– In your opinion is the activation of the Armenian-Turkish relation of the recent days and the issue of the opening of the border connected with the NKR conflict? Based on these developments, can we assume that in the near future serious changes are expected in the negotiation process of the NKR conflict?
– If we rely on the text of the two memorandums then there is no connection with NKR conflict resolution. In the meantime, if we take into account the time that for months Turkey was trying to link the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations with the NKR conflict we may assume that these attempts will at least continue. I think that at present the NKR issue is always touched on during the process of the Armenian-Turkish relations. It means that the pressure is continuing and our diplomacy should be extremely strict to all these attempts and shouldn’t allow the Turkish side to attempt to link these two separate issues.
– So despite the attempt of Turkey so far has Armenian succeeded in preventing the attempts of Turkey to link these two issues?
– I wouldn’t underestimate or overestimate the efforts of our diplomacy. However, I should emphasize that the American approach, according to which these two issues, shouldn’t be linked, was clearly formulated and submitted to the parties.
– As of the establishment of diplomatic relations the following points were ratified, “re-confirming the recognition of the borders of the two states,” “multi-lateral liabilities and non-violation of the borders.” Are these standard formulations or they could have not mentioned the words “multi-lateral liabilities?” Does this relate to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as well?
– The “territorial integrity”, “sovereignty”, the “mutual recognition of the borders” are standard formulations and are obligatorily mentioned in such documents. But the word, “multi-lateral” creates an opportunity for various types of interpretations. I think in fact there is no serious issue in this regard because we recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan since its independence and it doesn’t include the NKR. Our approach is that the conflict is resolved based on the right of the nations to self-define. However, as I mentioned, the formulation “multi-lateral liabilities” creates space for various interpretations.
– Does the mutual recognition of the borders limit our future opportunities to claim for the genocide and return of our territories as the ARF is concerned?
– In the aspect of territorial demands it indeed does. But what’s important to us? Do we signify our opportunities of having free communication, transportation diversification, increase of the country’s sovereignty or some vague events of the past, which in my opinion can be solved only through war, which is not on our behalf and unfavorable for us. Each RA citizen should evaluate what’s more important for him/her. On the other hand Turkey is surrounded with such countries (Syria, Greece, Bulgaria, Iran), which have territorial issues with Turkey and those issues are not yet solved. But Turkey has diplomatic relations with all of them. It is not right to endure such a diplomatic short-sightedness and sacrifice the social interests to historical deeds.
– As the former foreign affairs minister of Armenian Alexander Arzumanyan stated several days ago the parliaments usually do not ratify the proposals of the executive to normalize relations and the premier of Turkey has mentioned that only after the Turkish parliament ratifies the two memorandums will it be legally valid.
– I have numerously mentioned that although the Armenian-Turkish relations are important for the parties, however for Turkey those are important in the context of relations with the US and Europe. Turkey uses the process of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations to better maneuver among the mentioned sides. In this regard the issue of ratification by the parliament is another subject for bargaining. The internal situation of Turkey is also very important because the ratification will thus have to express their opinion about the Armenian-Turkish relations. And these discussions may last very long thus Turkey may prolong the process, bargain with the US and Europe regardless of the clear dates fixed in the memorandums. Thus, unlike us, this creates additional means for Turkey to bargain and gain winning points. However, our parliament, except the Heritage and in this regard the ARF will unanimously vote for the memorandum. But in this regard there is a very important point to mention. The process of normalization of relations gains a full and clear logic. This logic is aimed at more seriously involving Armenian in regional projects. But to what extent are we ready for that? To what extent are we ready to lead our own policy in the region? What resources, opportunities and goals do we have in the region? I have heard to reference regarding these questions on part of the government.
– In your opinion, may the process of opening the border be cancelled due to these questions?
– No, I think the border will be opened. I cannot say exactly when but am sure that it will be opened. After the August war the issue of transportation diversification is pretty serious. At least Nabuko project requires that the Armenian-Turkish relations are resolved as soon as possible. If this is regulated, greater opportunities will be created for the implementation of Nabuko project.