– Former foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan says “the negotiation quality of the Armenian party has changed because during negotiations one should be able to formulate alternative approaches.” Do you really think that the quality has changed? Do you think Azerbaijan is in a more favorable position now?
– In relation to the quality I would like to cite the Azeri foreign minister’s recent announcement, in which he sings the same song that they are ready to give the highest level of autonomy to Azerbaijan, and all citizens of Azerbaijan should take part in the process of deciding the interval status. This means that they are against Karabakh’s independence through self-determination. As I understand if it is about the negotiations as well, then the quality has changed. If following the announcement on self-determination, territorial integrity and non-application of power by 55 OSCE states in Athens last year they again say that the most important and priority principle among these three ones is the principle of territorial integrity, i.e. including Karabakh in Azerbaijan’s territory, then something is wrong with the negotiations. It means that the new and old principles of Madrid are not consistent, thus Armenia should orient in this situation. It is a shock approach. They were speaking of a compromise solution but unexpectedly they are saying that Karabakh will not be independent. Accordingly the Armenian party is legally suggesting that Karabakh should become a party of the negotiations. Now Karabakh is the one to decide whether it wants to be included in the Azeri territory or be independent. For being declared a de-facto independent state Karabakh has all the institutions such as the president, parliament and other institutions. I believe it was a wrong decision to take Karabakh out of the process of negotiations. During their tenure they did not do it, thus we are trying to return Karabakh in order to find the right solution to resolve the issue of the people’s destiny.
– What does this change in Azerbaijan’s policy mean?
– Azerbaijan has restricted its approach, and our foreign minister has announced that it is impossible to settle the conflict of Karabakh without Karabakh’s participation. I mean the participation in this phase. What I mean is participation which is intermediated by Armenia as it was before because if we continue the negotiations with this format, it will be like we are giving a place to Azerbaijan’s demands. This is my opinion.
– Do you agree with Vardan Oskanyan’s observation that the quality has changed?
– The quality has not changed because Oskanyan said that; we knew that before too. Why do we demand that Karabakh should be a participant of the negotiation process now? Because their policy is stricter now. I have not taken part in the negotiations but it is clear that Azerbaijan has a stricter policy now. And they say that they agree with the new principles of Madrid, but indeed they again misinterpret that thing and say that Karabakh should be a part of their territory but with a higher status. And the name of that status is not independence.
– Why did Azerbaijan decide to make the policy stricter? Maybe Armenia gave this reason to them by launching the Armenia-Turkey reconciliation process and recruiting Turkey in the negotiations.
– The answer to this question is different because Turkey wants to become an important factor and solve problems in the region. If Karabakh is independent, even if with sovereign borders of the Republic of Karabakh, it is out of Turkey’s interests because in the region he will have to deal with two independent and world recognized Armenian states, which is not so easy. And if the issue is solved and Karabakh is included in the territory of Azerbaijan, Turkey will deal with Armenia only.
– Why did the Armenian government give this opportunity by initiating the reconciliation process?
– There was an issue of opening the border, which was connected with communications, import of economic products and export, as well as opening a shorter way to Europe. In other words, we need for communications and as two member states of the EU, we should have open borders. We took that chance because we were interested in it, and it turned out that other super-states such as Russia, the US and Europe are interested in that too. The two countries entered into negotiations, which was intermediated by the US and European states. It was not like we decided to develop relations with Turkey and no one supported our initiative. It was agreed to develop relations without preconditions, the parties did not raise the issues of the conflict of Karabakh or the genocide recognition in order to develop relations. Neither of the parties pushed preconditions. It was said verbally, the Turks agreed with that initiative and the US and European Union promised to do that. But the Turks got their mind back on the way and understood that they can’t have full influence in the region without Karabakh. Thus, they are developing this precondition. As the US is a powerful state and believes diplomatic morality is the fulfillment of agreements and commitments, and the failure not to do so is immorality, has started to apply pressure on Turkey. Such pressure will be done with the issue of the Genocide and other tools.
– However in the Armenia-Turkey protocols there were preconditions on the issues of Karabakh, Genocide and opening the border.
– These things had to be written directly. If there are preconditions, these should be written directly. If there is nothing, it means there are no preconditions either. The Turks are not saying this openly, but definitely they are accusing the US and saying that they had promised to solve the issue of Karabakh in parallel with that process. Why don’t they do it? They are saying that the issue of Karabakh is not connected with the protocols, and as they have promised that the issue would be solved soon, it will be solved soon but they don’t know when exactly. It is 15 years that they say it will be solved soon… Did not the Turks know in 1991 that one of the main provisions in the Armenian independence declaration would be the recognition of the Armenian Genocide? Now they are saying the reason of stopping the process is the ruling of the Constitutional Court and they ask why we referred to this document. It was done only for domestic use.