Tweet
HERITAGE PARTY CONCERNED OVER KAZAN MEETING
Tert.am
23.06.11
Ahead of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents' meeting in Kazan,
the opposition Heritage party has issued statement, expressing concerns
over the prospects of signing a document on the settlement of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict without the country's direct involvement
in the process.
The text of the statement is provided below:
1. We reject the efforts to present as negotiations the
Armenia-Azerbaijan format of meetings, which are held in the absence
of the legitimate authorities of the Mountainous Karabakh Republic
(MKR), or Artsakh, as well as the attempts to impose solutions as
their result. In addition, and while highly evaluating the mediators'
efforts, we consider the adopted path to be not solely at an impasse,
but also a process which poses new perils and leads to destabilization.
2. We assess the distortion of the format of negotiations, as a
product of Azerbaijani pressure, to be a policy of altering the
essence, history, and prospect for a just resolution of the Karabakh
conflict, as a result of which: a) contrary to irrefutable facts,
efforts are made in order to portray the aggressor Azerbaijan as
a victim, to compel respect for Soviet Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity-which no longer exists-and to recognize as "occupant" the
Armenian side which has defended itself against genocidal massacres,
a unilaterally unleashed and failed war of aggression, and continued
sabotage; b) by imposing unilateral concessions upon MKR, an attempt
is made toward violating its sovereignty and territorial integrity;
and c) by method of deeming MKR's establishment unlawful, an objective
is pursued toward carrying out what can never be achieved: MKR's
forcible annexation to Azerbaijan.
3. We regard the prospect of Armenia's endorsement of a document
which is designed under force or duress by Azerbaijan, and in MKR's
absence, as a criminal plot that is condemned to fail against MKR,
which has lawfully self-determined, decolonized, and established
itself and thus is worthy of international recognition.
4. We remind and caution the Armenian president who heads for Kazan
that:
~U any meeting held without the presence of the legitimate
representatives of MKR, or any document which is born from such a
meeting, is legally null and void;
~U his commitment under oath is not to foreign leaders, as the
Deauville Statement implies, but rather before the entire Armenian
nation;
~U the respect and recognition of Artsakh's fundamental sovereignty
and territorial integrity is the constitutional duty of the Armenian
president, this truth cannot be a bargaining chip, and therefore MKR's
right to hold direct peace talks and to be recognized must be restored;
~U the maintenance of the current format of the talks, or its
toleration hereafter, will mean a readiness not to recognize MKR's
sovereignty and integrity, de jure and de facto alike; and
~U formal participation in this conspiracy will entail his effective
self-resignation from the homeland and his official duty and, in
the event of such unacceptable developments, he must be prepared to
legalize such resignation through the conduct of pre-term presidential
elections.
Tert.am
23.06.11
Ahead of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents' meeting in Kazan,
the opposition Heritage party has issued statement, expressing concerns
over the prospects of signing a document on the settlement of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict without the country's direct involvement
in the process.
The text of the statement is provided below:
1. We reject the efforts to present as negotiations the
Armenia-Azerbaijan format of meetings, which are held in the absence
of the legitimate authorities of the Mountainous Karabakh Republic
(MKR), or Artsakh, as well as the attempts to impose solutions as
their result. In addition, and while highly evaluating the mediators'
efforts, we consider the adopted path to be not solely at an impasse,
but also a process which poses new perils and leads to destabilization.
2. We assess the distortion of the format of negotiations, as a
product of Azerbaijani pressure, to be a policy of altering the
essence, history, and prospect for a just resolution of the Karabakh
conflict, as a result of which: a) contrary to irrefutable facts,
efforts are made in order to portray the aggressor Azerbaijan as
a victim, to compel respect for Soviet Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity-which no longer exists-and to recognize as "occupant" the
Armenian side which has defended itself against genocidal massacres,
a unilaterally unleashed and failed war of aggression, and continued
sabotage; b) by imposing unilateral concessions upon MKR, an attempt
is made toward violating its sovereignty and territorial integrity;
and c) by method of deeming MKR's establishment unlawful, an objective
is pursued toward carrying out what can never be achieved: MKR's
forcible annexation to Azerbaijan.
3. We regard the prospect of Armenia's endorsement of a document
which is designed under force or duress by Azerbaijan, and in MKR's
absence, as a criminal plot that is condemned to fail against MKR,
which has lawfully self-determined, decolonized, and established
itself and thus is worthy of international recognition.
4. We remind and caution the Armenian president who heads for Kazan
that:
~U any meeting held without the presence of the legitimate
representatives of MKR, or any document which is born from such a
meeting, is legally null and void;
~U his commitment under oath is not to foreign leaders, as the
Deauville Statement implies, but rather before the entire Armenian
nation;
~U the respect and recognition of Artsakh's fundamental sovereignty
and territorial integrity is the constitutional duty of the Armenian
president, this truth cannot be a bargaining chip, and therefore MKR's
right to hold direct peace talks and to be recognized must be restored;
~U the maintenance of the current format of the talks, or its
toleration hereafter, will mean a readiness not to recognize MKR's
sovereignty and integrity, de jure and de facto alike; and
~U formal participation in this conspiracy will entail his effective
self-resignation from the homeland and his official duty and, in
the event of such unacceptable developments, he must be prepared to
legalize such resignation through the conduct of pre-term presidential
elections.