Yerevan will remember all of its flaws in the region

The article is presented below: "Refuting the opinion expressed earlier by N. Pashinyan about Armenia as a side of the Karabakh conflict, former Defense Minister of Armenia V. Sargsyan said: "Three days ago, during the press conference, the Prime Minister of Armenia announced a number of considerations on the settlement Karabakh conflict, which, in my opinion, can be dangerous ... The Armenian Prime Minister stated that there will be no sharp turns in foreign policy, but at the same time hinted that Armenia is a party to the Karabakh conflict. This has always been the assertion of Azerbaijan, whereas the international community knows that Armenia is the guarantor of Artsakh's security, a partner in the negotiations, but in no way a "party to the Karabakh conflict". This can have far-reaching consequences. Finally, Pashinyan's statements show that he is not aware of the details of the negotiations. "

V.Sargsyan also criticized Pashinyan's words that in the negotiations Yerevan should act on behalf of Armenia, and the leadership of Karabakh on its own behalf.

Accusing Pashinyan of "manifestations of the fact that he is not aware of the details of the negotiations" V. Sargsyan (who proclaimed himself the father of the idea of ​​"nation-army"), in fact, reveals his absolute ignorance about the content of the process of the Karabakh conflict settlement. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh received the status of "parties to the Karabakh conflict" in the final document of the Budapest summit of the OSCE on December 6, 1994, and more clearly in the explanation of the chairman of the OSCE governing council made on March 31, 1995 in the Prague document.

"Azerbaijan, in fact, demanded that Armenia be accepted not as a party to the conflict, but as a side of the Karabakh war, namely, as an aggressor. Thanks to the brilliant efforts of the Armenian diplomacy, this desire of Azerbaijan was defeated in four resolutions of the UN Security Council, which clearly states that the Azerbaijani territories around the Nagorno Karabakh were captured not by the army of Armenia, but by local Armenian armed forces. "

"Beyond the topic, it may be worthwhile to clarify that the greatest achievement of Armenian diplomacy was the international recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh as a" full and legally equal party" to the conflict, which was lost, to put it mildly, through the criminal negligence of Robert Kocharyan, which was the basis for all further complications in the settlement Karabakh conflict."

It should be taken into consideration that N.Pashinyan's statement on the need to return Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) to the negotiating table "caused a stir in the circle of Armenian presidents and a discussion about who they left Artsakh behind the talks". Unlike Ter-Petrosyan, S. Sargsyan and R.Kocharian resorted to the help of their supporters. So, Vilen Sragsyan, assuming that the prime minister had in mind that without the participation of Artsakh, it is impossible to reach a final decision, rhetorically asks: "What is the news of the approach? this position was repeatedly expressed by President S. Sargsyan "

The supporter of R. Kocharian stressed: "Historical facts indicate that the representatives of the Nagorno Karabakh stopped participating in the negotiations at least a year before the election of President R. Kocharian. In order not to be unfounded, we will quote the message published in the issue of "Hayk" newspaper on January 25, 1997. "Armenia will no longer negotiate with Azerbaijan on the Karabakh problem without the participation of Karabakh, stated the presidential adviser, Zhirayr Liparitian, in London. The cynicism of Ter-Petrosyan literally goes off scale: he again accuses the second president of being guilty himself. "

The conclusion of the author of the article quoting the defender R.Kocharyan is characteristic: "For the Armenian presidents who led Armenia, in fact, to the political, economic and demographic crisis of the three Armenian presidents, the Karabakh settlement has always been used as a trump card, a way to emphasize one's own awareness, especially in the process of domestic political competition. Objectively, this was the case, since they were at the "advanced" negotiations. " At the same time, he proposes to "disclose the whole truth": Ter-Petrosyan should tell what documents he signed in the early 1990s that helped Azerbaijan preserve its right to territories and start a war; Kocharyan should tell what was said in Key West; and Sargsyan should tell how he agreed to sign the Kazan plan.

