Category: 2022

ArmInfo.Levon  Zurabyan, Vice-Chairman of the Armenian National Congress (ANC), has commented on the six points proposed by the Armenian side for normalizing the  Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.  

“The six points are about nothing,” Mr Zurabyan wrote on his Facebook  page. 

“We have once more been convinced that Armenia’s government does not  understand anything in diplomacy and is incapable in the true sense  of the word. The point is that Azerbaijan has presented its own ides  to Armenia of what specific provisions should be included in the  future peace agreement to be signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

“Briefly, they are: 1) mutual recognition of territorial integrity 2)  ruling out territorial claims 3) ruling out use of force or threat of  force 4) border delimitation and demarcation and establishment of  diplomatic relations 5) unblocking of communications. That is,  Azerbaijan proposes its own vision or a draft peace agreement, its  vision of the form of the documents,” Mr Zurabyan wrote.  Armenia’s  response was clear. According to diplomatic rules, Armenia was to  present its vision of the same agreement.

“And now our government has proclaimed six points presented in  response. On May 13, Edmon Marukyan made them public. So what? We  find out that Armenia has no idea of what it wanted to include in the  agreement or of what it wanted to change in Azerbaijan’s proposals,”  Mr Zurabyan wrote.

Scrutinizing Armenia’s response shows that, instead of its own  proposals and ideas, Armenia presented the following: 

1) “Discontent” with an unnamed co-chair responsible for a 20-day  delay in Armenia receiving, allegedly on March 11, a letter sent by  Azerbaijan on February 21. 2) Stating the historical fact that,  according to the authors, proves that by joining the Declaration on  CIS back in 1991, Armenia recognized Azerbaijan’s territorial  integrity (and it remains unclear if Armenia is ready to include the  point on mutual recognition of territorial integrity in the text of  the agreement or not). 3) The claim about Nagorno-Karabakh’s final  status being a “matter of principle” for the Armenian side, which  does not specify the status or mechanism Armenia is proposing to  settle the issue (this claim cannot even be viewed as a proposal to  put the issue of status on the negotiations agenda)  

4) The claim about Armenia attaching “importance” to honoring the  commitments under the Russian- Armenian-Azerbaijani agreements, which  claim cannot even be viewed as a demand to honor the commitments or  as a precondition for negotiations or at least as a proposal for  putting it on the agenda. 

5) A statement on the readiness to start negotiations, which, in  fact, confirms Armenia is not putting forward any preconditions for  negotiations. 

6) A report claiming that the Armenian side applied to the OSCE Minsk  Group co-chairs for organizing negotiations (idiotic behavior given  the co-chairs’ inability for teamwork in the context of the  Russia-West relations) 

According to Zurabyan, this text shows that in their reply letter the  Armenian authorities only “stated their feelings about the ongoing  negotiations, made a dubious excursion into the historical domain,  hinting at the other negotiators honoring their commitments,  introduced romantic proposals for organizing the negotiations,” Mr  Zurabyan wrote. 

“In short, they have done all they could except for what they should  have done in this process of crucial importance for Armenia and  Artsakh,” he added.  

According to him, the Armenian authorities did not present its  proposals to either Azerbaijan or the international community.

“Even Azerbaijani Foreign Minister [Jeyhun] Bayramov jeered at this  lukewarm response, while reading the first point and asking ‘So what  is Armenia’s proposal here?’

“Have no doubts that these people are making a laughingstock of us  everywhere and failing any business.  They have no elementary  understanding of international politics and diplomacy of negotiations  – be it Nikol Pashinyan, Ararat Mirzoyan, Armen Grigoryan, Vahagn  Khachaturyan or Edmon Marukyan. Under the circumstances, as long as  Armenia lacks a competent and responsible government, the only hope  in the diplomatic process is that the superpowers’ interests and  plans will concur with those of Armenia. But it is a most slender  theoretical chance,” Mr Zurabyan wrote. 

ArmInfo. It is quite difficult to determine today what is behind Yerevan’s latest statements about the need to determine the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is clear that the range of possible statuses is very wide, and, in fact, apart from  independence, it is quite difficult to distinguish other statuses  among them .A similar opinion was expressed to ArmInfo by chief  researcher of the Institute of World Economy and International  Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, orientalist Alexey   Malashenko.

According to RA Ambassador-at-Large Edmon Marukyan, Armenia responded  to Baku’s 5 points with 6 points. In particular, in a response letter  to the letter of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, the absence of  territorial claims of Armenia against Azerbaijan was noted. Another  point concerns ensuring the security guarantees for the Armenians of  Artsakh, observing their rights and freedoms, as well as determining  its final status.

