Tweet
Karabakh minister says Azerbaijan should compromise to settle conflict
Yeni Musavat, Baku
19 Mar 05
The foreign minister of Azerbaijan's breakaway region of Nagornyy
Karabakh, Armen Melikyan, has dismissed the idea of stationing
peacekeepers as a guarantee of security for Nagornyy Karabakh. In an
interview with a visiting Azerbaijani journalist Eynulla Fatullayev,
Melikyan said: "They will not stand in the way of attacks of the
Azerbaijani army." He also described as "nonsense" liberating the
Armenian-controlled territories around Nagornyy Karabakh without
concessions on the part of Azerbaijan. The following is the text of
Eynulla Fatullayev's report translated from Russian and published by
Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 19 March headlined "We are ready
for talks with Azerbaijan's minister of internal affairs" and subheaded
"The 'foreign minister' of the separatist regime, Armen Melikyan:
'We should all try to escape the cul-de-sac'"; subheadings have been
inserted editorially:
Introduction by Yeni Musavat
Well-known journalist Eynulla Fatullayev has recently paid a visit
to Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh and met several enemy officials and
interviewed them. Our readers are already familiar with the interview
of the leader of the separatists, [Nagornyy Karabakh President] Arkadiy
Gukasyan. Today we publish the interview with the "foreign minister"
of the puppet entity, Armen Melikyan, with short abridgements. In
our opinion, it will be interesting in terms of finding out about
the mood of the enemy, learning the truth and making more accurate
calculations about the future.
Status of Nagornyy Karabakh in peace talks
We met [Nagornyy Karabakh Foreign Minister Armen] Melikyan in
Yerevan, in the new office of the "NKR" [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic].
It is interesting, what are his views on resolving the conflict?
Considering that Melikyan is a member of the new generation of
Karabakh politicians, it is possible to say that the "minister's"
views should be interesting.
[Fatullayev] Until 1997, the political leadership of Nagornyy Karabakh
took part in the peace process as the Armenian community. What caused
Karabakh to seek a broader status?
[Melikyan] I am aware that Nagornyy Karabakh took part in the talks
as a community. Azerbaijan tried to achieve the participation of the
Azerbaijani community of Karabakh in the shape of Nizami Bahmanov
[head of the community] but Karabakh rejected that. The format of
negotiations included then three sides: Azerbaijan, Armenia and
Nagornyy Karabakh. In the wake of the Budapest summit of the OSCE,
which recognized Nagornyy Karabakh as a side to the war, and in the
wake of the Bishkek agreements [on cease-fire], which were signed
by Nagornyy Karabakh, we acted as an independent party. I cannot say
that Karabakh is represented on the level of a community.
Direct talks can be fruitful
[Fatullayev] [Azerbaijani President] Ilham Aliyev has urged Armenia
to leave Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh tete-a-tete. He said that
"we will ourselves find a common language with Karabakh" then. What
was the attitude of the Nagornyy Karabakh leadership to this proposal?
[Melikyan] To be frank, it was calm. We have always been for direct
talks with Baku. I think it is abnormal that we are not represented in
the talks. I do not think it is quite right that Armenia participates
in the negotiations. This may be connected with Azerbaijan's harsh
stance and the international community's attitude to the issue. Many
believed that non-participation of Karabakh in the peace process will
pay great dividends. However, time showed that not taking Nagornyy
Karabakh seriously only delays resolution of the conflict.
The Karabakh problem appeared with the Soviet Socialist Republic of
Azerbaijan and it has resulted in what we see now. The demise of the
USSR has had a negative impact. Unfortunately, relations between our
peoples have worsened because the then leaders of the three sides
were inexperienced and were not far-sighted.
War is a great human tragedy. We could not reach mutual agreement to
avoid bloodshed. However, this is all past now. We must now try to
find a way out of this cul-de-sac. I reckon that direct talks between
Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh can be very fruitful. At any rate,
we will be able to avoid distorting the truth.
Liberating occupied territories is nonsense
[Fatullayev] In your opinion, what is the likelihood of Azerbaijan
accepting Nagornyy Karabakh as a party to talks if the occupied
territories of lowland Karabakh are freed?
