Monday, April 18 2022 14:10

ArmInfo. The speech of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan in the Parliament is partly reminiscent of Levon Ter-Petrosyan's "War or  Peace" article (the first President of the Republic of Armenia, ed.  note), and the public discussions and disputes that followed  Pashinyan's speech - the meeting convened on January 8, 1998 by Levon  Ter-Petrosyan National Security Council.

Former Foreign Minister of Armenia Vartan  Oskanian  expressed a similar opinion in his article on the current situation in Armenia and the current stage of the  Karabakh settlement.

At the same time, he expressed his conviction that the current  situation in Armenia is similar to the situation of 1997-1998, from a  crucial and turning point of view, but not in terms of content.  However, he added, from the point of view of Armenia's national  interests, there is no aspect of comparing the approaches of  Ter-Petrosyan and Pashinyan.

"The meeting of the Security Council was expanded, in addition to the  members of the Council of Prime Minister Robert Kocharyan, Minister  of Defense Vazgen Sargsyan and Minister of Internal Affairs and  National Security Serzh Sargsyan, it was attended by representatives  of the ANM, the leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh represented by  President Arkady Ghukasyan, Minister of Defense Samvel Babayan and  Prime Minister Leonard Petrosyan.

At that time, I was the first deputy minister of foreign affairs and  was invited to the meeting as the chief negotiator on Karabakh. At  the meeting, Levon Ter-Petrosyan pursued the goal of substantiating  his support for the phased version of the settlement of the Karabakh  problem, presented by the Minsk Group in those days, and obtaining  agreement from the participants to put this proposal into motion.

Ter-Petrosyan was convinced that the return of the regions adjacent  to Nagorno-Karabakh to ensure the existence of the territory and  people of Nagorno-Karabakh, with the exception of Lachin, proceeds  from the national interests of Armenia and the Armenian people.  Moreover, he believed that, given the geopolitical situation of those  days, as well as the limited opportunities for the development of the  Republic of Armenia, no other option can be expected," Oskanian  recalled.

At the same time, he stated that the objection of his opponents was  based on the fact that the proposed document did not even mention the  future status of Nagorno-Karabakh, not to mention any clarification  on this issue.

"Ter-Petrosyan, in turn, assured that every reference to the status  of Nagorno-Karabakh will necessarily include the principle of the  territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, therefore, at this stage, it is  preferable to refrain from discussing the status issue.

Interrupting this stormy and passionate argument, Ter-Petrosyan put  me in a rather difficult position and, stretching out his hand in my  direction, said: "Let Vardan say whether it is ever possible to get a  document in which there will be a reference to the status of Karabakh  without fixing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan". It took me  by surprise.  I sat far away at the table while I was in the role of  listener and did not expect that I would participate in the  discussions.

Everyone looked at me as if my answer was supposed to decide the  outcome of this meeting: "Mr.  President, I think it's possible," the  diplomat said.

At the same time, Oskanian noted that his answer was based on the  conviction that the Armenian side had not exhausted its diplomatic  possibilities and that in those days the international conditions  were not favorable for the RA. "But, given the turbulent situation of  those days in the world, a lot could have changed in our favor, which  happened. In subsequent years, the Minsk Group put three proposals on  the table (a common state, Key West and the Madrid proposals), in  which there was a reference to the status Karabakh, and in three  cases - outside of Azerbaijan.

The key difference between those days and these days is that  Ter-Petrosyan only proposed to refrain from discussing the status,  leaving it for the future. Pashinyan, apparently, is inclined to  recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan if the security of the  people of Nagorno-Karabakh is guaranteed.

If in these days Ter-Petrosyan offered to bypass the issue of status,  today it is necessary to bypass and avoid the signing of a "peace  treaty" at any cost, since it will inevitably consolidate the status  of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.

If desired, Pashinyan has weighty and convincing arguments for  everyone not to sign such a document," Oskanian said.

According to him, firstly, from a legal point of view, this document  will contradict the Constitution of Armenia and the decision of the  Supreme Council of independent Armenia of 1992. And in this vein, he  pointed to the fact that in order to sign and ratify such a document,  it is necessary to change the Constitution of Armenia and cancel the  decision of the Supreme Council.

"Secondly, no one has been granted such a right. A majority of votes  in elections does not mean obtaining the right to make arbitrary  decisions on an existential issue for the Armenian people.

Thirdly, the people of Artsakh - the issue of its physical existence,  which is put on the scales - was the main bearer of hardships and  sufferings of the past decades, and did not give anyone the authority  to decide their fate, which was reaffirmed by its parliament by a  statement adopted the other day.

Fourthly, there is a provision in Pashinyan's program on  Nagorno-Karabakh approved by the Armenian National Assembly,  according to which it is necessary to be consistent in realizing the  right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination based on the  principle of "recognition in the name of salvation", the indisputable  right to which the people of Artsakh have," emphasized the Armenian  diplomat.

At the same time, Oskanian is convinced that both in the distant 90s  and today, the Armenian side has not exhausted diplomatic  opportunities. In this vein, he drew attention to the fact that after  the 44-day war, Armenian diplomacy practically did not make any  serious efforts to achieve a favorable result for the Armenians.

"Even if for a moment we assume that international conditions are not  favorable, then now the world is even more unstable and uncertain  than ever, and it would simply, to put it mildly, be naive in these  conditions to determine the status of Artsakh in favor of Azerbaijan.  The result of any negotiations should satisfy three conditions: it  must be meaningful, effective and improve relations between the  parties. The path chosen by the Armenian authorities cannot satisfy  any of these conditions.

The speeches of Pashinyan and his team in the National Assembly about  their readiness to lower the bar of the political status of  Nagorno-Karabakh, that is, to recognize the belonging of Karabakh to  Azerbaijan, have already closed all the possibilities for reaching an  acceptable solution for Armenia through negotiations in advance.

Perhaps the signing of such a document will establish friendly ties  between the current authorities and Azerbaijan, but, clearly, it  cannot serve as the basis for friendship between the state of  Armenia, the Armenian people and Azerbaijan," Oskanian summed up.