Tweet
Edward Nalbandian's statement and answers at the joint press
conference with David Lidington, the Minister for Europe of the United
Kingdom
http://www.mfa.am/en/press-conference/item/2012/09/18/uk_eu_conf/
18.09.2012
Good morning,
I would like to welcome Mr. David Lidington, the Minister for Europe
of the United Kingdom. This is his first visit to Armenia. During the
recent years I and David Lidington have had many meetings in London
and other capitals, we have had many phone conversations. I am very
happy to host Mr. Lidington in Armenia.
This is a good opportunity to continue the talks on the regional and
international issues of mutual interest. This year we are celebrating
the 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations
between Armenia and the United Kingdom, and we can state that today
our relations are relying on a strong basis.
In the course of the meeting we touched upon a wide range of issues of
bilateral relations. You are aware that Mr. Lidington is in charge for
the European issues in the British government, and naturally the
EU-Armenia relations were an important topic of our negotiations. We
had a detailed conversation on the negotiation process in the
framework of Eastern Partnership. The considerable progress recorded
in this direction was underlined.
I presented David Lidington the latest events concerning the
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process. Certainly, we also touched upon
the release of Safarov and the great damage caused to the negotiation
process and generally to the security and stability in the region.
We discussed a number of other regional and international issues.
Today we will have an opportunity to continue our negotiations.
I pass the floor to Mr. Lidington.
Question, H2: Let me to address two questions to You Minister
Nalbandian and our guest. And the first one is for you Minister
Nalbandian. The international community seems to have unanimous
reactions over the Hungarian-Azeri deal. Does it mean whether
Azerbaijan is losing its international credibility?
Edward Nalbandian: The international community has no shortage of
facts for which it could not have any trust on Azerbaijan for quite a
long time.
If we set aside the question why the current Hungarian government
believed in the Azeri promises and released Safarov, then you know
that on September 2, the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Justice stated that the Azeri side had given a promise
that Safarov at least 25 years after the verdict would stay in jail.
But Azerbaijan did not fulfill it promise.
Many times Azerbaijan disregarded and ignored its given promises and
agreements. As it happened with the agreement reached at the
presidential level of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia and about which
was stated two times in the statements adopted by three Presidents
during the meeting in March of 2011 and January of 2012 in Sochi. I am
talking about the creation of a mechanism to investigate cease-fire
violations in the line of contact.
Despite that agreement and despite the fact that it was officially
stated by the President of Azerbaijan, Baku did everything not to
implement those agreements which hindered the creation of such a
mechanism.
In May of 1994 when the trilateral cease-fire agreement was signed
between Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan, two months after the
agreement was reached on the consolidation of cease-fire regime
Azerbaijan breached it.
In February of 1995, a new agreement was reached on the consolidation
of cease-fire regime, which so far Azerbaijan refuses to implement.
Azerbaijan rejected the agreements that were reached before the
meetings in St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Sochi and Kazan. We can bring a
lot of similar examples.
Even if we go back to 2001, when an agreement was reached over the
so-called Paris Principles and when they were included in the document
in Key-West, Azerbaijan again rejected them.
So there is no lack of those facts. By its activities and steps,
Azerbaijan deepens the abyss between Azerbaijan and the international
community. Yes, you are quite right that the international community
is united, and unanimously expressed its indignation over the
decision, which was adopted by Azerbaijan. But Azerbaijan pretends as
if rain is falling.
Question, Panarmenian.Net: Mr. Lidington, Great Britain is one of the
greatest supporters of Kosovo's independence and Falkland Islands'
self-determination. British Foreign Secretary William Hague also
stated that the principle of self-determination is one of the
cornerstones of the UN Charter. Is it so that, when the principle is
in the best interests of the United Kingdom it is superior, and when
it does not, the UK has another attitude towards the issue of the self
determination?
Edward Nalbandian: I would like to add that the principle of
self-determination is not only the main purpose of the UN Charter, but
also it is also one of the most important principles of international
law. But in this regard the factor of security is of a great
importance. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh can not feel safe
in a country where during sniper trainings the soldiers repeatedly
fire on a target on the forehead of which is written Armenia. The
Artsakh people cannot feel secure in a country, where murderer Safarov
is brought as an example to the policemen.
