“In this Case Azerbaijan would have Attacked Long ago”
Interview with Armen Rustamyan, head of NA ARF faction.
RA FM stated that the document signed in Vienna would be not trilateral, but a five-sided, if Azerbaijan agreed to sign it, however, as the Azerbaijani side was against, Armenia didn’t sign it either. That meeting was being introduced as victory of the Armenian side. In your opinion, what is our position like?
I consider, the minimal issue was settled, however, it’s early giving assessments regarding total settlement process. At least, recent developments made us sharply put forward the issue, that it’s not normal to continue like this, on the one hand, creating illusion that negotiations are ongoing, and on the other hand war goes on. This, naturally, can’t fit into the logic of any peaceful settlement. They have been incompatible until now and presently we need to come to the point, that either we negotiate or wage a war, there is no any other variant. I think accentuations by the Armenian side were proper. I consider the first two achievements were unprecedented. Up to now it was impossible to exert pressure over Azerbaijan on installation of investigative mechanisms and expansion of the office of OSCE chairperson-in-office, which controls ceasefire regime. This speaks of the fact that serious shift was recorded in this regard among OSCE MG Co-chairs, so that they should also realize that Azerbaijan shouldn’t be given the opportunity to speak that it’s for peaceful negotiations, at the same time, however instigates and launches a wide-scale war.
I think this was the minimum necessary to have been implemented long ago, however, as it’s said—it’s better late than never. I consider this an achievement. The fact that the meeting planned in June is also conditioned by the fact that ceasefire regime was completely or fully maintained, time will show, however, no much time is left, June is close. I’m sure our side should mandatorily insist on it. What is the most crucial, this shouldn’t be observed as negotiations, as they are complete when all the conflicting parties participate in it. This is an internationally recognized practice. And here, the crucial party of negotiations—Karabakh, isn’t engaged, i.e. this may be called preparation for negotiations, but not negotiations.
Edward Nalbandian opened brackets, stating that in all the documents in Vienna Karabakh was mentioned as a party. Is this sufficient?
Those documents are important to develop some format on its basis. I consider, the first crucial step is reconfirmation of 1994-1995 ceasefire agreements, as they have been trilateral. This also speaks of the fact, that there is a good ground for that format to be re-established. We may say, that after 1994-95 the format didn’t function. Thus, making it one of the key claims should be among the crucial issues of our diplomacy.
What should be anticipated from the presidential meeting in June?
Frankly speaking, I don’t anticipate anything serious from Azerbaijan, as adventurous regime is being implemented in the country. Thus, by simply ignoring international criteria, and not fitting in them in any way, Azerbaijan has spat on liabilities assumed before those organizations, and the key point—non-exertion of power, non-settlement of issues through war, and etc. Just the contrary, it boasts everywhere by its probabilities.
Our main concern is whether Azerbaijan will change its approaches and become negotiable or not. For this, first and foremost, it should accept all the parties of negotiation, accept its responsibilities—to respect main principles, accept that settlement process should go not only towards elimination of implications, but also that of reasons, which originated this conflict, and give priority to the issue of Karabakh’s status. If it accepts all this, ground is being initiated for negotiations. If any of them is being violated, which we observed until now, we can’t anticipate anything serious from that side.
Until now Azerbaijan didn’t accept this and feels itself powerful due to Russia. The latter, at least by actions, stands in the back of Azerbaijan, and according to some analysts this tends merely to buy time for a new wider-scale war?
Firstly, I wouldn’t state so categorically, that Russia is standing in Azerbaijan’s back. It’s not right, if it were, Azerbaijan would have attacked long ago and didn’t wait for something else. It doesn’t correspond to the reality, as Azerbaijan always attacks, when it seems to the latter that it may succeed. The same was recorded during the initiative of the blitzkrieg.
In any case it was that very Russia which suspended counterattack of Armenian forces.
It was suspended upon the request of Azerbaijan, so that the war didn’t bear a wider-scale nature. I think, this should also be used by our side as manifestation of goodwill, and what Azerbaijan was introducing until now, that it doesn’t want war and grants peace to the opposing side as manifestation of goodwill. We should come out from this situation, Azerbaijan should clearly realize that everybody needs peace, and it’s not a gift from one side to the other. Naturally enough, by this very logic it should also realize that war won’t lead to something good, and there is great possibility, also recent developments showed it, that until now Azerbaijan was touching upon 20% loss of its territories, then, as a result of a new war, which will attempt to restrain that regime, may speak of 40% loss.
One should always take into consideration that issue settlement through war should never be considered as the most crucial and only means to strengthen its positions, as presently the world now has quite a different status, quite different issues are included in the agenda of superpowers, and I don’t think it’ll succeed if it manifests adventurism towards the issue. I’m sure that the same confirmations have been implemented upon mutual agreement of the three Co-chairs. Otherwise, it wouldn’t occur. Thus, it’s not correct singling out our state and opposing it to the others. OSCE MG Co-chairs until now remain the only acceptable format, which need to be continued, and any step tended to change that format, will initiate grounds for war. This is what Azerbaijan has longed for.
By Gayane Khachatryan