The author's conclusion: "Nikola's statement in Karabakh can cut this knot, and if the three presidents reveal everything to the end, it can "nullify" the situation. For example, to answer the question why the decision of December 1, 1989 was forgotten, why Armenia did not recognize the referendum on independence in Artsakh, what caused the conclusion of the agreement on the cease-fire of 1994, etc. ...

... it's time to bring Armenia and the Artsakh problem out of the presidential triangle and build a new concept of Armenian rights. "

View from Baku

Let us recall that on December 1, 1989, the Supreme Council of Armenia adopted its resolution "On the reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh" unprecedented, which according to international law meant the declaration of the war of Azerbaijan through territorial claims. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan, on the occasion of the Center (Moscow), did not take advantage of this situation, which led to extremely difficult consequences.

On April 30, 1993, the first "UN Security Council Resolution No.822" was adopted, requiring: "the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a lasting ceasefire, as well as the immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kalbajar region and other newly occupied areas Azerbaijan ". The document indicated the fact of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories without an indication of the address of the occupation forces. In July 1993, resolution No.853 was adopted, requiring the complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupation troops from the territories of the Agdam and other occupied regions of Azerbaijan. Subsequent resolutions No.874 and 884 mechanically fixed the seizure of new Azerbaijani lands, calling for peace between the aggressor and the victim.

But let's return to the "Karabakh duel" of the presidents of Armenia, which Kazimirov judged: "Levon Akopovich (Ter-Petrosyan) is right," Kazimirov said, commenting on the situation. Although Kazimirov regards Armenia as a party to the conflict, from the outset of the armed conflict, he gives "his own" explanation: "Armenia's involvement soon became inevitable (after the operation "Ring" and the expulsion of Armenians from the area north of Nagorno-Karabakh)." In Azerbaijan, the opinion was formed that Kazimirov was always a "pro-Armenian" diplomat, in fact he is a pro-Russian diplomat, to which all his activity as co-chairman testifies. Conflict was necessary to lead to a dead end - where he turned out to be ...

When Ali Abbasov's book was written, Harutyun Khachatryan "The Karabakh conflict. Solutions: Ideas and Reality (Moscow, "International Relations", 2004), in which, thanks to

V.N. Kazimirov was the first to publish all the international and local documents on the conflict that had been accepted at that time, the author from the Azerbaijani side asked Kazimirov with the question: "Vladimir Nikolaevich, please answer just one question why the Russian Federation had the right to restore the" constitutional order "in The Chechen Republic by force of arms, and the same Azerbaijan has no such right with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh? ". Kazimirov replied: "Let's finish the work on the book, and I will definitely answer this question."

The book was published, but the answer was never received.

But let us return to the last statement of Ter-Petrosyan, which aroused Armenian society. At first glance, what is the difference between a party to the conflict and a side of the war? The thing here is that Armenia has always managed to write off its aggression, which pursues the goal of seizing Azerbaijani lands by some "local Armenian self-defense forces" that do not bear any responsibility, since, firstly, they are inside Azerbaijan, and, secondly, they are deprived signs of statehood recognized by the outside world. Meanwhile, the role of Armenia as a pioneer of the Karabakh war, the aggressor and the occupier is few in the world in doubt. However, international law requires that this position be fixed by a decision of such body as the UN Security Council.

Let's ask why there is no such document: because of the weakness of Azerbaijani diplomacy or because of the "brilliant success of Armenian diplomacy"? Obviously, neither the first, nor the second has anything to do with the case, compelled to obey the current state of affairs in the world. Since all the time since independence of the countries of the USSR in the South Caucasus, it is Armenia's position that is important in the geopolitical orientation of the region, both sides of the confrontation (West-Russia) are trying to please this country. The conflict, not settlement the conflict, emphasizes that Armenia's choice has not yet shown its direction. But as soon as this choice is made, Yerevan will lose all its advantage. Here, just one of the parties that lost Armenia, will remember Yerevan all its flaws in the region. Suffice it to recall, in this regard, the scandalous appearance on television of the author of an equally scandalous transmission of "However," which broadcasts the official position of the Russian Federation in the harshest but not official presentation.