BOTH POSITIVE CONFIRMATIONS AND REASONS FOR CONCERN
Gevorg Haroutyunyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
05 Nov 08
Armenia
Interview with VAHAN HOVHANNISYAN, member of the ARFD Bureau and Head
of the ARFD parliamentary faction
"Mr. Hovhannisyan, how will you characterize the Declaration signed
on November 2 by the Armenian, Russian and Azeri Presidents?"
"All in all, I estimate the Declaration as positive. Particularly,
I attach importance to the fact that this document was signed
not only by the conflicting parties but also by the President of
Russia. By this signature, the Russian Federation assumes the role
of the guarantor for the implementation of all the five clauses of
the Declaration. As a co-chairing country of the OSCE Minsk Group,
Russia possesses that right. But the essential thing is that the
right was exercised, and the Moscow Declaration was brought to life.
All the five clauses of the Declaration contain positive reiterations,
but each of them has its peculiarities. Under the first clause of the
document, the political settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
should be based upon the norms and principles of international law and
the decisions and documents adopted within those frameworks. It’s no
secret that the conversation here is about both territorial integrity
and the principle of the nations’ right to self-determination. And
it’s wrong to make any attempts to determine which of these two
equipotent principles is prevalent.
Whereas the thing is that these two principles apply to different
domains.
Therefore, the activities towards the political settlement should
also be carried out in different domains. The principle of immunity
of borders applies to the Republic of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations,
and the principle of the nations’ right to self-determination should
apply to the Nagorno Karabakh Republic-Azerbaijan relations. This is
the disadvantage of the first clause of the document because the role
and participation of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is missing. This
certainly arouses concerns although the Declaration does not rule
out the possibility of such participation in future.
The fact that the decisions and documents adopted within the frameworks
of the norms and principles of international law are viewed as a basis
of political settlement arouses concern too. It is well-known that
as a result of the pressures and lobbying of Azerbaijan and Turkey,
different Assemblies, as well as the United Nations Organization have
recently adopted resolutions which are not quite favorable for the
settlement of the conflict.
Another matter of concern is that the conflict settlement is stipulated
by the economic development and multi-lateral cooperation in the
region.
Doesn’t this mean that there will be no economic developments
and cooperation between the parties unless the conflict is
settled? Azerbaijan has always said that lifting the blockade
and establishing cooperation is impossible unless the conflict is
settled. Whereas, we have always insisted that cooperation itself is
an essential factor in the conflict settlement process."
"Mr. Hovhannisyan, under the second clause of the Declaration, the
OSCE Minsk Group will continue its intermediary efforts, taking into
consideration the meeting held in Madrid, and the main principles of
conflict settlement should be elaborated in this context."
"The second clause can almost entirely be estimated as positive,
because it also confirms that the Minsk Group is the main tribunal
whose intermediary efforts should lead to the settlement of the
conflict. This confirms the Armenian party’s allegation that the
Minsk Group cannot be replaced by other tribunals. As to all the other
tribunals in which the Azerbaijan has managed and still manages to have
anti-Armenian decisions passed, they acquire a secondary importance.
The Madrid Principles should be discussed in isolation and not in the
frameworks of this Declaration. The Madrid Principles contain some
elements arousing concern, and in one of its statements, the Bureau
of Dashnaktsutyun has expressed its attitudes and assessments in this
connection. It is unacceptable for us to speak about concessions when
there are no guarantees.
By the way, such guarantees are touched upon in the second clause
of the Declaration. It is stated that the peaceful settlement should
be accompanied by legally binding international guarantees, and that
should be done in all the aspects and at all the stages.
This is positive. It is stated there will be guarantees not only for
the agreement putting an end to the conflict but also for all the
stages of the political settlement. If, for instance, the NKR has to
be granted an intermediate status before the referendum, such status
should be guaranteed, and being one of the parties to the agreement,
Azerbaijan cannot declare all of a sudden that it doesn’t recognize
the intermediate status of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Furthermore,
it cannot take any steps backwards.
During my pre-election campaign, I announced many times that we
should build our relationship by signing a non-aggression pact. When
the conflicting parties assure each other that they refuse military
solutions the negotiations will take a much more effective and peaceful
course. The Declaration contains some formulations asserting the
inevitability of the peaceful settlement.
As to the third clause, there’s no need to look for a scenario for
the phase-by-phase settlement of the conflict there. The package
agreement will be signed between the conflicting parties at the very
beginning. Definitely, those elements cannot be applied at the same
time, and naturally, they will be implemented one by one.
Under the fourth clause of the Declaration, the political
settlement between the parties should be coordinated on the top
level, i.e. through a dialogue between the Presidents. Besides, the
Foreign Ministers of the conflicting countries should establish a
more active the mutual cooperation with the three Co-Chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group.
The fifth clause which obliges the parties to undertake certain
measures and ensure relevant conditions for the strengthening of the
mutual cooperation is very important. This first of all rules out
the possibilities that the Azerbaijani media may start a campaign of
hatred against us, Armenians.
Besides, the state officials of the conflicting parties should refrain
from addressing insults to one another, making threats and resorting
to militaristic and aggressive propaganda.
This appeal is obviously addressed to Azerbaijan, because Armenia has
never had such manifestations. As to Azerbaijan, it has attempted to
root out the traces of the Armenians and eliminated our historical
monuments."