Yerevan also considers it important to fulfill all the obligations  enshrined in the statements of the leaders of Armenia, the Russian  Federation and Azerbaijan dated November 9, 2020, January 11 and  November 26, 2021. Yerevan is also ready to negotiate a peace  agreement, normalize and establish interstate relations based on the  UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  and the Helsinki Final Act. The final provision noted Yerevan’s  appeal to the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs to organize the relevant  negotiations.

“The possibility of choosing Yerevan between Baku’s proposals in  order to continue negotiations in this direction is also not ruled  out. We see that the possibility of pro-Armenian decisions is seen  quite vaguely, while Prime Minister Pashinyan spoke quite openly  about lowering the bar of Armenian aspirations on the issue of the  status of NK. In any case, we see that the peace process is quite  complicated and is accompanied by internal discontent in Armenia and  largely incomprehensible disagreements around it,” he stressed.  

Touching on the external background of the settlement, the expert  highlighted the haste of Baku, Ankara and Brussels against the  background of Moscow’s involvement in a protracted Ukrainian war with  problems involving protracted solutions not only in Ukraine, but also  in other regions. And of course, Moscow’s desire to maintain its own  influence in the same South Caucasus, which, in his opinion, is  becoming more and more difficult with time.  

“One way or another, analyzing this entire internal and external  spectrum of events and geopolitics, all these rather difficult  circumstances and the background around the settlement, we have to  state that decisions will not be easy and quick. There are plenty of  grounds for such a forecast – this is the difference between the  proposals of Baku and Yerevan and, of course, the most complicated  geopolitical background around the settlement, caused by Ukraine. All  this leads anywhere, but not to the speedy end of the problems  between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” Malashenko summed up.

ArmInfo.Artsakh has nothing to “lower”. It has the redlines that it will never cross, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Artsakh David Babayan stated at a  Facebook conference held by the Azatutyun Radio in response to a  question about a need to agree to a lower status for  Nagorno-Karabakh. 

In response, he said: “And who is the international community? The  concept of international community is most sophisticated. One of the  members of the international community, Azerbaijan, claims no bars at  all exist nor is there a Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Another member of  the international community, Armenia, is saying: here is Artsakh. The  international has not nor can it have a common opinion on the issue,  especially now that the world has entered the era of barefaced  geopolitics,” Mr Babayan said. The concepts of human rights or  democracy are being disregarded, he added. 

Some of the western countries are overtly supporting Azerbaijan,  others are indifferent and still others are supporting the Armenian  side.   

In this context, Mr Babayan highlighted the importance of reasonable  reckoning and balanced actions in defense of Armenian national  interests. 

“You see that we have no room for lowering the bar. Why was the  international community silent for the 44 days when we were being  massacred? We must defend our interests instead of thinking of  getting dividends from some states or others. We have nothing to  lower, we have redlines. There is no turning back,” Mr Babayan said. 

He calls for understanding Azerbaijan’s nature. Why is Azerbaijan  refusing to recognize Artsakh now? It has much more now that it once  dreamt of, does it not? This conflict has no solution or a balance of  forces is a solution. 

The international community is divided. It is not any longer  controlled by one or two centers, as it is a multipolar world now. 

As to Russia’s position, Mr Babayan recalled Russia’s explicit  statement – a more explicit that the ones by the United States and  France (the two other OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs). Specifically,  Moscow stated that border delimitation and demarcation between  Armenia and Azerbaijan has nothing in common with Nagorno-Karabakh,  which is right.   

As to the possibility of Artsakh applying for joining Russia, Mr  Babayan said Stepanakert’s only agenda is retaining Artsakh’s  statehood and having it recognized. 

As to why Artsakh is not joining Armenia, Mr Babayan noted that  joining Armenia remains a top priority.  “But the rules of  geopolitics turn out to be such. Azerbaijan did its best to present  the conflict as a territorial one, but we had not the necessary  potential to make our voice heard.” The world is dominated by  geopolitical interests and biased approaches, with “some allowed and  others prohibited.” 

Speaking in Parliament this, Armenia’s premier said:   “The  international community is telling us straightforwardly now:  being  the world’s only country refusing to recognize Turkey’s ally  Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is a great threat not only to  Artsakh, but also to Armenia. The international community is telling  us again now: request a lower status for Nagorno-Karabakh, and you  will enjoy international unanimity on Armenia and Artsakh. Otherwise,  we request you not to hope for us not because we are unwilling to  help, but because we are unable to.”