Tuesday, February 1 2022 12:24

ArmInfo.Armenia's third president Serzh Sargsyan believes it is quite logical that the  Armenian and Azerbaijani sides have different positions on the  Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement.

In commenting on Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's statements  on Baku and Yerevan interpreting the Madrid principles in  diametrically opposite ways, Mr Sagsyan said:  

"But was there anyone who believed that the opinions of the Armenian  and Azerbaijani sides should coincide? I mean - did he think that  way? This address is an example that testifies to the fact that at  least till that address this man did not grasp, he did not understand  what was happening. You should go to negotiations, if I can put it  that way, not to demand explanations from either the negotiating  parties or mediators, but you go to negotiations in order to  implement your vision. You have to express clearly what you want from  those negotiations. You should not go and tell them what is it that  you propose? What they proposed was very clear. They were saying that  the issue has to be resolved on the basis of mutual compromises, that  the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast should get a status, i.e.  cannot be part of Azerbaijan. 

"They said that the conflict cannot be resolved by force. They said  that peacekeepers would be dispatched before we matured, before the  referendum was held," Mr Sargsyan said. 

He regards as absurd the Armenian premier's accusations against the  co-chairs: "these are your proposals, and if we disagree, propose  something new."   

"Indeed, no document was approved in Kazan. A declaration should have  been adopted there, i.e. declared without signing, since the main  document was going to be the bilateral, interstate agreement, which  was the comprehensive treaty about the peaceful resolution of Nagorno  Karabakh issue, which would include everything relevant, with a  Nagorno-Karabakh representative's participation. That would have been  clearly formulated - their participation from the moment the  negotiations over the treaty started. That item was in all the  documents, including the one that man has branded a disaster. The  documents in question - of course, I find it difficult to publish  them now. Nor have I ever promised to publish them. Yes, in some of  my private talks I said I was negotiating with the co-chairs for  permission to publish them," Mr Sargsyan said. 

He pointed out that it is not the document circulated due to leakage  by a website last January and was later read out by Armenia's premier  in Kapan.

That proposal was presented to the parties in 2018 rather than in  2016 in Cracow.  "Indeed, I have all the papers, all the proposals by  the co-chairs at my disposal. But without coordination - I do not  think that it is a good idea. When there is an extreme necessity, I  will do that. But since he has that experience already, I would  [offer] him to go on and publish," Mr Sargsyan said. 

"But the Minsk Group has not vanished, you know? Independent of the  fact that this person is the one negotiating now. Tomorrow there will  be a different negotiator. That is not a second rate structure. Let  me remind everyone that we deal with Russia, United States and  France. If we lose their trust fully, what will be our gain? If our  people have doubts, let them follow the statements made by the  co-chairs. A few times these people attempted to misinterpret the  proposals made by the co-chairs. They reacted swiftly. Reacted  several times. Isn't that enough for the doubtful people to realize  where is the truth, and what is just an attempt to justify own  failures of these people?"

"I want this to be very clear. First and foremost, there could not be  any document that would fully be only in the interests of Armenia. It  would be in Armenia's interest if the territories in the entire  security zone, and maybe even more, were reunited with Armenia. Am I  right? These [issues] cannot be formulated in that manner. 

"The formulation is the following: if those proposals were accepted  by the parties and there was also a resolution adopted by the UN  Security Council, preceded by, as I said, the adoption of interstate  declaration and joint statement by the co-chairs - all of that would  have given us an opportunity to resolve the issue by peaceful means  and without crossing any of the red lines that we had always had."

"I want to be very clear and say that despite the fact the  declaration it was not signed or adopted in Kazan, it had been the  last document, titled as a working document. I said in the past and  will reiterate again that those documents are called 'working' which  is being accepted by the parties involved as a basis for discussion,  is being negotiated for a long while and either is being signed, or  is not being signed and is dispatched to the OSCE Depository. Kazan  was the last one. 

"Secondly, after the negotiations in Kazan and after the documents  tabled in Kazan there had been no other paper, no other proposal by  the co-chairs which in some ways or another would not maintain those  main provisions that were present in the Kazan document, simply  because Kazan document was based on the Madrid Principles. Of course,  some issues were being further clarified, corrected etc. No single  other [working] document. Including the docket with three documents  never became a working document and never dispatched to the OSCE  Depository, since Azerbaijan did not accept those.  Asked about  agreements at the Cracow meeting between the Foreign Ministers and  three months later, when he stated in Parliament that the negotiation  process did not inspire optimism and Azerbaijan's expectations were  not realistic and were unacceptable to Armenia, Mr Sargsyan said he  had to say what the reality was. And the reality could not be  anything new. 

"I said the reality was the following: we are constructive,  Azerbaijan is not, and the co-chairs see that very clearly, and that  is a normal situation. What else should I have said, Davit? Should I  have said - look, we are winning, tomorrow Karabakh will be  independent, as they have done in the course of the 44-day war?   Should I have done that?"

"How can you qualify the leader of a state you are in conflict with  in that way, saying he is 'constructive'?  Have you ever heard me  saying that Aliyev was constructive? You can say he is a realist, you  can say - if you really want that - he is smart, educated etc etc.  But why do you say 'constructive'? Where have you seen that  constructive attitude? Where?

"You know, I think all this mess they have created in the negotiation  process is due to two reasons. The first one is, indeed, they did not  have a grasp on the topic. That was rooted in their arrogance that  they could invent something new, disregarding and throwing out of  window what the co-chairs proposed." 

"The second one, in my opinion, is that maybe - and I am saying this  despite the fact that they treated us with disrespect - I am trying  to convince myself that these people did want to bring to a new and  better [negotiation] process. But such a wish could never materialize  without appropriate assets - knowledge, strength, flexibility etc. If  you can recall, one of the former Russian Prime Ministers once said  something and then it became an often quoted dictum. He said - we  wanted the best, but it turned out as always. 

"These people have the same. They wanted to secure a better  negotiation process, but made it completely opposite. When they  reached power, they wanted a better Armenia, but got divided the  society to 'blacks and whites'. Wanted to be more democratic, but it  resulted in political parties began talking to each other in slurs.  They aspired a corruption free Armenia, now they are entirely stuck  in corruption themselves. They wanted a more efficient army, but  instead perished that same army. They wanted to acquire more modern  arms and ammunitions, but what they acquired was not useful in the  war which turned out catastrophic for us. That is the workstyle of  these people. I could continue this line for a long time - be that  about the freedom of the media, the issues in the judiciary etc."