VARDAN OSKANYAN COMMENTS ON THE STATEMENT OF THE OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS
ArmRadio.am
30.06.2006 14:10
RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian commented on the statement of
the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group in an interview to Armenpress.
Question: The co-chairs in their statement say that "our approach
has been a modified one: we have not tried to solve all aspects of
the conflict in one phase. Instead our principles seek to achieve a
major degree of progress but defer some very difficult issues to the
future and envision further negotiations." What does this mean?
V.Oskanyan: The actual negotiating document on the principles that is
on the table today is all-encompassing. It covers all the principles
affecting the resolution of the conflict. It includes the core issue
of status of Nagorno-Karabakh, territories, refugees, security issues,
peacekeeping and every other conceivable issue that is necessary in
order to arrive at a lasting resolution of the conflict. Only after
full agreement on all these basic principles would the parties, as the
actual negotiating text says, "in cooperation with the co-chairs of
the OSCE Minsk group to begin work on the elaboration of an agreement
on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict." In other words,
the agreement on principles will be comprehensive. The final agreement
may envision implementation over time.
Question: In their report, the co-chairs say "the principles include
the phased withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories
around Nagorno-Karabakh, with special modalities for Kelbajar and
Lachin districts." What are these special modalities?
V.Oskanyan: This formulation is indeed very broad, and for a
reason. This issue has two layers. One is the issue of Lachin, where
the actual negotiating text on principles provides clear language
stating that there will be "a corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh to
Armenia." For Armenia, it’s very clear that this corridor must have
the same status as Nagorno-Karabakh. The second layer is the issue of
Kelbajar. For Armenia, this also is clear: based on security concerns,
Kelbajar can be returned only after the referendum is conducted
and the final status of NK is determined. Azerbaijan’s position is
different on Kelbajar. That’s the disagreement that the co-chairs
are addressing in their statement. The co-chairs’ language in the
actual negotiating text, with regard to this issue, is generally in
line with our approach.
Question: The co-chairs say that there will be a referendum / popular
vote " to determine the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh,"
but they don’t say who will vote.
V.Oskanyan: The actual negotiating text on principles clearly specifies
that "the final legal status will be determined through a referendum
or population vote by the population of Nagorno-Karabakh."
Question: The co-chairs also say "certain interim arrangements
for Nagorno-Karabakh would allow for interaction with providers of
international assistance." What does this mean?
V.Oskanyan: This is only one element of a much more detailed section
in the actual negotiating text, which addresses interim status for
Nagorno-Karabakh.
We think the co-chairs have emphasized international
engagement, because that ‘s a major problem for the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh. Their current, unrecognized, de-facto status,
has not allowed them to benefit from the generosity of international
organizations. In the actual negotiating text, the provisions address
such rights of control over their political and economic viability
and security, upholding their personal privileges and freedoms, the
right to democratically elect officials to govern Nagorno-Karabakh,
the authority to effectively legislate and administer the internal
affairs of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Question: What is Armenia’s overall assessment of the content of the
document as it stands today?
V.Oskanyan: This not a perfect document for anyone. However,
there are enough solid and balanced provisions, with the right
trade-offs on the main issues – status, territories and security –
that we are prepared to continue to negotiate on the basis of these
principles. In today’s context, Azerbaijan’s rhetoric about autonomy
and desperate calls for militarization surprise us. We have at hand
a real opportunity to resolve all issues, including the much-maligned
issue of refugees. But Azerbaijan must revert to real situations and
real opportunities, rather than illusory maximalist hopes. Today,
we hope that Azerbaijan will realize that we have a chance to resolve
the conflict and achieve a lasting peace.