[Melikyan] According to information that we have, Azerbaijan continues
to put forward the demands of liberating these or other territories,
even liberation of all territories, including Nagornyy Karabakh. This
is nonsense. Taking control of Azerbaijan's territories, we resolved
a military-political problem and reduced the front line. War dictates
its own rules. What matters today is the result.
That is, we responded with force to force and one of the sides
consequently suffered a military defeat. The primary cause of the
conflict is resolving the status of Nagornyy Karabakh. The Karabakh
Armenians must see a guarantee for their existence in the new
Azerbaijani Constitution. They may have compelling reasons for that.
Repressive steps taken by the Baku government against Armenians who
densely populated some districts of Azerbaijan have left no alternative
way for the Karabakh Armenians.
This was a war between the Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan. I fail
to understand it when Azerbaijan blames either Russia, or the West,
or the Armenian diaspora for inciting the conflict.
[Fatullayev] Are you ready to accept the model of Nagornyy Karabakh's
participation in the talks in exchange for the evacuation of several
districts?
[Melikyan] I cannot completely rule our that possibility. Anyway,
I do not see any obstacle on our side to discussing all the aspects
of the conflict. It is a different question whether a formula for an
agreement will be reached or no.
The main issue is to find a common language. If there is no will
to reach an agreement, then there will be no agreement. However,
we must look at each other in new ways.
[Fatullayev] Some of our political scientists have suggested that the
Azerbaijani government start the talks with Nagornyy Karabakh on the
level of interior minister. Are you ready for that?
[Melikyan] It depends on the powers conferred on the interior
minister who will be conducting the talks. In this sense, it is not
important for us what is the position of the leader of the Azerbaijani
delegation. We are ready to begin the talks with Azerbaijan's interior
minister.
Melikyan dispenses with formal logic
[Fatullayev] Why has Nagornyy Karabakh distanced itself from the CIS-2
[a bloc of the self-proclaimed entities, including South Ossetia,
Abkhazia, Dniester and Nagornyy Karabakh] recently? Only several years
ago Karabakh was an active participant in the activities of the bloc.
[Melikyan] It is difficult to call that an activity. One should
not generalize all the conflicts. States of this kind must be
created where governments can rely on the public support and trust
the people. International recognition cannot be a goal for a state.
Suffice to recall a group of countries which have been internationally
recognized but which also have been rejected by the international
community and called "cursed" [as published] countries.
I refuse from formal logic on this issue. In my view, one should not
go the way of simple analogies. Too many a phenomenon in this world
change, sometimes unexpectedly for us. The change is not "unexpected"
because it is unnatural, but because it does not comply with the
rules of formal logic. It is necessary to dispel myths.
Principle of territorial integrity
[Fatullayev] One can sense that there are huge prospects for resolving
the Georgian-Abkhaz and Ossetian conflicts. This is shown by the
project of federalizing Georgia on which the European Union is working
hard. To all appearances, soon there will also be a breakthrough in
resolving the Dniester problem. Resolution of all these conflicts
seems possible provided that the principle of territorial integrity
of the countries is abided by. Can one expect a softer stance from
the Nagornyy Karabakh leadership in this sense?
[Melikyan] I think that we should not jump to conclusions when it
comes to issues of this kind. Priority of the principle of territorial
integrity is the wish of the international community. Eventually,
everything depends on the ability of the sides to understand each
other. Why should problems be resolved on the principle of territorial
integrity, rather than the right for self-determination? There are
certain precedents for these and other principles. Everything depends
on the goodwill of the sides and the mutual respect for the views of
each other.
Displaying goodwill
[Fatullayev] You say that Karabakh is ready for a constructive
dialogue. Then why do not you make at least statement displaying
your tolerance towards the other side. There is no doubt that this
would boost mutual trust between the Karabakh Armenians and the
Baku government.
[Melikyan] If they call you an enemy and a villain and will certainly
be killed, then what is the possible constructive stance? The most
we can do is to be patient and not respond to the Azerbaijani threats.
We are ready to make a statement of this kind, if the Baku government
stops threatening Nagornyy Karabakh. However, your government does not
display goodwill. What dialogue can there be when the Baku government
has secretly banned its NGOs and journalists from meeting their
Armenian counterparts.
