Tuesday, February 16 2021 03:25

ArmInfo.In my opinion, the Karabakh problem could have two solutions: one - final, and one, so to speak, half-hearted. This opinion was expressed by the third  President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan in an interview to "ArmNews" TV  channel.

As the ex-president said, in 2014, when there was some tension in the  Karabakh conflict zone, one of the heads of the OSCE Minsk Group  co-chairing states asked him directly: "Serge, can you honestly say  what is your goal in the Karabakh issue? Do you want the problem  solved or do you want to maintain the status quo>? "I sincerely said  that I want to solve the problem, I do not want to shift it onto the  shoulders of future generations." The question followed: "How can  this problem be solved?", To which Sargsyan replied that he sees the  final solution to the conflict as follows: Azerbaijan accepts that  Nagorno-Karabakh is independent, recognizes the fact of independence  of Nagorno-Karabakh. `` In this case, I return to Yerevan and assure  my teammates that in this case we are obliged to return to Azerbaijan  the 7 regions that made up the security belt, with the exception of  the corridor that forms the land border with Armenia, which should  not be the same as today, 2.5 kilometers, but sufficient for the safe  communication of Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh. Then I go to  Nagorno-Karabakh, convincing my comrades in arms, the leadership of  NK that this is the right decision. And when I get consent, we  gradually begin to publicize this idea.  Although there were no  guarantees that it could be realized, "the third RA President said.   "The second option is a half-hearted decision," Sargsyan continued,  which is that Azerbaijan recognizes that the final status of  Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined by the people of  Nagorno-Karabakh without any time restrictions. "But it should be  like this: Azerbaijan must accept this, the international community  must confirm this. In this case, I, again, return to Armenia, I  convince my teammates that in case of such a half-hearted decision,  we must return five regions to Azerbaijan in order to have the  intermediate status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Then, the same process -  comrades-in-arms, the Karabakh authorities, "the former RA President  said, adding that if Azerbaijan refused to recognize Artsakh, it  would never get back either Lachin or Karvachar.

In other words, Sargsyan continued, the whole point of this option  was that the period for returning Lachin and Karvachar to Azerbaijan  was very closely connected with the holding of a referendum on the  independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. "That is, both options that I spoke  about simply flowed from the Madrid principles, the Kazan document.  It is no coincidence that the Russian Foreign Minister, and the co-  chairs, and the representative of the Russian Federation in the Minsk  Group, Popov, have always stated, right up to this last statement,  that any option to one degree or another corresponds to the Madrid  principles of the Kazan Document, '' he stated. At the same time,  Sargsyan assured that there was no so-called Lavrov's plan in  documentary form. as such was not. What is called  "Lavrov's document"? The second option, which I spoke about, that is,  a modified version of the Madrid Principles - Lavrov proposed the  Kazan document on behalf of the co-chairs, and there has never been  such a negotiation process, in which any of the co-chairs separately  proposed their ideas. All ideas were agreed upon between the  co-chairs. And what is called the Lavrov document and the Kazan  document is the only document, at least until 2018, that became a  working document. And this document is now in the OSCE Depository.  There was no other working document, "the third president said.

He also suggested that in the document that was handed over to the  parties in April 2019, naturally, including the Armenian side, the  response of the Armenian side, in all likelihood, was as follows:  yes, discussions can be held on this document.

"That is, the co-chairs wanted to say that we handed over the  document to the parties, received assurances that within this  framework it is possible to discuss, come to an agreement, but one of  the parties, and, as we understood, the Armenian side, later refused  to continue negotiations.

Yes, I am deeply convinced that it was a phased option, because  otherwise why would the Armenian side refuse from the package option?  And why a phased version appeared is another topic for conversation.  No, I can roughly imagine why this happened, but before that I want  to touch on this again and for many people once again say what the  batch option means, and what the phased option means. The batch  option is when the parties to the negotiations, the parties who have  reached an agreement, from the first to the last step, know what  actions will take place. Starting with something that we end up with.  And one of the most important features: in the package version, one  of the parties, having received something, cannot turn the table over  and say: , because compromises occur in a  consonant, equivalent and, in case of refusal, you have no only  gained, but you also have lost. Obviously, the package variant cannot  be fully implemented at once, it is implemented in stages. The beauty  of this package option is that you receive something, give something,  receive something, give something? And if it stops in the middle, you  do not find yourself in a situation that you have already given up  your vital interests. And a phased option is when you give something,  receiving something very unequal and a promise that in the future it  may be good. What is "good"? It depends on how you evaluate it,  "Sargsyan said.  At the same time, the third president stressed that  he was not only ready to sign the working document, but also  exclusively agreed to remain the Prime Minister of the Republic of  Armenia to implement this option.  

"Since it is clear that Azerbaijan was very reluctant to continue  negotiations on such conditions, we came up with an option to have  three documents. One document to sign with Azerbaijan, which did not  fully satisfy our minimum wishes? The first point, when it comes to  the free expression of the will of the people of Nagorno Karabakh,  was formulated, as I said, as follows: the final status of Nagorno  Karabakh is determined by the free expression of the will of the  people of Nagorno Karabakh, which is legally binding and whose agenda  was not limited by anything.

