Tweet
UNILATERAL CONCESSIONS ARE EXCLUDED
Ruzan Ishkhanian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=636:u nilateral-concessions-are-excluded&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Tuesday, 17 April 2012 05:58
There can never be a return to the years of 1988 and 1991 - both in
terms of status and territory
Recently, the mass media have reported about an interview of RA
Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandian to the German daily
newspaper Der Standard, in which, according to these sources,
the Minister had stated that the Armenian party was ready to cede
territories to Azerbaijan and to negotiate on the Madrid Principles.
In his commentary given to Azat Artsakh newspaper, Chief of the
Central Information Department of the NKR President's Office, political
scientist David Babayan noted that he was extremely skeptical about
the noted statement of the Minister, according to which, the Armenian
party is ready to cede territories to ensure that the negotiations
are conducted or enter a new phase. According to him, it's just some
comments in the press; quite another thing is discussion of the issue
of territories as such.
The politician scientist, first of all, advised to take the statements
of diplomats coolly, especially when they concern the process of the
Karabakh conflict settlement. Presenting the situation, he noted, in
particular, that to date, the mediators' work is focused on finding a
compromise between all the conflicting parties - Azerbaijan, the NKR,
and Armenia. It is clear that the parties have mutually exclusive
approaches: Azerbaijan considers the conflict settlement only in the
territorial context, i.e. wants to restore the territory of former
Soviet Azerbaijan; moreover, it lays claim to other territories -
Sevan, Zangezur, and others. Ilham Aliyev and other Azerbaijani
leaders present these territories to their society as Azerbaijani
territories. Â"We have a different positionÂ", continued D. Babayan.
Â"First, Artsakh is an independent Republic; second, there can never
be a return to the years of 1988 and 1991- both in terms of status
and territory. The current Nagorno Karabakh Republic as an independent
state cannot be viable within the boundaries of the former autonomous
district. These two conditions, that are obvious here, should be
clear to everybody, as they are of fundamental importanceÂ", he said.
As for the views and wishes of Azerbaijan for the settlement of the
conflict, then, as noted by the Chief of the Central Information
Department of the NKR President's Office, Artsakh will never be a
part of Azerbaijan in any form, whether it is an autonomous district,
autonomous republic, or the so-called broad autonomy. We are an
independent state, and our people will manage its own destiny -
whether to remain an independent state or to join Armenia in the
future... According to him, our domestic and foreign policy is based
on the idea of â~@~Kâ~@~Kan independent Republic.
And what do the mediators propose today? According to D. Babayan,
they try to find a middle ground: they put forward the ideas of
â~@~Kâ~@~Khuman rights, territorial integrity, and people's right to
self-determination. "Azerbaijan, of course, wants territories and we
put the emphasis on security, human rights and the right of nations to
self-determination. The statement of the RA Foreign Minister, perhaps,
should be considered from this viewpoint. Apparently, he made it
clear that the Armenian party is ready to discuss also the issue of
territories, but this does not mean at all that it is ready to make
unilateral territorial concessions in the hope of manifestation of
goodwill by Azerbaijan. In no case", said the political scientist.
Explaining the position of the Karabakh party, David Babayan noted that
the NKR authorities were ready to discuss the issue of territories,
since we also have territories under the Azerbaijani control -
the entire Shahumian region, the Getashen sub-region, some areas of
the Martakert and Martuni regions. So, we are ready to discuss and
not to cede the territories. And, indeed, any unilateral concession
is impossible, as it is not justified from the domestic and foreign
policy, as well as the geopolitical points of view. If Azerbaijan takes
a tough stance, i.e. refuses to discuss any issue and only repeats -
give me Karabakh with all its territory, it is just the problem of
Azerbaijan. In the diplomatic arena, the RA Foreign Minister can
state that the Armenian party is ready to start discussions on the
issue of territories. According D. Babayan, one should take such
statements coolly and understand what is happening.
The fact that Azerbaijan will not be ready to resolve the conflict in
the nearest future is more than obvious. So, the aggressor should not
be given the hope for â~@~Kâ~@~Kunilateral concessions. It promises
nothing positive. He recalled Nazi Germany of the 1930s, to which one
was ready to give everything just to curb somehow its appetite. The
humanity experienced the terrible consequences of this.
And what does the political scientist think about the statement of
the OSCE Minsk Group American Co-Chairman R. Bradtke, according to
whom the parties to the conflict are much closer to the settlement
than they suppose? In response, D. Babayan noted that this statement
fitted into the frameworks of the classical formula of diplomacy. The
parties believe that to date, it is impossible to achieve a consensus
on any issue, believing that it is impossible even in the nearest
future. And the American co-chair states: do not be so pessimistic;
perhaps, a consensus is possible, which is not, however, guessed even
by the parties themselves. One can agree or disagree with him.
In addition to the above mentioned, the political scientist noted that
the establishment of the Republic of Artsakh was, to some extent, also
the result of the war. At the beginning of the national-liberation
movement, the Armenians of Artsakh chose a civilized way: they
took their steps on building an independent state within the then
international laws. But, in response, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale
war, as a result of which the situation changed.
Naturally, the Armenian party takes into account the realities,
which followed the war, because the probability of its resumption
is always available. "Even a century after the conflict settlement,
certain problems can occur; therefore, from this viewpoint, the
settlement should be aimed at ensuring our security in all the
aspects - political, economic, military, and environmental. All this
should be taken into account. The current situation requires that
we consider the course and consequences of the war, as well as the
probability of its resumption. Proceeding from this, we should build
our future, making our domestic and foreign policy more specific",
said in conclusion the political scientist.