Or remember the Azerbaijani officer who killed with an axe an
Armenian officer in Budapest. I understand that he felt the sorrow and
bitterness of the war, suffered losses and was under the influence of
extreme emotional disturbance. That is, it is possible to understand
him from a psychological point of view. Yet, I cannot understand your
society which tries to turn him into a hero.
Peacekeepers will not save us
[Fatullayev] Undoubtedly, one of the main obstacles to resolving the
Karabakh conflict is the fact that the lowland Karabakh has been
occupied. Karabakh is never tired of saying that the territories
seized are a kind of a "security zone" to protect Nagornyy Karabakh
from Azerbaijani attacks. Do not you think that the stage-by-stage
plan to resolve the conflict and liberation of several of the occupied
districts could boost trust between the sides? Is not the unequivocal
stance taken by the political centres of the world that troops will
be dispatched to stop the war in case military operations are resumed
the best guarantee for Nagornyy Karabakh?
[Melikyan] We frequently discuss the factor of foreign influence.
True, if we agree to this option, then a conditional line will be
created to separate the sides and the peacekeepers will be stationed
there. However, this does not mean that those peacekeepers will save
us. After a first shoot-out they will turn and leave for their bases.
They will not stand in the way of attacks of the Azerbaijani army.
Only if there is goodwill on the part of Azerbaijan, we can make
concessions.
Concessions must be mutual
[Fatullayev] However, there has been no incident so far when
peacekeepers failed to prevent resumption of military operations.
Yugoslavia can be cited as a case in point although the West was
clearly negative towards its government. What is more, peacekeepers
there did not turn and leave... [ellipsis as published]
[Melikyan] True, but the international community is very upset about
the results obtained in Yugoslavia. Back to the issue of territories.
Why does everyone expect a gesture of goodwill not from Azerbaijan
but from Karabakh? They first demanded that we liberate four, then six
districts. Now they insist on seven districts. Perhaps we should submit
them the entire Nagornyy Karabakh and move to a different country?
This is not possible. Compromise is possible only on the basis of
parity. People in Karabakh know perfectly well what is war. They
know that they will not cede what they obtained through combat and
bloodshed. I mean not territories, but the right to elect a government
of their own. If you ask for a compromise, be ready yourself for
concessions.
Yeni Musavat, Baku
19 Mar 05
The foreign minister of Azerbaijan's breakaway region of Nagornyy
Karabakh, Armen Melikyan, has dismissed the idea of stationing
peacekeepers as a guarantee of security for Nagornyy Karabakh. In an
interview with a visiting Azerbaijani journalist Eynulla Fatullayev,
Melikyan said: "They will not stand in the way of attacks of the
Azerbaijani army." He also described as "nonsense" liberating the
Armenian-controlled territories around Nagornyy Karabakh without
concessions on the part of Azerbaijan. The following is the text of
Eynulla Fatullayev's report translated from Russian and published by
Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 19 March headlined "We are ready
for talks with Azerbaijan's minister of internal affairs" and subheaded
"The 'foreign minister' of the separatist regime, Armen Melikyan:
'We should all try to escape the cul-de-sac'"; subheadings have been
inserted editorially:
Introduction by Yeni Musavat
Well-known journalist Eynulla Fatullayev has recently paid a visit
to Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh and met several enemy officials and
interviewed them. Our readers are already familiar with the interview
of the leader of the separatists, [Nagornyy Karabakh President] Arkadiy
Gukasyan. Today we publish the interview with the "foreign minister"
of the puppet entity, Armen Melikyan, with short abridgements. In
our opinion, it will be interesting in terms of finding out about
the mood of the enemy, learning the truth and making more accurate
calculations about the future.
Status of Nagornyy Karabakh in peace talks
We met [Nagornyy Karabakh Foreign Minister Armen] Melikyan in
Yerevan, in the new office of the "NKR" [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic].
It is interesting, what are his views on resolving the conflict?
Considering that Melikyan is a member of the new generation of
Karabakh politicians, it is possible to say that the "minister's"
views should be interesting.
[Fatullayev] Until 1997, the political leadership of Nagornyy Karabakh
took part in the peace process as the Armenian community. What caused
Karabakh to seek a broader status?
