opportunities for the mediators to violate the status quo to an irretrievable extent. But the publication of these principles enables to resolve a very important issue. They publicize the principle of self-determination but the implementing side of this principle – the NKR is absent. By the way, the reaction of the leadership of the NKR was that only their participation can bring an actual solution to the conflict. As a matter of fact this is a correct but quite an explicit statement. They don’t wish that Armenia represents their interests any more. After this statement the co-chairs should either invite the NKR leadership to take part in the negotiation process or by relying on the UN resolutions, which define the right of self-determination, they should negotiate with the NKR side. I am not saying that Armenian must be deflected from the negotiation process but the NKR must participate in the negotiations. By benefiting from the statement of the countries of the co-chairs our government should insist on involving the NKR in the negotiating process as a conflict side. The NKR has long ago been internationally considered a conflict side and the government of Armenia should go beyond their personal interests and include the NKR in the negotiation process. This is what the current circumstances demand.
– How will the NKR’s involvement in the process conduce to the negotiation results?
– First of all it is there inseparable right and no one can deprive them of the right to decide their destiny. Moreover, in the event of participation, I think the government of the NKR will be more prepared and informed of the international norms during the conduct of negotiations. Perhaps after that the Armenian government will start to understand the significance of the self-determination right. Unfortunately in this regard the Armenian side participated in the talks in a quite unprepared manner. It wasn’t aware of the norms of the international rights, which could have provided lofty positions for the NKR and Armenia.
– Why didn’t you share your attitudes about the significance of the self-determination and norms of the international rights with the government of Armenia at the time when you were the chairman of the NA?
– During the past one year I have numerously raised this issue at various occasions. I usually don’t like to speak about my deeds and initiatives but in this case I have to mention that. In 2005 when the PACE was adopting a resolution on the NKR I was the chairman of the delegation and as I already mentioned this is the only document, which separates the NRK from Azerbaijan. Perhaps it took me many efforts but I am proud that I was able to do that. In 2006-2008 I have publicized a range of scientific papers in Russian, Armenian and English in various prestigious forums. In those papers I described the opportunities of regulating the NKR conflict in the framework of the international law. Among the norms I specified the highest norm of the international law – the unique right of the NKR people to choose their independence and its flawless practice. I have done a comparative analysis with the Kosovo case. Last year I have publicized a monograph on these issues and this year the English version will be published. Let me also remind of the NA statement of the end of April of the last, which clearly shows all the steps but nothing has been done so far. I think that there is no need to remind that who submitted the bill of this statement. Perhaps there is no need to remind of my speeches and interviews, during which I have also spoken about these issues. Of course, the government was aware of all this.
– At the beginning you mentioned that Russia needs to maintain status quo in the south Caucasus and then you said that the RA government participates in the negotiations in a not quite prepared manner. Can we assume that the RA government acts in the framework of the interests of Russia during the regulation of this conflict?
– Principally there is no difference at all why this situation was created, whether it was because of lack of knowledge or any other reason. It is more important to put aside the mistakes of the past and not use the opportunities of today. A quite interesting situation was created after the publication of these principles. Although a quite confusing document was publicized but it is a quite good opportunity to direct the process on our behalf and once again make the NKR a negotiating party.