Tweet
Press and Information Department
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Armenia
Tel. + 37410 544041. ext. 202
Fax. + 37410 565601
e-mail: [email protected]
web: www.armeniaforeignministry.am
MINISTER OSKANIAN RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS BY Arminfo News Agency ON THE
UN RESOLUTION ON KARABAKH, AS WELL AS THE DOMESTIC SITUATION
The resolution presented at the UN General Assembly by Azerbaijan was
passed. How do you assess what happened and how will it change things?
The actual passage of the resolution, I assess negatively. It was
unnecessary, ill-timed, mean-spirited, both as a process and a
product. But I'm satisfied with the number of countries that did not
support it. I assess their decisions positively. This is a
non-binding, or consultative pronouncement by the General Assembly, I
don't think it will have an affect on the process, unless Azerbaijan
is engaged not just in deception but self-deception.
If they expect to use this for anything other than their domestic
purposes, if they have convinced themselves that the international
community truly supports the one-sided desires they had enumerated in
the text of this resolution, then this will cause serious problems in
the negotations. One thing must be clear for Azerbaijan - that no
amount of resolutions will make Nagorno Karabakh deviate from its path
of self-determination.
Then, how do you know if they are serious about the negotiations?
Fortunately, we will have an opportunity soon to find out. There is a
possibility that Armenia's President-Elect will meet with the
Azerbaijani President in Bucharest, in the framework of the NATO-EAPC
Summit. We've stated our readiness to participate, I know the
co-chairs will make such a proposal, and I know the Azeris have also
hinted that they are ready to continue the dialogue at the highest
levels. During that first meeting this issue can be
clarified. President-Elect Sargsyan can ask President Aliyev point
blank - if you truly believe in the content of this resolution and if
that will be your guideline, then there's nothing to talk about and
let's not waste our time. But if you're still committed to the
negotiating document on the table today, then let's get serious and
go the short distance that's left. Indeed, the UN resolution text
and the content of the negotiating document are incompatible; most of
the international community recognized this which is why they di d
not support it.
But still 39 countries voted in favor.
They did not vote in favor of the content of the resolution, they
voted in favor of the sponsor - Azerbaijan. Those who voted 'yes' were
either members of GUAM or of the Organization of Islamic Conference. I
think if UN General Assembly resolutions were actually binding, then
many of those who abstained would have in fact voted against the
resolution.
However, I don't want to deal in conjectures. This is the time to
understand that there is no other option but negotiations. Show me one
example in history when a conflict has been resolved by the passage or
acceptance of a document by an international organization or by third
countries. There hasn't happened and it's not going to happen now,
certainly not in the case of Nagorno Karabakh. In 1948, the UN General
Assembly resolution to partition Palestine didn't solve anything. More
recently, the Security Council resolution on Kosovo also didn't manage
to bring the sides together in a meaningful way. I remember in Lisbon
when the OSCE Chairman-in-Office made a statement about Nagorno
Karabakh, Azerbaijan's joy knew no limits. It took years for
Azerbaijan to understand that that document had no value.
There is only one document that can resolve this conflict: that is the
one that will be signed by Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh and
Armenia. Let me say again that the document on the table now, given to
the parties at the highest levels in Madrid and deposited at the OSCE
Secretariat, should be the guiding principle for a real sustainable
resolution of the conflict.
On the day the resolution was being voted on, you were in Europe. This
was your first trip since the elections and the post-election
disaster. What reactions did you receive? What was Europe's message?
This was a forum where the policy makers of the US, Europe and beyond
were all present. Not only did I meet a lot of people, ironically, I
was a keynote speaker in a session on Europe's path to the Caucasus,
where the primary focus was of course on democracy. This had been
scheduled months before the election, and although I would have said
the same things whether the post-election events had taken place or
not, the situation was more sensitive and the stakes were
higher. Indeed, Armenia has taken a beating because of the riots and
the deaths. No one was interested in asking or knowing who did
what. They looked at this as an Armenian mess, an Armenian tragedy, an
Armenian problem and judged us all together. It's not the government
that's damaged, it's not the opposition that's discredited, it's
Armenia that is dishonored.
