– Do you think that we’ll be able to address the external issues only after solving the internal problems? When you served as foreign minister, during those ten years those problems existed as well. Did those problems impede the negotiations on Karabakh conflict settlement?
– Of course; I have always said that any rapid actions and processes inside Armenia directly affect the foreign policy. There is no doubt that the stronger, united, developed and democratic a country is, the stronger it is out of the country.
– When did you specifically feel that internal processes could affect the foreign policy? In what situations? Is the incumbent president’s position weaker from this point of view than that of former president Robert Kocharyan?
– It is difficult to make such comparison, but there were situations when certain internal processes affected the effectiveness of the foreign policy. Generally I think that during my tenure of those ten years the foreign policy was very effective. The result is that during my tenure we had a great achievement to adopt the right of Karabakh for self-determination in the negotiation document, and the international community protected this position and supported. I mean the principles of Madrid. Currently the foreign policy is moving in a different direction; there are few similarities and that is the reason why I often criticize. People tell me that the basement of this policy was put at that time, but it is not true. I am sure that the main directions of the current foreign policy have nothing to do with the foreign policy of 1998-2008.
– Recently the former US co-chairman Rudolf Perina made an announcement saying that during the first meeting of Robert Kocharyan and Heydar Aliyev he had the impression that the presidents agreed to continue the negotiations but not to reach any results.
– What Perina said concerns the short period with the father Aliyev, and since that time a lot of things have changed. Even I was instructed to solve certain problems, but during Aliyev’s tenure concrete documents were adopted. I can say that we were very close to the solution and the fact that we could achieve the adoption of the right of self-determination of the Karabakhi people is one of our biggest achievements.
– You are speaking of the 6 principles of Madrid, which were announced by the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group. In that document the issue of Karabakh’s self-determination was in the last places in the list and in the first place it was the point about returning the territories surrounding Karabakh. Was this done on purpose or no?
– I know that sequence; I negotiated that sequence. The last document I know in the first place had the right of self-determination of the people of Karabakh.
– Has the sequence changed?
– The document I passed to the incumbent government had the Karabakhi people’s self-determination right in the first place.
– Was there a specific definition on “the right of the Karabakhi people self-determination” or it was about the clarification of Karabakh’s status?
– There was a clear definition, even more, with many details.
– Is the balance in the negotiations on Karabakh conflict on the side of Armenia or Azerbaijan now?
– It is difficult to say; the biggest surprise for me is the fact that today the conflict or talks are not about the content of a document but the document generally. Currently there is no agreement on which document is on the table. What is that document? The new one? The one proposed in Saint Petersburg or the original one of Madrid? This is the topic of the talks now. There is no document now, based on which the parties may say that it is acceptable by them as the ground for negotiations. We used to discuss and talk about the content of that document.
– But the foreign ministry sometimes announces that Armenia bases on the principles of Madrid in the negotiations.
– Yes, the Armenian party says that, but saying the principles of Madrid is not enough yet. They should refer to a specific document. I think our diplomacy should make it clear first of all, otherwise I think that the talks are in a very serious deadlock.
– The trilateral meetings initiated by Russia have activated. People say it is an attempt to take the initiative of Karabakh conflict settlement into the hands of Russia, and the West is passive in this process.
– No, always the co-chairmen of the co-chairing countries have actively participated in the process. There was time when Jacques Chirac initiated several meetings, and later Bush accepted the presidents. Putin has organized meetings too. In the recent times it seems that the meetings on the level of presidents are mainly organized by Russia. The Minsk Group is still active as the three co-chairmen are working. Yes, based on the fact that 8 meetings have been initiated by president Medvedev, we may assume that the most active initiator in the recent times is Russia.
– Currently the Armenian authorities are speaking of making Karabakh a participant of the conflict. Karabakh was taken out of the negotiations during your tenure. Why do they fail to return Karabakh to the table of negotiations?
– Mostly Azerbaijan is against Karabakh’s participation in the talks. When you make it a precondition, as a result the negotiations may simply stop, which is not a good thing. The danger of solving the problem through other means grows in that situation. In other words, the negotiations are important. On the other hand, we should not think that Karabakh is generally out of the negotiations. The co-chairmen are periodically meeting with the authorities of Karabakh. The fact that Armenia announces that no document will be adopted and accepted without Karabakh’s signature is itself a fact that the wish of the people of Karabakh is taken into consideration. As for the critics that Karabakh was left out of the negotiations during my tenure, I have spoken it for many times without any critics and I said who is guilty for what. It is a historical fact, that Minsk Group stopped its activity in March 1997 due to a number of reasons. When I was the foreign affairs minister, the Minsk Group did not exist at that time. But the format of the presidents that existed since 1995 continued. When the Minsk process stopped, and the process of the presidents continued, we decided to continue as it was. However, the process of the presidents gave a result that we could never implement. That is the fact that the right of self determination of Karabakh was established in the negotiation document.
– Former co-chairman of Minsk Group Matthew Bryza announced that Karabakh was left out of the process of negotiations due to Kocharyan’s wish.
– I don’t think so. I think that man was confused and mistaken as he was not even a co-chairman at that time.