During the G8 Summit in Canada on Sunday the leaders of the countries representing the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs – USA, Russia and France made a joint statement by once again emphasizing the necessity of the peaceful resolution of the NKR conflict.
Thus, Dmitry Medvedev, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy welcome as a significant step the recognition by both sides that a lasting settlement must be based upon the Helsinki Principles and the elements that we proposed in connection with our statement at the L’Aquila Summit of the Eight on July 10, 2009, relating to: the return of the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh guaranteeing security and self-governance, a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh; final status of Nagorno-Karabakh to be determined in the future by a legally-binding expression of will, the right of all internally-displaced persons and refugees to return, and international security guarantees, including a peacekeeping operation. This joint statement that followed the Saint Petersburg meeting caused various interpretations on part of the political circles of Armenia. Some of them are sure that the negotiation process is almost over and the co-chairs will pressure on the sides to immediately resolve the conflict. Others consider this statement positive and favorable for Armenia because of the fact that some of the clauses directly stem from the interests of the NKR. There is also an opinion in the political circles that the statement and recommendations of the co-chairs will cause a war. The Social Democratic Henchak Party (SDHK) issued a statement which reads, “The OSCE MG co-chair countries made an anti-Armenian proposal full of more perils than the controversial Madrid Principles. The superpowers again showed preference to Baku’s black oil than to the norms of international law. The Co-Chair countries apply double standards in the international law.” By commenting on the statement of the co-chairs the ARF Bureau representative Hrant Margaryan said, “Nothing new is mentioned in the joint statement of the co-chairs. This is only recertification of the Madrid Principles. The new version of the document is fully deniable for us and despite the fact that there are certain acceptable clauses in the original version of the Madrid Principles it is still unacceptable for our political party. I think that this is some kind of pressure on first of all Azerbaijan and then Armenia.” Mr. Margaryan says that as long as Armenia demonstrates inaction in its foreign policy, low activeness and nig omissions, this kind of effects will become quite often. “We need to withstand. This is not a deadline. I think that we reached not the finish line of the negotiations but to the beginning of a new process,” said the ARF representative. NA MP, member of the Heritage faction Stepan Safaryan thinks that as a result of the statement of the co-chairs we had more of regress rather than progress or benefit for Armenia. “An impression is formed that in Sochi a new process was launched and Azerbaijan was encouraged because of that and Armenia was being silent in that regard. In Saint Petersburg a process was launched, which encouraged Armenia and Azerbaijan applied an evident demarche and even used military force. And when under these circumstances the joint statement of the co-chairs is released and the Madrid Principles are clearly brought up an impression is created that they are trying to bring the both sides to the same starting point by trying to return them from their encouragement field to the actual reality.” When speaking of giving a corridor status to the NKR Safaryan says, “The co-chairs of the Minsk Group do not have the need to give an interim status to the NKR because it has had this status for 19 years now due to its unrecognized status. If they wish to practically prove that the free will of the people of Karabakh is important for them then it is the time for them not to grant a new status to the NKR but recognize the existing one.” The Heritage MP thinks that even if Azerbaijan signed under the document of recognition of the NKR Armenia cannot fully rely on the process managed by the Minsk Group. “As long as the co-chairs haven’t punished Azerbaijan for its recent military deed, as long as Azerbaijan’s militaristic adventures of the 90s are not ceased and the military doctrine of Azerbaijan remains the same as to start a war Armenia cannot be confidence on the process led by the Minsk Group.” “The statement by the presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairing countries was a constructive statement that contained positive elements," said the press secretary of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) Edward Sharmazanov as he expressed his party’s position and praised the presidents’ efforts for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. "The positive elements were the inclusion of the Armenian side’s three most important proposals and principles in the statement," says the deputy and stated the principles one by one. "The first principle is the issue of giving Nagorno-Karabakh a specific interim status; secondly, the importance of having a land border between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and thirdly, the guarantee of security," said Sharmazanov, though in the statement it is stated that "the settlement must be