“Peace proposals of the West meet Azerbaijan’s interests, but peace proposals of Moscow – run counter”

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, in an interview with the Public Television of his country, said that in 1996 the world community recognized that the Karabakh problem should be resolved within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. “If we do not want to put Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in front of a catastrophe, we should not and will not be able to fight alone against the whole world,” Pashinyan said.

A little later, speaking in parliament, he called on Baku to start "direct negotiations with representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh on the rights and security of Armenians." According to him, "the reason for the adoption (by Armenia - ed.) of the Russian position of Russia was that we (i.e. the government of Armenia - ed.) are not promoting the issue of status, but ensuring the security and rights of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh" .

What does Pashinyan want to say by making contradictory statements?

International Affairs Expert Elman Fattah answers ASTNA questions on this topic

* * *

Question: Recently, in an interview with the Public Television of Armenia, Pashinyan said that in 1996 the world community recognized that the Karabakh problem should be resolved within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. A day later, in parliament, he called on Baku to start "a direct conversation with representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh about the rights and security of Armenians." What conclusion can be made from these statements? Why does Pashinyan make such contradictory statements?

Answer: When stating that “in 1996 the world community adopted a solution to the Karabakh problem within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan”, Pashinyan probably means the famous “Lisbon summit”, at which  53 of the 54 OSCE member states (with the exception of Armenia) adopted three principles for solving the problem: the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Armenia, granting Nagorno-Karabakh a high autonomy status within Azerbaijan, and ensuring the security of the entire population of Nagorno-Karabakh. The principles also mention the issue of security and rights of the Karabakh Armenians (autonomy with the highest status). In this regard, contrary to what you noted in the second part of your question, there are no contradictions in Pashinyan's statement, on the contrary, he is consistent.

The solution of the problem indicated in his speech, within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the call of official Baku for a direct dialogue with the Karabakh Armenians,  are the principles of the Lisbon summit, which were presented as a great diplomatic victory during the time of Heydar Aliyev. The question is relevant here, does Ilham Aliyev accept the Lisbon principles, which his father considered the success of the Karabakh policy? That is, does he intend to grant the Karabakh Armenians “autonomy with the highest status”?

If we turn to the rhetoric after the 44-day war, then Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly stated that "the status is dead." That is why Pashinyan, referring to the principles of the Lisbon summit, reminds Ilham Aliyev of the framework that his father presented as success. But the fact is that a consensus in accepting the principles as a document was impossible, since at that time Armenia itself opposed the solution of the problem within these frameworks. Therefore, these principles do not create international legal obligations for the parties.

Question: Armen Grigoryan, Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, stated that there is a threat of Azerbaijan carrying out a military provocation against Armenia. Here is another accusation. Deputy Chairman of the Defense Commission of the Milli Majlis of Armenia Armen Khachatryan stated that “Azerbaijan is doing everything, provoking, to disrupt the peace process. At the moment, the start of large-scale hostilities will have very grave consequences for the Republic of Armenia.” In your opinion, is the Azerbaijani side really trying to disrupt the peace process? Do such statements serve the world?

Answer: Such statements, of course, do not serve the peace. In general, in recent times, Armenian officials, preferring the Moscow process of peace negotiations, have actually chosen the path of disrupting the peace talks. On the eve of the Sochi meeting, Pashinyan proposed extending the stay of the Russian military contingent stationed in Khankendi for 15-20 years in the region, his statement about his readiness to accept the Kremlin’s “peaceful” proposals (which call into question the provision of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty in Khankendi), all this does not serve the world. From this point of view, accusations by the Pashinyan administration of official Baku of disrupting the peace treaty are inappropriate. But in general, the rhetoric of both Ilham Aliyev and Pashinyan does not indicate a desire to achieve in the near future.

Question: There are two approaches to the settlement of the Karabakh problem - Western and Russian. Are there any contradictions in these approaches? If there are no contradictions, then why are the approaches different?

Answer: There are fundamental differences in the approaches of the West and Russia to solving the problem.

The West's approach to solving the problem is based on the unconditional recognition of Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Karabakh and ensuring the security of local Armenians.

According to the "peace proposal" of Moscow, consisting of 15 points, Russia becomes the guarantor of Armenia and "Karabakh". The stay of Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh is extended. Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Khankendy remains undefined or the decision on the status of the Karabakh Armenians is postponed to the future.

As we can see, the peace proposals of the West correspond to the interests of Azerbaijan, while the peace proposals of Moscow contradict.

Question: It turns out that everything that was said about the conclusion of a peace treaty before the end was a mistake. But to sum it up, which of the parties "played along" the most with those who did not want peace - Azerbaijan or Armenia?

Answer: Yes, it can be said that unfounded hopes for the conclusion of a peace treaty were dashed. In previous conversations with you, we touched on this topic several times and in previous conversations with you, and I repeatedly substantiated the existence of objective and subjective reasons for the unpreparedness of the parties for peace. In this regard, I said that the timeframe for achieving peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan is unrealistic. I had to repeat myself;

The psychological state of various political players belonging to the Armenian elite (to power, opposition, diaspora, church, Karabakh Armenians, Armenians of Armenia) does not allow signing peace with Azerbaijan. For more than 100 years, the Armenian elite, under the influence of the slogans "Great Armenia", "miatsum" and ("reunification" - an idea based on the demand of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to annex the predominantly Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to Armenia - approx. Ed.) has become a hostage of psychopolitical politics. It was this sick consciousness that kept the Azerbaijani lands in occupation for 30 years. Unfortunately, they are still unable to make rational political decisions. Imagine that for a peace treaty, Armenia must hold a referendum, renounce the claim to “annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia,” which is reflected in its constitution along with a reference to the 1989 independence act. During all these peace negotiations, did you hear that at least constitutional changes were discussed in Armenia?! Such thoughts have not yet been voiced by any political force.

As for the Azerbaijani side, the situation is not at all the same as if the Azerbaijani authorities were a dove of peace, which Armenia does not allow to soar on its wings. The fact is that the current government of Azerbaijan, as an active member of the international authoritarian coalition, cannot be very enthusiastic about the peace process, since this completely contradicts the interests of its strategic ally Putin in the region. Therefore, with great enthusiasm, the authorities join the military provocations committed by Armenia, claiming the absence of a delimitation process, trying to justify this by saying that the borders with Armenia are unclear, i.e. tries to justify that the outbreak of hostilities anywhere is a normal phenomenon. In short, the Kremlin's influence on both sides, along with the reasons we mentioned, prolongs the road to peace indefinitely.

Q: Why don't both sides negotiate directly? Is it impossible without anyone's mediation or intervention?

Answer:  I have substantiated the relationship of the parties and their approach to the conflict. These grounds make it impossible for them to communicate without intermediaries. If you have noticed, the parties are looking for a mediator, not at all because they want peace. On the contrary, rather, the mediators are trying to induce the parties to peace.

Question: In conclusion, what is needed for the speedy signing  a peace treaty between the two countries?

Answer: Throughout the entire interview, I was arguing that under the current conditions, the signing of a peace treaty between the two countries is hardly possible in the near future. In general, in order to start moving towards peace, the parties must have a strong will. A clear demonstration of the presence of such a will would be the signing by Azerbaijan and Armenia of the Interstate Treaty on the Mutual Recognition of Territorial Integrity. It is he who can act as a framework document for future peace talks and serve as the basis for signing a final peace treaty.