My task there was to accept their criticism, listen to their
disappointment, share their frustration and try to explain that this
was not a permanent setback, but a temporary aberration from the path
to which we're commited. I hope I'm not wrong. My judgment - and their
assessment - will be tested by what happens in the coming weeks and
months. What was clear was that despite all this, there's a lot of
good will towards Armenia, a lot of hope pinned on Armenia, and a
sincere desire to see us come through this in a meaninful way, not
just superficially moving forward with business as usual.
How do we do that? What's the way out?
This conference was in Brussels, and most of the people I met with
were from Europe, and the EU leadership. They repeated the points
they had made last week - that they expected the state of emergency
lifted, they expected dialogue, they wanted the issue of detentions
addressed, and they expected a return to unrestricted media. It was
clear that there is a great deal of overlap between their requirements
and the desires of the government and the statements of the
opposition.
What the EU wants is what the Armenian people want. In my view, all of
those basic expectations can be met, they are and must be doable
considering that the people's faith and trust, the integrity of our
society and the future of our city and country are at stake.
We too want the state of emergency lifted, and as the President has
said there have been no infractions, and the State of Emergency will
be lifted as scheduled.
The matter of detentions is very critical and very important. Of
course we do not want to become a country of political
prisoners. Those who have political association and have acted
criminally must be punished. But artificial criminal charges should
not be used to isolate political figures.
The opposition cannot continue to act to risk everything. They did
that on the afternoon and evening of March 1. If what they want are
political, economic and social changes, they can use the strength of
their support base to insist on those changes. We have a
president-elect who has said he understands the depth of the
frustration and dissatisfaction and is committed to bringing change.
The political changes, the healing and the building are going to take
a very very long time. They will be made more difficult by the rumors,
the distrust, the fear, the readiness to believe the worst. Perhaps we
can set aside the opposition's sense of entitlement and the
government's self-assuredness, and actually conduct an independent,
transparent investigation over what happened on March 1, even as we
engage in real dialogue about what's to come.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Armenia
Tel. + 37410 544041. ext. 202
Fax. + 37410 565601
e-mail: [email protected]
web: www.armeniaforeignministry.am
MINISTER OSKANIAN RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS BY Arminfo News Agency ON THE
UN RESOLUTION ON KARABAKH, AS WELL AS THE DOMESTIC SITUATION
The resolution presented at the UN General Assembly by Azerbaijan was
passed. How do you assess what happened and how will it change things?
The actual passage of the resolution, I assess negatively. It was
unnecessary, ill-timed, mean-spirited, both as a process and a
product. But I'm satisfied with the number of countries that did not
support it. I assess their decisions positively. This is a
non-binding, or consultative pronouncement by the General Assembly, I
don't think it will have an affect on the process, unless Azerbaijan
is engaged not just in deception but self-deception.
If they expect to use this for anything other than their domestic
purposes, if they have convinced themselves that the international
community truly supports the one-sided desires they had enumerated in
the text of this resolution, then this will cause serious problems in
the negotations. One thing must be clear for Azerbaijan - that no
amount of resolutions will make Nagorno Karabakh deviate from its path
of self-determination.
Then, how do you know if they are serious about the negotiations?
Fortunately, we will have an opportunity soon to find out. There is a
possibility that Armenia's President-Elect will meet with the
Azerbaijani President in Bucharest, in the framework of the NATO-EAPC
Summit. We've stated our readiness to participate, I know the
co-chairs will make such a proposal, and I know the Azeris have also
hinted that they are ready to continue the dialogue at the highest
levels. During that first meeting this issue can be
clarified. President-Elect Sargsyan can ask President Aliyev point
blank - if you truly believe in the content of this resolution and if
that will be your guideline, then there's nothing to talk about and
let's not waste our time. But if you're still committed to the
negotiating document on the table today, then let's get serious and
go the short distance that's left. Indeed, the UN resolution text
and the content of the negotiating document are incompatible; most of
the international community recognized this which is why they di d
not support it.
But still 39 countries voted in favor.
They did not vote in favor of the content of the resolution, they
voted in favor of the sponsor - Azerbaijan. Those who voted 'yes' were
either members of GUAM or of the Organization of Islamic Conference. I
think if UN General Assembly resolutions were actually binding, then
many of those who abstained would have in fact voted against the
resolution.
However, I don't want to deal in conjectures. This is the time to
understand that there is no other option but negotiations. Show me one
example in history when a conflict has been resolved by the passage or
acceptance of a document by an international organization or by third
countries. There hasn't happened and it's not going to happen now,
certainly not in the case of Nagorno Karabakh. In 1948, the UN General
Assembly resolution to partition Palestine didn't solve anything. More
recently, the Security Council resolution on Kosovo also didn't manage
to bring the sides together in a meaningful way. I remember in Lisbon
when the OSCE Chairman-in-Office made a statement about Nagorno
Karabakh, Azerbaijan's joy knew no limits. It took years for
Azerbaijan to understand that that document had no value.
There is only one document that can resolve this conflict: that is the
one that will be signed by Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh and
Armenia. Let me say again that the document on the table now, given to
the parties at the highest levels in Madrid and deposited at the OSCE
Secretariat, should be the guiding principle for a real sustainable
resolution of the conflict.
On the day the resolution was being voted on, you were in Europe. This
was your first trip since the elections and the post-election
disaster. What reactions did you receive? What was Europe's message?
This was a forum where the policy makers of the US, Europe and beyond
were all present. Not only did I meet a lot of people, ironically, I
was a keynote speaker in a session on Europe's path to the Caucasus,
where the primary focus was of course on democracy. This had been
scheduled months before the election, and although I would have said
the same things whether the post-election events had taken place or
not, the situation was more sensitive and the stakes were
higher. Indeed, Armenia has taken a beating because of the riots and
the deaths. No one was interested in asking or knowing who did
what. They looked at this as an Armenian mess, an Armenian tragedy, an
Armenian problem and judged us all together. It's not the government
that's damaged, it's not the opposition that's discredited, it's
Armenia that is dishonored.
My task there was to accept their criticism, listen to their
disappointment, share their frustration and try to explain that this
was not a permanent setback, but a temporary aberration from the path
to which we're commited. I hope I'm not wrong. My judgment - and their
assessment - will be tested by what happens in the coming weeks and
months. What was clear was that despite all this, there's a lot of
good will towards Armenia, a lot of hope pinned on Armenia, and a
sincere desire to see us come through this in a meaninful way, not
just superficially moving forward with business as usual.
How do we do that? What's the way out?
This conference was in Brussels, and most of the people I met with
were from Europe, and the EU leadership. They repeated the points
they had made last week - that they expected the state of emergency
lifted, they expected dialogue, they wanted the issue of detentions
addressed, and they expected a return to unrestricted media. It was
clear that there is a great deal of overlap between their requirements
and the desires of the government and the statements of the
opposition.
What the EU wants is what the Armenian people want. In my view, all of
those basic expectations can be met, they are and must be doable
considering that the people's faith and trust, the integrity of our
society and the future of our city and country are at stake.
We too want the state of emergency lifted, and as the President has
said there have been no infractions, and the State of Emergency will
be lifted as scheduled.
The matter of detentions is very critical and very important. Of
course we do not want to become a country of political
prisoners. Those who have political association and have acted
criminally must be punished. But artificial criminal charges should
not be used to isolate political figures.
The opposition cannot continue to act to risk everything. They did
that on the afternoon and evening of March 1. If what they want are
political, economic and social changes, they can use the strength of
their support base to insist on those changes. We have a
president-elect who has said he understands the depth of the
frustration and dissatisfaction and is committed to bringing change.
The political changes, the healing and the building are going to take
a very very long time. They will be made more difficult by the rumors,
the distrust, the fear, the readiness to believe the worst. Perhaps we
can set aside the opposition's sense of entitlement and the
government's self-assuredness, and actually conduct an independent,
transparent investigation over what happened on March 1, even as we
engage in real dialogue about what's to come.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress