Tweet
PanARMENIAN.Net
Hovhannes Igityan:
Karabakh Conflict: Not Making Jerks Very Important
Today
Legal basis for existence of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic (NKR) is becoming increasingly important for
further steps for peace settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh (NK) conflict. Azerbaijan makes more
persistent statements on UN resolutions, which in
Baku's opinion fully meet Azerbaijan's interests.
Besides, Baku flatly objects to a referendum in NK.
Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of
the National Assembly of Armenia in 1995-1999
Hovhannes Igityan presents his vision of the problem
to PanARMENIAN.Net.
08.03.2006 GMT+04:00
Which are the legal bases for recognizing the NKR a
party at the negotiation process?
The referendum in 1991 was fully in line with the
legal framework of the USSR. As you remember, there
was a Law on Withdrawal of a Union republic, which
also provided for secession of an autonomous republic
or district. That was exactly that referendum, which
made the NKR a legal party to the conflict. As you
remember, the UN has adopted several resolutions on
the Karabakh conflict. These maintain positive
nuances, as they not merely condemn the activities of
local forces and urge to abandon the seized regions.
As a matter of fact the resolutions legalize Nagorno
Karabakh as a party to negotiations from the legal
point of view.
In my opinion a new referendum on the status of
Nagorno Karabakh, proposed at the Rambouillet meeting
of the Armenian and Azeri Presidents, is a trap. The
returns of the referendum on NKR's independence in
1991 are in fact canceled if it is the case. The move
can be considered as a concession by Azerbaijan,
however it is not so. The NKR should be the one to set
conditions of holding (or not holding) a referendum. A
legal formula should be «invented» for displaced
persons and refugees - only the NKR Ministry of
Internal Affairs can deal with that.
Which are the recent changes in the settlement
process?
The format of peace talks over the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict has changed during the 7-8 years. Both
subjective and objective factors were present in this
case. In 1998 new President Robert Kocharian came to
power and the foreign policy changed naturally. New
authorities pursued the policy of bilateral talks
between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which suited the
opposing party rather well. The methodology of the
conflict changed. Azerbaijan started calling Armenia
an aggressor country exclusively. Azeris said it so
many times, that they started believing it even
themselves.
Each new meeting of the two presidents and mediators
only legalized that new format. The OSCE MG accepted
those changes with pleasure - there was one problem
solved. However, it should not be forgotten that
signatures of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the NKR are
under the Bishkek agreement on cease-fire. As of the
participation of the so-called «Azeri community» of
NK, lead by Nizami Bakhmanov, in the talks, it is
absurd at all. Nizami Bakhmanov is not a juridical
person and is not entitled to represent anyone.
What can be expected if the conflict enters a phase of
hostilities?
Presently it's very important not to make jerks and
harsh statements. Large-scale hostilities may change
the format of the talks. A totally different
atmosphere will be formed and countries wide of the
conflict will settle the Nagorno Karabakh problem. By
the way, this is the purpose of Azerbaijan, which says
that the OSCE MG is already exhausted and tries to
transfer the issue to the UN.
I also want to remind of the right to
self-determination of nations within the UN has been
transformed in the right of peoples. Any change in the
format demands new legal basis. In this case Armenia
and NKR can face the worst scenario - something like
the Moscow Treaty of 1921 between Soviet Russia and
Turkey or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
«PanARMENIAN.Net», 08.03.2006
Hovhannes Igityan:
Karabakh Conflict: Not Making Jerks Very Important
Today
Legal basis for existence of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic (NKR) is becoming increasingly important for
further steps for peace settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh (NK) conflict. Azerbaijan makes more
persistent statements on UN resolutions, which in
Baku's opinion fully meet Azerbaijan's interests.
Besides, Baku flatly objects to a referendum in NK.
Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of
the National Assembly of Armenia in 1995-1999
Hovhannes Igityan presents his vision of the problem
to PanARMENIAN.Net.
08.03.2006 GMT+04:00
Which are the legal bases for recognizing the NKR a
party at the negotiation process?
The referendum in 1991 was fully in line with the
legal framework of the USSR. As you remember, there
was a Law on Withdrawal of a Union republic, which
also provided for secession of an autonomous republic
or district. That was exactly that referendum, which
made the NKR a legal party to the conflict. As you
remember, the UN has adopted several resolutions on
the Karabakh conflict. These maintain positive
nuances, as they not merely condemn the activities of
local forces and urge to abandon the seized regions.
As a matter of fact the resolutions legalize Nagorno
Karabakh as a party to negotiations from the legal
point of view.
In my opinion a new referendum on the status of
Nagorno Karabakh, proposed at the Rambouillet meeting
of the Armenian and Azeri Presidents, is a trap. The
returns of the referendum on NKR's independence in
1991 are in fact canceled if it is the case. The move
can be considered as a concession by Azerbaijan,
however it is not so. The NKR should be the one to set
conditions of holding (or not holding) a referendum. A
legal formula should be «invented» for displaced
persons and refugees - only the NKR Ministry of
Internal Affairs can deal with that.
Which are the recent changes in the settlement
process?
The format of peace talks over the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict has changed during the 7-8 years. Both
subjective and objective factors were present in this
case. In 1998 new President Robert Kocharian came to
power and the foreign policy changed naturally. New
authorities pursued the policy of bilateral talks
between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which suited the
opposing party rather well. The methodology of the
conflict changed. Azerbaijan started calling Armenia
an aggressor country exclusively. Azeris said it so
many times, that they started believing it even
themselves.
Each new meeting of the two presidents and mediators
only legalized that new format. The OSCE MG accepted
those changes with pleasure - there was one problem
solved. However, it should not be forgotten that
signatures of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the NKR are
under the Bishkek agreement on cease-fire. As of the
participation of the so-called «Azeri community» of
NK, lead by Nizami Bakhmanov, in the talks, it is
absurd at all. Nizami Bakhmanov is not a juridical
person and is not entitled to represent anyone.
What can be expected if the conflict enters a phase of
hostilities?
Presently it's very important not to make jerks and
harsh statements. Large-scale hostilities may change
the format of the talks. A totally different
atmosphere will be formed and countries wide of the
conflict will settle the Nagorno Karabakh problem. By
the way, this is the purpose of Azerbaijan, which says
that the OSCE MG is already exhausted and tries to
transfer the issue to the UN.
I also want to remind of the right to
self-determination of nations within the UN has been
transformed in the right of peoples. Any change in the
format demands new legal basis. In this case Armenia
and NKR can face the worst scenario - something like
the Moscow Treaty of 1921 between Soviet Russia and
Turkey or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
«PanARMENIAN.Net», 08.03.2006