[Melikyan] I am aware that Nagornyy Karabakh took part in the talks
as a community. Azerbaijan tried to achieve the participation of the
Azerbaijani community of Karabakh in the shape of Nizami Bahmanov
[head of the community] but Karabakh rejected that. The format of
negotiations included then three sides: Azerbaijan, Armenia and
Nagornyy Karabakh. In the wake of the Budapest summit of the OSCE,
which recognized Nagornyy Karabakh as a side to the war, and in the
wake of the Bishkek agreements [on cease-fire], which were signed
by Nagornyy Karabakh, we acted as an independent party. I cannot say
that Karabakh is represented on the level of a community.
Direct talks can be fruitful
[Fatullayev] [Azerbaijani President] Ilham Aliyev has urged Armenia
to leave Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh tete-a-tete. He said that
"we will ourselves find a common language with Karabakh" then. What
was the attitude of the Nagornyy Karabakh leadership to this proposal?
[Melikyan] To be frank, it was calm. We have always been for direct
talks with Baku. I think it is abnormal that we are not represented in
the talks. I do not think it is quite right that Armenia participates
in the negotiations. This may be connected with Azerbaijan's harsh
stance and the international community's attitude to the issue. Many
believed that non-participation of Karabakh in the peace process will
pay great dividends. However, time showed that not taking Nagornyy
Karabakh seriously only delays resolution of the conflict.
The Karabakh problem appeared with the Soviet Socialist Republic of
Azerbaijan and it has resulted in what we see now. The demise of the
USSR has had a negative impact. Unfortunately, relations between our
peoples have worsened because the then leaders of the three sides
were inexperienced and were not far-sighted.
War is a great human tragedy. We could not reach mutual agreement to
avoid bloodshed. However, this is all past now. We must now try to
find a way out of this cul-de-sac. I reckon that direct talks between
Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh can be very fruitful. At any rate,
we will be able to avoid distorting the truth.
Liberating occupied territories is nonsense
[Fatullayev] In your opinion, what is the likelihood of Azerbaijan
accepting Nagornyy Karabakh as a party to talks if the occupied
territories of lowland Karabakh are freed?
[Melikyan] According to information that we have, Azerbaijan continues
to put forward the demands of liberating these or other territories,
even liberation of all territories, including Nagornyy Karabakh. This
is nonsense. Taking control of Azerbaijan's territories, we resolved
a military-political problem and reduced the front line. War dictates
its own rules. What matters today is the result.
That is, we responded with force to force and one of the sides
consequently suffered a military defeat. The primary cause of the
conflict is resolving the status of Nagornyy Karabakh. The Karabakh
Armenians must see a guarantee for their existence in the new
Azerbaijani Constitution. They may have compelling reasons for that.
Repressive steps taken by the Baku government against Armenians who
densely populated some districts of Azerbaijan have left no alternative
way for the Karabakh Armenians.
This was a war between the Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan. I fail
to understand it when Azerbaijan blames either Russia, or the West,
or the Armenian diaspora for inciting the conflict.
[Fatullayev] Are you ready to accept the model of Nagornyy Karabakh's
participation in the talks in exchange for the evacuation of several
districts?
[Melikyan] I cannot completely rule our that possibility. Anyway,
I do not see any obstacle on our side to discussing all the aspects
of the conflict. It is a different question whether a formula for an
agreement will be reached or no.
The main issue is to find a common language. If there is no will
to reach an agreement, then there will be no agreement. However,
we must look at each other in new ways.
[Fatullayev] Some of our political scientists have suggested that the
Azerbaijani government start the talks with Nagornyy Karabakh on the
level of interior minister. Are you ready for that?
[Melikyan] It depends on the powers conferred on the interior
minister who will be conducting the talks. In this sense, it is not
important for us what is the position of the leader of the Azerbaijani
delegation. We are ready to begin the talks with Azerbaijan's interior
minister.
Melikyan dispenses with formal logic
[Fatullayev] Why has Nagornyy Karabakh distanced itself from the CIS-2
[a bloc of the self-proclaimed entities, including South Ossetia,
Abkhazia, Dniester and Nagornyy Karabakh] recently? Only several years
ago Karabakh was an active participant in the activities of the bloc.
[Melikyan] It is difficult to call that an activity. One should
not generalize all the conflicts. States of this kind must be
created where governments can rely on the public support and trust
the people. International recognition cannot be a goal for a state.
