EVERYTHING IS STILL TO COME
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
13 Nov 08
Armenia
On Which Principle Should We Continue The Negotiations
Did the Minedorf declaration serve as a turning point in the
negotiation process, heralding the start of the swift settlement of
Karabakh conflict, as the pro-Levon opposition states or just on the
contrary, it delays the settlement of the conflict for indefinite
time? Neutral MP Victor Dallakyan answers the questions of the
journalists.
" I consider it normal that there are different standpoints linked
with the negotiation process. It provides an opportunity to hold public
discussions regarding the tough NKR issue but in my view the disputing
parties don’t have the right to accuse one another in "treachery". I’m
sure there is no Armenian who is not interested in the pro-Armenian
settlement of the issue; simply there are different perceptions.
Secondly the concept of the settlement of the conflict must be adopted,
later – an agreement, that is to say a concrete document enshrining
the commitments and the schedule of the actions of the parties to
the negotiation. This process really demands great efforts and time.
In this regard I can make certain observations by a small historical
excursion. Firstly Nagorno Karabakh didn’t form part of Azerbaijan in
1918-20. The declaration runs about corresponding legal international
documents. For example the document passed by the National League says
Nagorno Karabakh is considered a disputable territory and Azerbaijan
has declared its independence within the borders of the republic
of 1918-20.
Secondly Nagorno Karabakh has made its famous decision about
separating from Azerbaijan according to the letter and the spirit of
the Soviet Union’s law on "Referendum". That is to say NKR’s right
to self-determination has been realized perfectly, in conformity with
the norms of the international law. Consequently by pointing out that
clause of the declaration, we must consider the document as well."
"Do you mean to say that "the anxiety" saying that the documents
adopted in the framework of the international legal norms work to
the benefit of Azerbaijan, are mildly speaking inappropriate?"
"Definitely. I can continue the list. For example in 1994 OSCE Budapest
Summit passed a document, which considers Karabakh an independent
party to negotiation. The ceasefire of 1994 was signed between the
representatives of Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. Even
the famous resolution adopted by the UN, when speaking about the
withdrawal of not Armenia but the Armenian armed forces, implies
NKR armed subdivisions. After all we shouldn’t forget that Armenian
Supreme Council has once made a decision according to which Nagorno
Karabakh can’t form part of Azerbaijan.
By the20way the United States also indirectly accepts Nagorno
Karabakh’s being an independent factor, a state institute, by yearly
allocating certain assistance to Nagorno Karabakh from their budget.
There is another noteworthy factor, I don’t think the main force
centers, the USA, Russia, European Union, can reach such an agreement
regarding Karabakh issue, that besides the before mentioned three force
centers they can also meet the demands of Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh
and Azerbaijan. So I have an impression that the negotiation process
will be postponed.
I would also like to say that none of the Armenian Presidents can
impose their will upon the Armenian people, trying to question NKR’s
right to self-determination. If our political figures are guided
by the presumption of sensibility and by the way I’m sure they are,
then they can’t "sell" Nagorno Karabakh even if they want to do so.
And the last observation. During the recent interviews given by
Serge Sargsyan to different Mass Media, he clearly said that Karabakh
couldn’t be secure inside Azerbaijan. I would add the following to the
before mentioned idea: it has never been independent inside Azerbaijan.
I don’t think Karabakh is the issue that should become a matter of
political speculations. The negotiations must be based on certain
fundamental principles. First: the legal side of the issue – NKR’s
right to self-determination is realized perfectly, in conformity
with the international norms and principles. Second: the historical
side of the issue is that NKR was part of the Armenian state; this is
undeniable, because Azerbaijani state was established in 1918. Third:
the situational side of the issue is that there is no conflict, the
settlement of which doesn’t consider the existing realties, that is to
say the situation created due to the war. And this is in case when the
war has been initiated by Azerbaijan, to punish NKR people only because
these people wanted to exercise their right to self-determination. The
negotiations must be based on these principles."
"Does the fact that at present Karabakh is following the process of
the negotiations from aside testify that the process is far from the
"final stage?"
"Definitely! Nagorno Karabakh must be a party to negotiation and
by the way the Co-Chairmen have also announced many times that at
some stage NKR must participate in the negotiations. Which means,
in principle, they accept Karabakh as a negotiation party.
In this regard I support Bako Sahakyan’s statement saying that the
issue can’t be settled without NKR’s participation in the negotiation
process. By my personal observation it would have been more correct and
more perceptible if NKR’s President also signed the declaration, that
is to say it should have been n ot a trilateral but a quadrilateral
declaration."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