This last paragraph, the last phrase, categorically did not suit  Azerbaijan. Why? Because the first two formulations fit into the  framework of its Constitution, in addition, at the end, Azerbaijan  could very calmly say: `` Yes, free expression of will, which is  legally binding, but given the Constitution of Azerbaijan, there can  be no referendum on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.  Therefore, the idea was to sign a document with Azerbaijan without  this last thought, about which I said: "the agenda is not limited to  anything." In parallel, immediately have a statement of the  co-chairing countries containing this phrase, and within a reasonable  time frame have a UN Security Council resolution based on the  statement of the co-chairs, "the former head of Armenia said.

He noted that this agreement had already been prepared in the fall of  2016, after the April war. "That is, this once again refutes the  stupid idea that as a result of the April war we allegedly agreed to  just return 7 regions to Azerbaijan. We do not exclude that someday  we will publish these projects. I just want to always be correct.  Within the limits of correctness, not in relation to people who  consider themselves my opponents, but to the co-chairs. Patience  always brings good results, good results. And I didn't say for 2.5  years what we were negotiating about until 2018, I didn't mind, but  the time has come, and the Russian side officially, not in the form  of an interview, but officially posted on the Foreign Ministry's  website what it's all about:> - said Sargsyan without finishing the  sentence.

At the same time, commenting on a post circulated online, where  President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, on behalf of Ilham Aliyev,  offers Sargsyan to take $ 5 billion from Aliyev for the return of  seven regions to Azerbaijan, and in return he offers $ 6 billion in  return for refusing these regions, Sargsyan noted that such a  proposal was received more than once. "I just said I meant the  following: Karabakh is not a subject of bargaining. We cannot offer  our Motherland to auction. You cannot trade in all those people who  gave their lives for a free and independent Artsakh. Do you doubt  that if Aliyev had somehow miraculously agreed, we would not have  been able to collect those six billion? I am sure that we would have  collected in a very short time. I am sure that all rich Armenians,  and not only the rich, would support me in this matter. Simply, my  answer was not a joke, but a sharp one: if you want to bargain, I am  ready to pay an even higher price, if your criteria are measured in  money, I give a higher price, "he noted. To clarify whether Sargsyan  considers it possible that this proposal was made to his successor,  he said that he did not rule out this. , the third president of Armenia  asked.

At the same time, he added that he does not understand why these  authorities did not recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh in  44 days.

Touching upon the de facto recognition of the RA Prime Minister that  Artsakh belongs with the phrase "Artsakh is Armenia, period,"  Sargsyan expressed his conviction that the statement was not  addressed to Azerbaijan and the co-chairs. "Although both Azerbaijan  and the co-chairs could and had the right to understand it this way.  I understood something else. That this statement is addressed  specifically to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. What did he  (Pashinyan) mean by this? He said: I am here the lord, the ruler, and  I say whom you should elect as president. This became noticeable  later, at the presidential elections.  That is, he needed to get a  puppet leadership in Karabakh so that in no way there would be even  the slightest opposition in any issue, and he achieved his goal.

As a result, the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh has never been so  humiliated, never so diminished, as after 2018. In the relationship  between Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan, there was not even  a hint of this. Then, when Robert Kocharian was the President of the  Republic of Armenia, Arkady Ghukasyan of Nagorno-Karabakh, this did  not exist. This was not the case when I was the President of the  Republic of Armenia, and Bako Sahakyan was the President of Karabakh,  "the former president continued.  At the same time, Sargsyan is  convinced that the RA authorities pursued goals of trying to return  Artsakh to the negotiation process as an independent party: one goal  was to play for time.

Referring to the fact that during the last war one of the three main  principles of conflict settlement was violated - the principle of  non-application forces and threats by force, however, the mediators  ignored this, Sargsyan said in particular: "Yes, the principle was  violated. And why should the co-chairs voice this, when one of the  parties did not take into account what they said many times. When you  secretly from the co-chairs secretly enter negotiations with Aliyev,  when you say: "Put aside what you said, gentlemen, co-chairs, but I  want it this way":  I think we made a tactical mistake by talking  about events and not showing evolution. That is, what happened after  this capitulator began to declare that he was negotiating from his  point of view, that everything was bad, that Karabakh should  participate in the negotiations, etc. Those were words, but they  became a document at the end of 2018, when, for the first time after  ten years, the wording at an OSCE ministerial conference, the three  principles were changed to "fair resolution". The third President of  Armenia also called the statements of the RA Prime Minister about the  acceptability of the decision for the three peoples as nonsense. mean? That is, we are two  peoples with Karabakh? Are we different peoples? After all, each such  statement, at first glance, is acceptable, with modern, in their  opinion, formulations: you can pack any stupidity like that. We saw  what happened as a result.

Referring back to your question. If you renounce principles,  including the principle of non-use of force, what were the co-chairs  supposed to do? If you do not want this principle to exist, then,  probably, with the help of others, you understand that this is very  important, you try again to say that the Madrid principles are  applicable, then again recklessly put forward some Munich principles,  how can the co-chairs orient themselves? Difficult to navigate. I am  not making excuses for anyone, I am simply explaining the situation,  "Sargsyan noted, while also criticizing the statements of the  Armenian Prime Minister about the constructiveness of Azerbaijan.