“Concession of territories for peace will lead to war”
Azerbaijani FM Elmar Mamamdyarov stated that “territories for peace” formula may function, he stated it lies on the basis of negotiation throughout recent 12 years.
“After the meeting in Moscow I have the impression that establishment of peace is possible for withdrawal of Armenian troops from the territories, in other words, with the logic of territories for peace,” he said. Armenia’s MFA spokesman reflected to this, particularly stating,
“Content of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan in Moscow on April 28 is reflected in statements issued by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Russia.”
According to Vagharshak Harutunyan, former Defense Minister, statement by Mammadyarov is misinformation,
“Any president, any political power won’t go to the settlement to concede territories for peace. Just the contrary, such concession will lead to war, as when we concede territories, our contact line increases twice, we lose the privileges we have today, we lose the roads we provide move of troops, all our regional centers become reachable in Artsakh.
It leads to sharp change of the situation in favor of Azerbaijan. Accordingly, he has fabricated it.”
Stepan Safaryan, founder and head of the Armenian Institute of International and Security Affairs (AIISA), also considers that Mammadyarov lies,
“If it happened, Mammadyarov wouldn’t be satisfied with rather moderate statements made right after the meeting, from which it was obvious that the sides haven’t discussed anything. Mammadyarov said something rather unclear that time, he only confirmed that they met and that’s all. And he did it in an interview with one of Azerbaijani media outlets. Thus, if he had such an impression, he would state right after the meeting and not after some time. Obviously he attempts to solve a different political issue, than any referring to the very settlement process.”
According to Safaryan by similar statements the Azerbaijani side attempts to influence on Armenia’s domestic policy, in particular, when they say that the talks have been the same for 12 years, “”Maybe Armenia’s authorities gave consent to “territories for status” formula, but not for “territories for peace.””
“168 Hours” also asked whether the principle “territories for peace” lies on the basis of the program, which obtained the name Lavrov’s plan. According to Styopa Safaryan the Russian plan supposes exactly this,
“Perhaps Mammadyarov intends to show that they support Russian plan, and the Armenian—not. It more resembles Armenia-Azerbaijan-Russia “grasping” and Mammadyarov simply intends to show where Armenia is located in the settlement plan proposed by Russia.
Meanwhile Vaghasrshak Harutyunyan doesn’t share this view, “There is no Lavrov’s plan, it’s misinformation. Media war is taking place, you see what Azerbaijani FM says, he says that such option is possible. However, he is a liar, there was no any “peace for territories” formula any time. In 1992 I was a participant of negotiations, I don’t know when he was then, and there was no any discussion and it can’t be.
I repeat once again there is no any political power in Armenia, which will go to that option. The Azerbaijani side disseminates such misinformation to input doubt in Armenia-Russia relations. Naturally we’ll take actions to cause doubt among Azerbaijan’s ally. Lavrov’s plan is impossible to exist, as it should be agreed with other Co-Chairs, and what is the most important, the Armenian side didn’t go to such option, even if Lavrov said it. It’ll lead to war, will bring to the point that casualties that we recorded, will be senseless. Thus, don’t believe in it.”
Asked if postponement of negotiations means that the Azerbaijani side wants more territories, than the Armenian side is ready to concede, Styopa Safaryan said after recent incidents the Azerbaijani side, on the one hand, attempts to leave the impression, that it supports peaceful settlement, however, on the other hand, it passed on to the strategy of causing casualties to the Armenian side, which it always had, “However, by similar statements they attempt to legitimize military results, as if they support peaceful settlement of the issue, and Armenia is against, accordingly only military operations are left. Perhaps, this statement was also a means to justify it.”
In his words military operations will have continuation, “Armenia is in the period of vicious past, from which it neither is capable to come out, nor it has intention. Negotiations are ongoing, which are accompanied by destructive actions. Of course, in the first year the Armenian side wasn’t so willing to participate in those meetings, however, the very recent meeting would give nothing regarding resolution, but would legitimize that vicious chain of the past.”
Reflecting to the same question Vagharshak Harutyunyan said by postponing negotiations Azerbaijan solves one issue, “Through blackmail, fear atmosphere it intends, on the one hand, to dissolve Armenian states, discredit our society, that’s why it goes to such provocations. On the other hand, it exerts pressure over the Co-Chairs, that they brought an option in line with its interests. It fails, that’s why Azerbaijan undertakes such blackmail.”
By Razmik Martirosyan
