“Official Yerevan plays chess through Ter-Petrosyan”
Interview with Stanislav Tarasov, columnist at Regnum News Agency, Russian political analyst.
Mr. Tarasov, rather curious snapshot is observed around NK conflict peaceful settlement. When part of the expert and reporters’ community considered that negotiations are at a deadlock, only previous year’s Vienna and St. Petersburg agreements are found in the agenda, OSCE MG US Co-Chairs Richard Hoagland opens some brackets stating that there is a plan, and it’s only necessary to resume negotiations, he doesn’t even exclude that it isn’t “Lavrov plan”, which is supported by all mediators. What’s your assessment to these new details around negotiations?
It’s positive, that Hoagland eliminated speculations around “Lavrov plan”. Basically, a plan with that name didn’t exist, Azerbaijani political figures were attaching attention to the so-called “Lavrov plan”, later some Armenian figures took that bait to insist that Russia has its separatist posture in OSCE MG, that there are certain disagreements and etc. Especially, it became actual after the April War, when agreements of Vienna and St. Petersburg have been signed, which the Azerbaijani side didn’t sign, and on its basis presidential meeting planned in Russia in August failed.
Naturally, after it and in that period closed negotiations were launched, Azerbaijan attempted to urge to change negotiation agenda, i.e. it intended not temporary, but negotiations of peace. And Hoagland also stated that the document is comprised of three parts, and as I suppose agreements of Vienna and St. Petersburg are in this context.
It should also be supposed that OSCE MG has recruited proposals of Armenian and Azerbaijani sides, made a joint project, and currently clarification of positions is taking place, on the basis of which the meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan may be recorded. however, Hoagland also stressed that it isn’t an issue of today, it’s an issue of near future, possibly the discourse around that plan may prolong. Naturally, such documents have been available, and it’s clear that time it’s necessary to discuss this as well, to clarify positions and maybe approach them.
After the April War rather sensitive discourse is launched in Yerevan on Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s comments regarding return of territories. Let me remind that the power he heads—Congress, regards NK conflict peaceful settlement as a priority, also bringing settlement dimensons.
It’s bothering, when First President Levon Ter-Petrosyan states that those territories should be conceded. This is a so-called contour project, which official Yerevan legalizes through opposition. This is a new position—we return the territories for Karabakh’s independence or Karabakh comprising a part of Armenia. This is an absolutely new posture developed in the backstage.
In parallel with this, let me state that the French appeared with an initiative to hold a presidential meeting, meanwhile Moscow attempts to keep distance, although Nalbandian-Mammadyarov meeting is planned in Moscow as well, if the French drag the cover to their side, it’ll take place under French umbrella, i.e. they’ll assume all organizational issues. These Ter-Petrosyan and Minsk Group projects are long-term. Why exactly now?
Ter-Petrosyan works under pre-election campaign, everything is clear, however, Hoagland works to neutralize the conflict settlement through force, which Baku circles attempt to move forward to repeat the April War. All the developments show that Aliyev refuses from that force option agreeing to negotiations: it’s unknown when they’ll start.
Don’t you have the impression that after the April War First President, observing social stir around non-return of lands, attempts to prepare the society to such a decision, stressing on the very topic of return of lands, which is a topic for discourse?
Of course, there is such an impression, like when Ilham Aliyev was speaking that he’s ready to provide autonomous status to Karabakh, i.e. he attempts to convince people that autonomy is inevitable. It’s clear, Ter-Petrosyan attempts to do the same, however, he didn’t say anything on NK status. I realize that Armenia’s authorities are playing chess, however, their set is first class, meanwhile, GM game should be conducted.
First President of Armenia also touches upon the opportunity of Dayton. “If one day we don’t do it voluntarily, territories will be taken from us through sanctions,” Ter-Petrosyan insists. Is Dayton possible?
Who’ll take the territories? Doesn’t he see what’s going on in the Middle East, as he is an expert? Transcaucasia is a part of entire big Middle East. Issues should be solved by three levels, three countries should solve it, maybe Stepanakert and Baku. For what territories are given? This should be clearly touched upon, as blood was shed there. What do you have instead of territories? A special status for Stepanakert, but does Azerbaijan agree?
Thus, they say “a”, and don’t’ say “b”, thus, there is an impression that there is public diplomacy, public statements, and there is double, triple depth, where constantly surprises are made, as Hoagland, when all say agreements of Vienna and St. Petersburg should be reached, and he says there is a document, but no one knows who and when worked on it. Such a triple “accounting”, which bears a criminal nature. As they aren’t selling brandy, but they’re deciding peoples fates, in narrow circle fate of two peoples are resolved, when all that process should be publicized so that people knew what is anticipated.
By Araks Martirosyan