Suffice to recall a group of countries which have been internationally
recognized but which also have been rejected by the international
community and called "cursed" [as published] countries.
I refuse from formal logic on this issue. In my view, one should not
go the way of simple analogies. Too many a phenomenon in this world
change, sometimes unexpectedly for us. The change is not "unexpected"
because it is unnatural, but because it does not comply with the
rules of formal logic. It is necessary to dispel myths.
Principle of territorial integrity
[Fatullayev] One can sense that there are huge prospects for resolving
the Georgian-Abkhaz and Ossetian conflicts. This is shown by the
project of federalizing Georgia on which the European Union is working
hard. To all appearances, soon there will also be a breakthrough in
resolving the Dniester problem. Resolution of all these conflicts
seems possible provided that the principle of territorial integrity
of the countries is abided by. Can one expect a softer stance from
the Nagornyy Karabakh leadership in this sense?
[Melikyan] I think that we should not jump to conclusions when it
comes to issues of this kind. Priority of the principle of territorial
integrity is the wish of the international community. Eventually,
everything depends on the ability of the sides to understand each
other. Why should problems be resolved on the principle of territorial
integrity, rather than the right for self-determination? There are
certain precedents for these and other principles. Everything depends
on the goodwill of the sides and the mutual respect for the views of
each other.
Displaying goodwill
[Fatullayev] You say that Karabakh is ready for a constructive
dialogue. Then why do not you make at least statement displaying
your tolerance towards the other side. There is no doubt that this
would boost mutual trust between the Karabakh Armenians and the
Baku government.
[Melikyan] If they call you an enemy and a villain and will certainly
be killed, then what is the possible constructive stance? The most
we can do is to be patient and not respond to the Azerbaijani threats.
We are ready to make a statement of this kind, if the Baku government
stops threatening Nagornyy Karabakh. However, your government does not
display goodwill. What dialogue can there be when the Baku government
has secretly banned its NGOs and journalists from meeting their
Armenian counterparts.
Or remember the Azerbaijani officer who killed with an axe an
Armenian officer in Budapest. I understand that he felt the sorrow and
bitterness of the war, suffered losses and was under the influence of
extreme emotional disturbance. That is, it is possible to understand
him from a psychological point of view. Yet, I cannot understand your
society which tries to turn him into a hero.
Peacekeepers will not save us
[Fatullayev] Undoubtedly, one of the main obstacles to resolving the
Karabakh conflict is the fact that the lowland Karabakh has been
occupied. Karabakh is never tired of saying that the territories
seized are a kind of a "security zone" to protect Nagornyy Karabakh
from Azerbaijani attacks. Do not you think that the stage-by-stage
plan to resolve the conflict and liberation of several of the occupied
districts could boost trust between the sides? Is not the unequivocal
stance taken by the political centres of the world that troops will
be dispatched to stop the war in case military operations are resumed
the best guarantee for Nagornyy Karabakh?
[Melikyan] We frequently discuss the factor of foreign influence.
True, if we agree to this option, then a conditional line will be
created to separate the sides and the peacekeepers will be stationed
there. However, this does not mean that those peacekeepers will save
us. After a first shoot-out they will turn and leave for their bases.
They will not stand in the way of attacks of the Azerbaijani army.
Only if there is goodwill on the part of Azerbaijan, we can make
concessions.
Concessions must be mutual
[Fatullayev] However, there has been no incident so far when
peacekeepers failed to prevent resumption of military operations.
Yugoslavia can be cited as a case in point although the West was
clearly negative towards its government. What is more, peacekeepers
there did not turn and leave... [ellipsis as published]
[Melikyan] True, but the international community is very upset about
the results obtained in Yugoslavia. Back to the issue of territories.
Why does everyone expect a gesture of goodwill not from Azerbaijan
but from Karabakh? They first demanded that we liberate four, then six
districts. Now they insist on seven districts. Perhaps we should submit
them the entire Nagornyy Karabakh and move to a different country?
This is not possible. Compromise is possible only on the basis of
parity. People in Karabakh know perfectly well what is war. They
know that they will not cede what they obtained through combat and
bloodshed. I mean not territories, but the right to elect a government
of their own. If you ask for a compromise, be ready yourself for
concessions.