Ruzan Ishkhanian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=636:u nilateral-concessions-are-excluded&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Tuesday, 17 April 2012 05:58
There can never be a return to the years of 1988 and 1991 - both in
terms of status and territory
Recently, the mass media have reported about an interview of RA
Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandian to the German daily
newspaper Der Standard, in which, according to these sources,
the Minister had stated that the Armenian party was ready to cede
territories to Azerbaijan and to negotiate on the Madrid Principles.
In his commentary given to Azat Artsakh newspaper, Chief of the
Central Information Department of the NKR President's Office, political
scientist David Babayan noted that he was extremely skeptical about
the noted statement of the Minister, according to which, the Armenian
party is ready to cede territories to ensure that the negotiations
are conducted or enter a new phase. According to him, it's just some
comments in the press; quite another thing is discussion of the issue
of territories as such.
The politician scientist, first of all, advised to take the statements
of diplomats coolly, especially when they concern the process of the
Karabakh conflict settlement. Presenting the situation, he noted, in
particular, that to date, the mediators' work is focused on finding a
compromise between all the conflicting parties - Azerbaijan, the NKR,
and Armenia. It is clear that the parties have mutually exclusive
approaches: Azerbaijan considers the conflict settlement only in the
territorial context, i.e. wants to restore the territory of former
Soviet Azerbaijan; moreover, it lays claim to other territories -
Sevan, Zangezur, and others. Ilham Aliyev and other Azerbaijani
leaders present these territories to their society as Azerbaijani
territories. Â"We have a different positionÂ", continued D. Babayan.
Â"First, Artsakh is an independent Republic; second, there can never
be a return to the years of 1988 and 1991- both in terms of status
and territory. The current Nagorno Karabakh Republic as an independent
state cannot be viable within the boundaries of the former autonomous
district. These two conditions, that are obvious here, should be
clear to everybody, as they are of fundamental importanceÂ", he said.
As for the views and wishes of Azerbaijan for the settlement of the
conflict, then, as noted by the Chief of the Central Information
Department of the NKR President's Office, Artsakh will never be a
part of Azerbaijan in any form, whether it is an autonomous district,
autonomous republic, or the so-called broad autonomy. We are an
independent state, and our people will manage its own destiny -
whether to remain an independent state or to join Armenia in the
future... According to him, our domestic and foreign policy is based
on the idea of â~@~Kâ~@~Kan independent Republic.
And what do the mediators propose today? According to D. Babayan,
they try to find a middle ground: they put forward the ideas of
â~@~Kâ~@~Khuman rights, territorial integrity, and people's right to
self-determination. "Azerbaijan, of course, wants territories and we
put the emphasis on security, human rights and the right of nations to
self-determination. The statement of the RA Foreign Minister, perhaps,
should be considered from this viewpoint. Apparently, he made it
clear that the Armenian party is ready to discuss also the issue of
territories, but this does not mean at all that it is ready to make
unilateral territorial concessions in the hope of manifestation of
goodwill by Azerbaijan. In no case", said the political scientist.
Explaining the position of the Karabakh party, David Babayan noted that
the NKR authorities were ready to discuss the issue of territories,
since we also have territories under the Azerbaijani control -
the entire Shahumian region, the Getashen sub-region, some areas of
the Martakert and Martuni regions. So, we are ready to discuss and
not to cede the territories. And, indeed, any unilateral concession
is impossible, as it is not justified from the domestic and foreign
policy, as well as the geopolitical points of view. If Azerbaijan takes
a tough stance, i.e. refuses to discuss any issue and only repeats -
give me Karabakh with all its territory, it is just the problem of
Azerbaijan. In the diplomatic arena, the RA Foreign Minister can
state that the Armenian party is ready to start discussions on the
issue of territories. According D. Babayan, one should take such
statements coolly and understand what is happening.
The fact that Azerbaijan will not be ready to resolve the conflict in
the nearest future is more than obvious. So, the aggressor should not
be given the hope for â~@~Kâ~@~Kunilateral concessions. It promises
nothing positive. He recalled Nazi Germany of the 1930s, to which one
was ready to give everything just to curb somehow its appetite. The
humanity experienced the terrible consequences of this.
And what does the political scientist think about the statement of
the OSCE Minsk Group American Co-Chairman R. Bradtke, according to
whom the parties to the conflict are much closer to the settlement
than they suppose? In response, D. Babayan noted that this statement
fitted into the frameworks of the classical formula of diplomacy. The
parties believe that to date, it is impossible to achieve a consensus
on any issue, believing that it is impossible even in the nearest
future. And the American co-chair states: do not be so pessimistic;
perhaps, a consensus is possible, which is not, however, guessed even
by the parties themselves. One can agree or disagree with him.
In addition to the above mentioned, the political scientist noted that
the establishment of the Republic of Artsakh was, to some extent, also
the result of the war. At the beginning of the national-liberation
movement, the Armenians of Artsakh chose a civilized way: they
took their steps on building an independent state within the then
international laws. But, in response, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale
war, as a result of which the situation changed.
Naturally, the Armenian party takes into account the realities,
which followed the war, because the probability of its resumption
is always available. "Even a century after the conflict settlement,
certain problems can occur; therefore, from this viewpoint, the
settlement should be aimed at ensuring our security in all the
aspects - political, economic, military, and environmental. All this
should be taken into account. The current situation requires that
we consider the course and consequences of the war, as well as the
probability of its resumption. Proceeding from this, we should build
our future, making our domestic and foreign policy more specific",
said in conclusion the political scientist.