Tweet
ARZUMANIAN: THE SIDES WERE OFFERED STEP-BY-STEP SOLUTION IN ASTANA
Azg/arm
23 Dec 04
At his last press conference the foreign minister of Armenia told
journalists that the public's opinion should be decisive in choosing a
solution alternate for Nagorno Karabakh conflict. "If there is people's
demand to take, say, the step-by-step solution, then the issue should
be discussed at the parliament and it will decide whether we are on
the wrong path and should we take the step-by-step alternate or not",
Vartan Oskanian said. The former foreign minister of Armenia, Alexander
Arzumanian, thinks that Oskanian and the authorities are preparing
the public opinion to make a turn to the step-by-step solution.
- Mr. Arzumanian, the former Armenian president stated recently that we
cannot get today what we could get in 1997. Do you agree with such a view?
- Situation in 1997 was more favorable for Armenia and the options
on the table made it possible to reach a solution that would be in
interests of Armenia and the Karabakh people. Levon Ter-Petrosian was
considering that the time is playing into Azerbaijan's hands and that
we should use the chance to negotiate, that there will be no better
chance in future. I think that the past 7 years show that he was right.
- In 1997 they were suggesting to withdraw the armed forces without
saying what will Nagorno Karabakh get. Do you call this success?
- The suggestions of 97 were covered by the media. What I mean is
that there were two opposite approaches, one proposed by Azerbaijan,
the other by Karabakh. As the two conflicting approaches could not
be brought together, we decided to pick out separate issues for
discussion, to switch to the step-by-step solution, which supposed,
as first steps to be taken, signing a peace treaty, withdrawal of
forces from several territories, return of the refugees against which
the people of Karabakh would be guaranteed security, Armenia would
be recognized a guarantee for Karabakh's security and the status of
Karabakh would be discussed separately. I used to say at the time
and now I repeat that each conflict's solution lies in accomplishing
gradual steps. The fact is that the so-called step-by-step solution
plans of Astana, that are on the table today, are the same plans
only modified. There is no argument over this today, and I am glad
that your newspaper is wishful to speak of it. The authorities
were obstinately claiming before the OSCE Ministers' meeting in
Sofia that the sides were offered nothing. Moreover, Armat NGO was
condemned in disorientating the public, in depreciating Armenia's
"great diplomatic success", in encouraging the Azeri side and a number
of other things. But in fact, the organization has issued a report
informing that it became clear during Karabakh issue discussions
at the UN that there were offers to the sides. Armat was referring
to US representative to the UN, Susan Moor, who noted in her speech
that the sides received offers two months ago and the co-chairs are
waiting for their answer and for that reason the Azeri formula cannot
be put to vote at the General Assembly. In Sofia the OSCE Ministerial
Council stated that the sides received offers in Astana and called
on to continue negotiations leaning on the offers. Besides, there
is another sentence that is not spoken of much. The statement by the
OSCE Ministerial Council also notes that it became possible to review
all the criteria of the conflict at the Prague process (something
that is put to silence). This means that the modified step-by-step
solution is likely to return to the agenda.
The sides were offered in Astana to withdraw Armenian forces from all
Karabakh's neighboring Azeri territories against which referendums
would be held in Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. This is nothing
else but a step-by-step solution offer.
- Are you still an adherent of the step-by-step solution?
- We again return to favorable conditions. I was for the step-by-step
solution possible in 1997. But what have we got during these
7 years. The only thing we have is the total blockade by the
international community. I mean in 1997 we had only economical
blockade but today there is also a political blockade. The world
community's understanding of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict has
changed in essence. If they used to speak of Karabakh people's
freedom for self-identification then today we hear talks about a
territorial argument between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Karabakh
has dropped out of the negotiations decisive for its own fate. The
step-by-step solution we have today differs from that we had in 97
and the conditions today are less beneficial for the Armenian side.
- Mr. Arzumanian, have you read the offer that the sides received in
Astana, if there is a document on that at all?
- Certainly no, because they were not published, and I think that's
right as all the details of essential offers should be discussed
confidentially. But I don't speak of the details now but of the
principles that lie as offers' foundation. From this viewpoint, the
information I now possess allows me to claim that what they mean is
a modified step-by-step solution.
- You mentioned of Armenian's total political isolation. Don't you
think that Armenia appeared in such isolation in 1996, after the
Lisbon, when all the OSCE states marched against Armenia?
- Not at all. In Lisbon there was an attempt to impose on Armenia
a solution variant that was unacceptable and was not in national
interests of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. For that reason Armenia
used its veto right not to let an unacceptable option pass. Armenia
was not isolated and was able to clearly formulate its standpoints
and approaches to the world community. Today's Armenia is unable to
veto as the atmosphere has changed. Today's Armenia is in a situation
when it is viewed as an occupant of Azeri territories. Armenia has
never been blamed for conquering foreign lands, for inhabiting and
for carrying out ethnic cleansing.
By Tatoul Hakobian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Azg/arm
23 Dec 04
At his last press conference the foreign minister of Armenia told
journalists that the public's opinion should be decisive in choosing a
solution alternate for Nagorno Karabakh conflict. "If there is people's
demand to take, say, the step-by-step solution, then the issue should
be discussed at the parliament and it will decide whether we are on
the wrong path and should we take the step-by-step alternate or not",
Vartan Oskanian said. The former foreign minister of Armenia, Alexander
Arzumanian, thinks that Oskanian and the authorities are preparing
the public opinion to make a turn to the step-by-step solution.
- Mr. Arzumanian, the former Armenian president stated recently that we
cannot get today what we could get in 1997. Do you agree with such a view?
- Situation in 1997 was more favorable for Armenia and the options
on the table made it possible to reach a solution that would be in
interests of Armenia and the Karabakh people. Levon Ter-Petrosian was
considering that the time is playing into Azerbaijan's hands and that
we should use the chance to negotiate, that there will be no better
chance in future. I think that the past 7 years show that he was right.
- In 1997 they were suggesting to withdraw the armed forces without
saying what will Nagorno Karabakh get. Do you call this success?
- The suggestions of 97 were covered by the media. What I mean is
that there were two opposite approaches, one proposed by Azerbaijan,
the other by Karabakh. As the two conflicting approaches could not
be brought together, we decided to pick out separate issues for
discussion, to switch to the step-by-step solution, which supposed,
as first steps to be taken, signing a peace treaty, withdrawal of
forces from several territories, return of the refugees against which
the people of Karabakh would be guaranteed security, Armenia would
be recognized a guarantee for Karabakh's security and the status of
Karabakh would be discussed separately. I used to say at the time
and now I repeat that each conflict's solution lies in accomplishing
gradual steps. The fact is that the so-called step-by-step solution
plans of Astana, that are on the table today, are the same plans
only modified. There is no argument over this today, and I am glad
that your newspaper is wishful to speak of it. The authorities
were obstinately claiming before the OSCE Ministers' meeting in
Sofia that the sides were offered nothing. Moreover, Armat NGO was
condemned in disorientating the public, in depreciating Armenia's
"great diplomatic success", in encouraging the Azeri side and a number
of other things. But in fact, the organization has issued a report
informing that it became clear during Karabakh issue discussions
at the UN that there were offers to the sides. Armat was referring
to US representative to the UN, Susan Moor, who noted in her speech
that the sides received offers two months ago and the co-chairs are
waiting for their answer and for that reason the Azeri formula cannot
be put to vote at the General Assembly. In Sofia the OSCE Ministerial
Council stated that the sides received offers in Astana and called
on to continue negotiations leaning on the offers. Besides, there
is another sentence that is not spoken of much. The statement by the
OSCE Ministerial Council also notes that it became possible to review
all the criteria of the conflict at the Prague process (something
that is put to silence). This means that the modified step-by-step
solution is likely to return to the agenda.
The sides were offered in Astana to withdraw Armenian forces from all
Karabakh's neighboring Azeri territories against which referendums
would be held in Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. This is nothing
else but a step-by-step solution offer.
- Are you still an adherent of the step-by-step solution?
- We again return to favorable conditions. I was for the step-by-step
solution possible in 1997. But what have we got during these
7 years. The only thing we have is the total blockade by the
international community. I mean in 1997 we had only economical
blockade but today there is also a political blockade. The world
community's understanding of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict has
changed in essence. If they used to speak of Karabakh people's
freedom for self-identification then today we hear talks about a
territorial argument between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Karabakh
has dropped out of the negotiations decisive for its own fate. The
step-by-step solution we have today differs from that we had in 97
and the conditions today are less beneficial for the Armenian side.
- Mr. Arzumanian, have you read the offer that the sides received in
Astana, if there is a document on that at all?
- Certainly no, because they were not published, and I think that's
right as all the details of essential offers should be discussed
confidentially. But I don't speak of the details now but of the
principles that lie as offers' foundation. From this viewpoint, the
information I now possess allows me to claim that what they mean is
a modified step-by-step solution.
- You mentioned of Armenian's total political isolation. Don't you
think that Armenia appeared in such isolation in 1996, after the
Lisbon, when all the OSCE states marched against Armenia?
- Not at all. In Lisbon there was an attempt to impose on Armenia
a solution variant that was unacceptable and was not in national
interests of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. For that reason Armenia
used its veto right not to let an unacceptable option pass. Armenia
was not isolated and was able to clearly formulate its standpoints
and approaches to the world community. Today's Armenia is unable to
veto as the atmosphere has changed. Today's Armenia is in a situation
when it is viewed as an occupant of Azeri territories. Armenia has
never been blamed for conquering foreign lands, for inhabiting and
for carrying out ethnic cleansing.
By Tatoul Hakobian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress