Tweet
Today.Az, Azerbaijan
May 8 2008
Arif Yunusov: "There is a split in the Armenian society, but not on
the Karabakh issue"
08 May 2008 [12:47] - Today.Az
Day.Az interview with famous conflict expert Asif Yunusov.
-How would you comment on the announcement of Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyan, who said that the discussed document on
the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict envisions plebiscite on
the definition of Nagorno Karabakh status?
-The definition of the most important and painful issue-the status of
Nagorno Karabakh-by way of a referendum, is really a basis of the
current stage of talks, best known as a Prague process.
This announcement was not a surprise or a sensation. The due
information was spread in early June of 2005, when Azerbaijan and
Armenian medias declared the details of a new plan, the called
"phased-packeted".
Its essence is the following: Armenians shall return five occupied
regions around Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijani
citizens shall return there under protection of the peacekeeping
forces; all communications and borders shall open between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. as well as between Armenia and Turkey;after it within
10-15 years, a referendum to define the status of this area:whether to
be annexed to Armenia, become an independent state or remain a part of
Azerbaijan- shall be held in Nagorno Karanakh.
AS the idea of a referendum was negatively assessed in Azerbaijan, a
month later, in August of 2005, deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan
Araz Azimov, confirming the fact of conduction of a referendum in the
framework of the conflict resolution, at a press conference in Baku,
tried to soften the reaction, saying that it is not known what will be
there in 15-20 years.
Whoever has stated it, including the Minsk Group co-chairs. Let's
recall their joint statement of June 22 of 2006, in which everything
was repeated, including the idea of referendum. Thus, I would repeat
that there is nothing new and sensational about the announcement of
Nalbandyan. He just repeated the facts that are well known to all of
us. The co-chairs have replaced the term "referendum", which bothers
most people in Azerbaijan, with "plebiscite", but the essence of the
case has not changed in the result. This is just a word tightrope
walking.
-At the same time, the leader of Democratic Party of Armenia Aram
Sarkissyan states that holding a plebiscite on the status of Nagorno
Karabakh is the most unlucky variant for Armenia and conduction of a
plebiscite is an anti-Armenian step, affecting Armenia and that thus,
in fact, the Armenian side recognizes incompetence of the creation of
"Nagorno Karabakh Republic". Why are there so many differences between
the Armenian politicians in this issue?
-Armenian politicians, especially those close to the ruling powers,
can be divided into to groups on the issues of the Nagorno Karabakh
status: radicals, which propose that the referendum on the status of
Nagorno Karabakh was already held in 1991 and resulted in declaration
of its independence by Armenians and therefore, considering that there
is no need for a new referendum. But most Armenian politicians,
especially among the ruling elite consider that referendum can be held
if only by this means it is possible to gain independence of Nagorno
Karabakh. It is important that Azerbaijan agree with the results of
referendum.
No one in Nagorno Karabakh has officially agreed for the resolution of
the problem in the framework of the Mardid principles-this
announcement was made by head of Democracy fraction, "chairman of the
parliamentary commission on external relations" of "Nagorno Karabakh
Republic" Vagram Atanesyan.
At the same time, active spokesman for Armenian Foreign Minister
Tigran Balayan said recently tyhat Madrid document is a basis for
talks on the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. How can you
explain the polarization in this issue?
-I have already answered this question. To certain extend, this is an
element of a political game or a maneuver. It means, that Armenian
authorities can reject their commitments, referring to the actions of
radicals, anytime, in case situation, favorable for them,
establishes. There are numerous political forces in the Armenian
society, which speak against the return of 7 regions, occupied along
with former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Moreover, they even
reject the term "occupied", preferring to say "released".
But the main role in the adoption of the decision is played not by
these powers but by those who are ready for a referendum with outcomes
predicted in advance, which is favorable for Armenians. But they are
not sure that Azerbaijan will gradually agree and sign the document on
the need to hold a referendum (or a plebiscite) to define the status
of Nagorno Karabakh. Thus, it is worthy to speak of the strong
polarization on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh among Armenian
politicians, especially, taking into account that the ruling forces in
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is the same clan and they define today
the political weather for Armenians.
-Thus, it can not be said that there is a split in the Armenian
society?
-The split in the Armenian society does exist, but it does not refer
to the Karabakh issue. In this issue unity is dominating with small
private and insignificant differences.But the split refers to other
issues, especially in the social life, after the events of March 1 of
2008 and it has not been overcome yet and will further play a
significant role, considering the painful reaction of Armenians to the
death of their compatriots.
-How can Azerbaijan use the current unstable situation in Armenia?
-Former Minister Vardan Oskanyan said not by accident that the March 1
events affected the image of Armenia. Previously they stated that
unlike Azerbaijan Armenia is better represented and listed as a more
democratic state in all the documents of international organizations,
especially human rights organizations. This was their advantage in the
negotiation process and during propaganda. Now they lack it.
And Azerbaijan in the light of the upcoming presidential elections
will have a chance to change the situation in its favor. For this
purpose, it should consider the mistakes of powers in Georgia and
Armenia and hold democratic process, settle the issue of political
prisoners, release reporters and on the whole change the situation in
the country.
This will immediately influence the attitude of the leading world
states and international organizations to Azerbaijan and, certainly,
to Karabakh.
/Day.Az/
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/44858.html
May 8 2008
Arif Yunusov: "There is a split in the Armenian society, but not on
the Karabakh issue"
08 May 2008 [12:47] - Today.Az
Day.Az interview with famous conflict expert Asif Yunusov.
-How would you comment on the announcement of Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyan, who said that the discussed document on
the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict envisions plebiscite on
the definition of Nagorno Karabakh status?
-The definition of the most important and painful issue-the status of
Nagorno Karabakh-by way of a referendum, is really a basis of the
current stage of talks, best known as a Prague process.
This announcement was not a surprise or a sensation. The due
information was spread in early June of 2005, when Azerbaijan and
Armenian medias declared the details of a new plan, the called
"phased-packeted".
Its essence is the following: Armenians shall return five occupied
regions around Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijani
citizens shall return there under protection of the peacekeeping
forces; all communications and borders shall open between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. as well as between Armenia and Turkey;after it within
10-15 years, a referendum to define the status of this area:whether to
be annexed to Armenia, become an independent state or remain a part of
Azerbaijan- shall be held in Nagorno Karanakh.
AS the idea of a referendum was negatively assessed in Azerbaijan, a
month later, in August of 2005, deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan
Araz Azimov, confirming the fact of conduction of a referendum in the
framework of the conflict resolution, at a press conference in Baku,
tried to soften the reaction, saying that it is not known what will be
there in 15-20 years.
Whoever has stated it, including the Minsk Group co-chairs. Let's
recall their joint statement of June 22 of 2006, in which everything
was repeated, including the idea of referendum. Thus, I would repeat
that there is nothing new and sensational about the announcement of
Nalbandyan. He just repeated the facts that are well known to all of
us. The co-chairs have replaced the term "referendum", which bothers
most people in Azerbaijan, with "plebiscite", but the essence of the
case has not changed in the result. This is just a word tightrope
walking.
-At the same time, the leader of Democratic Party of Armenia Aram
Sarkissyan states that holding a plebiscite on the status of Nagorno
Karabakh is the most unlucky variant for Armenia and conduction of a
plebiscite is an anti-Armenian step, affecting Armenia and that thus,
in fact, the Armenian side recognizes incompetence of the creation of
"Nagorno Karabakh Republic". Why are there so many differences between
the Armenian politicians in this issue?
-Armenian politicians, especially those close to the ruling powers,
can be divided into to groups on the issues of the Nagorno Karabakh
status: radicals, which propose that the referendum on the status of
Nagorno Karabakh was already held in 1991 and resulted in declaration
of its independence by Armenians and therefore, considering that there
is no need for a new referendum. But most Armenian politicians,
especially among the ruling elite consider that referendum can be held
if only by this means it is possible to gain independence of Nagorno
Karabakh. It is important that Azerbaijan agree with the results of
referendum.
No one in Nagorno Karabakh has officially agreed for the resolution of
the problem in the framework of the Mardid principles-this
announcement was made by head of Democracy fraction, "chairman of the
parliamentary commission on external relations" of "Nagorno Karabakh
Republic" Vagram Atanesyan.
At the same time, active spokesman for Armenian Foreign Minister
Tigran Balayan said recently tyhat Madrid document is a basis for
talks on the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. How can you
explain the polarization in this issue?
-I have already answered this question. To certain extend, this is an
element of a political game or a maneuver. It means, that Armenian
authorities can reject their commitments, referring to the actions of
radicals, anytime, in case situation, favorable for them,
establishes. There are numerous political forces in the Armenian
society, which speak against the return of 7 regions, occupied along
with former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Moreover, they even
reject the term "occupied", preferring to say "released".
But the main role in the adoption of the decision is played not by
these powers but by those who are ready for a referendum with outcomes
predicted in advance, which is favorable for Armenians. But they are
not sure that Azerbaijan will gradually agree and sign the document on
the need to hold a referendum (or a plebiscite) to define the status
of Nagorno Karabakh. Thus, it is worthy to speak of the strong
polarization on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh among Armenian
politicians, especially, taking into account that the ruling forces in
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is the same clan and they define today
the political weather for Armenians.
-Thus, it can not be said that there is a split in the Armenian
society?
-The split in the Armenian society does exist, but it does not refer
to the Karabakh issue. In this issue unity is dominating with small
private and insignificant differences.But the split refers to other
issues, especially in the social life, after the events of March 1 of
2008 and it has not been overcome yet and will further play a
significant role, considering the painful reaction of Armenians to the
death of their compatriots.
-How can Azerbaijan use the current unstable situation in Armenia?
-Former Minister Vardan Oskanyan said not by accident that the March 1
events affected the image of Armenia. Previously they stated that
unlike Azerbaijan Armenia is better represented and listed as a more
democratic state in all the documents of international organizations,
especially human rights organizations. This was their advantage in the
negotiation process and during propaganda. Now they lack it.
And Azerbaijan in the light of the upcoming presidential elections
will have a chance to change the situation in its favor. For this
purpose, it should consider the mistakes of powers in Georgia and
Armenia and hold democratic process, settle the issue of political
prisoners, release reporters and on the whole change the situation in
the country.
This will immediately influence the attitude of the leading world
states and international organizations to Azerbaijan and, certainly,
to Karabakh.
/Day.Az/
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/44858.html