Friday, December 11 2020 23:46

ArmInfo.The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are united in their approaches to resolving the remaining issues of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of the  basic principles of the settlement. On December 11, during a round  table in Sputnik dedicated to the Karabakh conflict, the professor,  honorary doctor of MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International  Relations), former head of the Armenian Foreign Ministry (held this  post in 2008-2018) Edward Nalbandian stated this.

He stated that 3 weeks ago it was not clear whether the co-chairing  countries would be able to agree on a joint statement by the foreign  ministers of the Minsk Group co-chairing countries, which was  circulated after the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in early  December, since after the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia  signed a joint statement, Paris and Washington had some questions  about this document.

At the same time, Nalbandian stated that the document of November 9  created the legal basis for the introduction of Russian peacekeepers  in the region and the cessation of hostilities.

"After that, there were doubts about the reasonability of preserving  the Minsk negotiation format, the functioning of the office of the  Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Andrzej  Kasprzyk. But, in the joint statement, the importance of preserving  Kasprzyk's office was also indicated, and that the OSCE Minsk Group  Co-Chairs remain united in their approaches to resolving the  remaining settlement issues on the basis of basic principles. What  remains? Among the remaining issues is the final status of  Nagorno-Karabakh. It is not defined in this document. Although, later  Russia clarified that this issue remains on the agenda. Now the key  important issue is still the intermediate status of Nagorno-  Karabakh, which will determine the further fate of Artsakh,  "Nalbandian noted, adding that under the intermediate status,  Nagorno-Karabakh was endowed with the right to form all bodies of  state structures, receive foreign direct investment, and access to  foreign markets, access to humanitarian projects, participation in  the work of international structures, if it did not contradict the  peace agreements.  "According to the Armenian diplomat, another  important issue during the interim status is the issue of ensuring  the security of Nagorno-Karabakh.

At the same time, he called untenable some statements that Russia had  withdrawn the issue of the status of Artsakh from the agreement,  recalling that it was on the agenda of negotiations at all stages, in  all working documents, including the Kazan document, which Azerbaijan  rejected.

In this regard, Nalbandian stressed that the final status of  Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined through the free expression of  the will of its population, and which would have a binding  international character for everyone, including Azerbaijan. At the  same time, the former Foreign Minister of Armenia stressed that the  negotiations also determined the ethnic proportions of participation  in the referendum, which are based on the data of the latest census  of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988.  "Of course, in this  situation, when a war occurred, changes in configurations took place,  the issue of Artsakh's status may be postponed, but it cannot be  removed from the agenda, although Azerbaijan claims that it has been  removed from the agenda," the diplomat said, recalling that if  earlier the co-chairs always pointed out the importance of adhering  to the three principles (not the use of force or the threat of force,  territorial integrity and the right of peoples to  self-determination), then in the last statement they only focused on  the non-use of force, while the issue of self-determination was  silenced.  Nalbandian also touched upon yesterday's statements by the  leaders of Azerbaijan and Turkey, in which they expressed territorial  claims to Armenia and threats against Armenians, calling these  statements dangerous. "Apparently, the ambitions of Aliyev and  Erdogan were not fully satisfied and I consider the threats that  sound from Baku and Ankara to be dangerous. In this regard, it was  impossible to remain completely silent who was the initiator of the  violations of the termless ceasefire agreements from 1994- 95,"  former Foreign Minister of Armenia stressed. He pointed to the  obviousness that it was Azerbaijan that initiated the hostilities in  September of this year, and expressed his conviction that the  statements made yesterday from Baku are the result of not voicing who  is the initiator of hostilites. 

Touching upon the position of Armenia on the status of Artsakh,  Nalbandian noted that official Yerevan always adhered to the position  that if Azerbaijan initiates a new war, they will have to recognize  Nagorno- Karabakh, since there will be no opportunity to continue  negotiations.

"The question arises why this was not done in April 2016. The fact is  that the hostilities were stopped within 3.5 days. But then all the  documents were prepared to recognize the independence of Nagorno-  Karabakh. And we were ready for this. However, intensive negotiations  on a ceasefire were held, and if they failed, then Armenia would have  recognized Artsakh. Thanks to the immediate reaction of Russia, it  became possible to end hostilities, "Nalbadian said, adding that the  mediators have always stressed that the recognition of  Nagorno-Karabakh will put an end to the negotiations, which is why  Artsakh was not recognized, but during the 44-day war there was every  reason for the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh, and this step could  be beneficial.