based on the Helsinki Concluding Act and the announcement made in July 2009 in L’Aquila which include the return of territories adjunct to Nagorno-Karabakh." Edward Sharmazanov believes that nobody can say that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has entered the final stage and is sure of the opposite, that is, it has entered a new stage. "It is clear to everybody that the negotiations will enter the final stage only when Nagorno-Karabakh will be a full-fledged side of the negotiations," said Sharmazanov. Touching upon the criticism according to which the Armenian side received the joint statement by Obama, Medvedev and Sarkozy with "open arms", the Republican deputy clarified that Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan didn’t say he welcomed the statement. He simply welcomed the three presidents’ efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict. "Should we complain about everything and everybody and enter a labyrinth like Azerbaijan?" says Sharmazanov. Setting aside separate elements of the statement, Sharmazanov says they are not against the issues of refugees and other issues and as far as the formulation "occupied territories" is concerned, the deputy noted that it is not specifically stated that they are Azerbaijan’s occupied territories. "If they referred to Shahumyan, a part of Martakert, Martunashen and Getashen as occupied territories, of course they are, but there are no other occupied territories," said Edward Sharmazanov. Regarding the statement, the chair of the standing committee on foreign affairs of the NA of the NKR Vahram Atanesyan also shared his views regarding this matter with us. “The statement of the co-chairs and their leaders is firstly connected with their notion to maintain the negotiation process. Secondly, if we review this in the framework of time then the statement succeeded the trilateral meeting of the presidents in Saint Petersburg, which supposedly means that the presidents of the three countries wanted to show to the world that they have a certain accorded approach regarding the process. I think that their urge or request is first of all addressed to Azerbaijan because the leadership of Azerbaijan has stated several times that the conflict should be resolvedly exceptionally in the framework of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, otherwise the war is inevitable. By re-asserting their mission, according to which the conflict should be resolved based on the Helsinki Concluding Act and the announcement made in July 2009 in L’Aquila, the co-chairs clearly mention that they cannot suffice the ambitions of Azerbaijan and they deny the militaristic version of the conflict resolution. In the regard the statement is positive.” However, Atanesyan thinks that the recommendations included in the document might be attractive 20 years ago but today they don’t express the desires of the people and authorities of the NKR. “Such a methodology that is put on the basis of the Madrid Principles and the last statement of the leaders of the three countries perhaps could be attractive for us in the beginning of the 90s. But today, as we have gone through almost a 20-year-long road of self-development, 4 years out of which was spent on withdrawing the military aggression of Azerbaijan and partial annihilation of the war damage, I don’t think it’s correct to speak about the self-determination of the self-determined people. The standpoint of our people, authorities and political circles is that the international community should recognize the factual independence of the NKR, by enabling the latter to regulate its relations and objections with Azerbaijan. It would be correct to say that the mediating states would resume the process, format and methodology of negotiations and would enable the NKR to defend its approaches and standpoints.” The ANC coordination Levon Zurabyan thinks that this statement comes to prove that the international community prioritizes the resolution of the NKR conflict and strengthens its pressure on the conflicting sides to guide to the immediate resolution of the conflict. “It is evident that the conflicting sides are more pressed on to complete their activities regarding the principles and get to the elaboration of a treaty.” The foreign affairs minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan also presented his views regarding the statement of the three presidents. He said, “The leaders of Co-Chair countries point out that in the negotiations based on the Madrid proposals of 2007 a significant step, yet another phase was particularly registered during the meeting held exactly 10 days ago in Saint Petersburg, where the sides concluded what they had achieved up until now as a result of meetings and agreed to continue the negotiations on this basis. The upcoming days will show whether Azerbaijan is ready to move by that route or whether it would continue its bellicose stance attempting to fail the negotiation process through new provocations and unconstructive steps," the Armenian Foreign Minister concluded.” The spokesman of the RA president Serzh Sargsyan, Armen Arzumanyan yesterday told us the following, “As the outline of the foreign policy is directed by the President the statement made by the foreign affairs minister is consented with the standpoint of the president. The statement of the foreign affairs minister is also the opinion of the president.”