Exactly what you said proves the fact that this man has a poor understanding of the negotiation process and does not know the details of the negotiation process nor the essence, said Armenia's third President Serzh Sargsyan in an exclusive interview.
He referred to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's statements that the issue of Nagorno Karabakh was delegated to the UN Security Council after the April War, while recalling the UNSC resolutions of 1993, and also speaking about the possibility of the UNSC to adopt or not to adopt a document.
"First, what do the UNSC resolutions of 1993 have to do with this? Those were about a completely different issue. All those resolutions adopted in 1993 were calling for cessation of armed hostilities. Those were meant to decide neither on the status, nor anything else for that matter. And the claim that the [new] UN Security Council resolution would not be adopted raises a question: exactly what line of argumentation does he rely on to yield such a conclusion ?" said Serzh Sargsyan.
"I am saying that the [new] UN Security Council resolution would no doubt be adopted, based on the fact three out of five Permanent Members of the Security Council – United States, Russia and France – were those proposing the draft. Can you at all imagine a situation when, if I must repeat myself, three out of five Permanent Members (United States, Russia and France) table a draft resolution, and even if [it were not adopted] – what would happen? Even if they decided to go to extreme measure and one of the Permanent Members used the veto power, what would we lose? The co-chairs simply could not make certain proposals and then in the course of their discussions turn 180 degrees and suddenly adopt a different decision? That’s impossible," Sargsyan said.
In response to the remark that if such a thing had happened, the responsibility for the non-resolution would have fallen on the international community, the third president of Armenia said that not even the international community but a particular member of it would have become responsible. "This [document] was not ‘a catastrophe’. For us that was, of course, not the document of our dreams, neither the Kazan document was the embodiment of our dreams, but it was an acceptable document for us. It was an implementable one on the ground too. That is obvious," Serzh Sargsyan said.