The security factor has been the most important one for the recently
self-determined peoples. Here we can say all factors were unified as
an objective of the UN Charter, the most important principle of
international law and the factor of maintenance of security for the
Artsakh people.
conference with David Lidington, the Minister for Europe of the United
Kingdom
http://www.mfa.am/en/press-conference/item/2012/09/18/uk_eu_conf/
18.09.2012
Good morning,
I would like to welcome Mr. David Lidington, the Minister for Europe
of the United Kingdom. This is his first visit to Armenia. During the
recent years I and David Lidington have had many meetings in London
and other capitals, we have had many phone conversations. I am very
happy to host Mr. Lidington in Armenia.
This is a good opportunity to continue the talks on the regional and
international issues of mutual interest. This year we are celebrating
the 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations
between Armenia and the United Kingdom, and we can state that today
our relations are relying on a strong basis.
In the course of the meeting we touched upon a wide range of issues of
bilateral relations. You are aware that Mr. Lidington is in charge for
the European issues in the British government, and naturally the
EU-Armenia relations were an important topic of our negotiations. We
had a detailed conversation on the negotiation process in the
framework of Eastern Partnership. The considerable progress recorded
in this direction was underlined.
I presented David Lidington the latest events concerning the
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process. Certainly, we also touched upon
the release of Safarov and the great damage caused to the negotiation
process and generally to the security and stability in the region.
We discussed a number of other regional and international issues.
Today we will have an opportunity to continue our negotiations.
I pass the floor to Mr. Lidington.
Question, H2: Let me to address two questions to You Minister
Nalbandian and our guest. And the first one is for you Minister
Nalbandian. The international community seems to have unanimous
reactions over the Hungarian-Azeri deal. Does it mean whether
Azerbaijan is losing its international credibility?
Edward Nalbandian: The international community has no shortage of
facts for which it could not have any trust on Azerbaijan for quite a
long time.
If we set aside the question why the current Hungarian government
believed in the Azeri promises and released Safarov, then you know
that on September 2, the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Justice stated that the Azeri side had given a promise
that Safarov at least 25 years after the verdict would stay in jail.
But Azerbaijan did not fulfill it promise.
Many times Azerbaijan disregarded and ignored its given promises and
agreements. As it happened with the agreement reached at the
presidential level of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia and about which
was stated two times in the statements adopted by three Presidents
during the meeting in March of 2011 and January of 2012 in Sochi. I am
talking about the creation of a mechanism to investigate cease-fire
violations in the line of contact.
Despite that agreement and despite the fact that it was officially
stated by the President of Azerbaijan, Baku did everything not to
implement those agreements which hindered the creation of such a
mechanism.
In May of 1994 when the trilateral cease-fire agreement was signed
between Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan, two months after the
agreement was reached on the consolidation of cease-fire regime
Azerbaijan breached it.
In February of 1995, a new agreement was reached on the consolidation
of cease-fire regime, which so far Azerbaijan refuses to implement.
Azerbaijan rejected the agreements that were reached before the
meetings in St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Sochi and Kazan. We can bring a
lot of similar examples.
Even if we go back to 2001, when an agreement was reached over the
so-called Paris Principles and when they were included in the document
in Key-West, Azerbaijan again rejected them.
So there is no lack of those facts. By its activities and steps,
Azerbaijan deepens the abyss between Azerbaijan and the international
community. Yes, you are quite right that the international community
is united, and unanimously expressed its indignation over the
decision, which was adopted by Azerbaijan. But Azerbaijan pretends as
if rain is falling.
Question, Panarmenian.Net: Mr. Lidington, Great Britain is one of the
greatest supporters of Kosovo's independence and Falkland Islands'
self-determination. British Foreign Secretary William Hague also
stated that the principle of self-determination is one of the
cornerstones of the UN Charter. Is it so that, when the principle is
in the best interests of the United Kingdom it is superior, and when
it does not, the UK has another attitude towards the issue of the self
determination?
Edward Nalbandian: I would like to add that the principle of
self-determination is not only the main purpose of the UN Charter, but
also it is also one of the most important principles of international
law. But in this regard the factor of security is of a great
importance. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh can not feel safe
in a country where during sniper trainings the soldiers repeatedly
fire on a target on the forehead of which is written Armenia. The
Artsakh people cannot feel secure in a country, where murderer Safarov
is brought as an example to the policemen.
The security factor has been the most important one for the recently
self-determined peoples. Here we can say all factors were unified as
an objective of the UN Charter, the most important principle of
international law and the factor of maintenance of security for the
Artsakh people.