Former Armenian official slams foreign minister for stance on Karabakh
Aravot web site, Yerevan
26 Nov 04
The OSCE supports the UN Parliamentary Assembly debate and vote on the
occupied Azerbaijani territories as a way of putting pressure on the
Armenian leadership, the press secretary of Armenia’s last president
has said. Levon Zurabyan described as a “feeble attempt” at blackmail
Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan’s comment that Armenia would withdraw
from the Karabakh negotiating process if the UN adopted Azerbaijan’s
resolution. He also noted a change in terminology in international
institutions’ documents about the Karabakh conflict with the use of
such terms as “annexation attempt” by Armenia and “ethnic cleansing”.
The only solution is “for Armenia to abandon its maximalist and
unrealistic policy”, Zurabyan said in conclusion. The following is the
text of Anna Israelyan’s interview with Levon Zurabyan, press
secretary of first Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosyan, on Armenian
newspaper Aravot’s web site on 26 November headlined “Why the Armenian
foreign minister’s mood isn’t getting worse” and subheaded “Levon
Zurabyan, press secretary of the first Armenian president, thinks that
Vardan Oskanyan has no reason to be in a good mood and
self-confident”; subheadings inserted editorially:
Prospect of UN vote sword of Damocles for Armenia
[Correspondent] The postponement of the vote on the occupied
Azerbaijani territories, which was to be held at the session of the UN
General Assembly, gave rise to contradictory
interpretations. According to one of the theories, Azerbaijan refused
to vote, because it was not certain that the results would be to its
advantage. According to another theory, the US representative called
for non-interference in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. And
finally, the third theory: the OSCE Minsk Group has presented new
proposals and is now awaiting a reply. Which theory do you deem most
realistic?
[Zurabyan] The putting of this issue on the agenda of the UN General
Assembly was a punitive measure that the OSCE Minsk Group envisaged
for Armenia, which froze the talks under this format. However, the
issue has not been removed from the agenda, the vote has simply been
postponed pending concessions from the Armenian side. Essentially,
this is the sword of Damocles hanging over our country.
OSCE’s Minsk Group behind UN discussions
[Correspondent] Why are you so certain that this situation was
initiated by the Minsk Group if it is known that the issue was placed
on the agenda at Azerbaijan’s suggestion?
[Zurabyan] The last vote at the United Nations on this issue was taken
in 1993. Is it not surprising that Azerbaijan has not made one single
attempt of this type in 11 years? The explanation is very simple: the
co-chairmen of the Minsk Group dissuaded it [Azerbaijan] from coming
up with this kind of initiative. I affirm that if the co-chairmen were
against the development of this process, they could curb it because
they wield sufficient political influence in all structures: at the
OSCE, Security Council and UN General Assembly. And they did use their
influence – the US representative at the UN, who proposed to postpone
the vote, spoke on behalf of the Minsk Group too. Precisely this
proves that they govern this process from the beginning to the end. As
to the vote, they support it as a possible correctional measure for
the Armenian leadership. If our country demonstrates no desire to
hold talks under the Minsk Group framework, the punitive measure will
be carried out.
Armenia to achieve nothing by threatening to withdraw from talks
[Correspondent] The leadership of the Armenian Foreign Ministry has
issued a threat, though, that if the United Nations adopts this
resolution, Armenia will stop taking part in the talks sponsored by
the Minsk Group, and Azerbaijan will have to negotiate with
Karabakh. Can you not see danger in this? If our country bowls off,
the Karabakh problem will be resolved without the participation of the
Armenian side.
[Zurabyan] First, I am surprised by the behaviour and mood of the
leaders of the Armenian Foreign Ministry. I can understand [President]
Robert Kocharyan: that person regularly does physical exercise, so he
is in a good mood regardless of the political situation. But I cannot
understand why Vardan Oskanyan is in a good mood. He should not have
any reason for his genial mood and for self-confident statements. The
threat that Oskanyan voiced was a feeble attempt to blackmail the
international community and Azerbaijan. It is obvious, however, that
Armenia will not achieve anything this way.
[Correspondent] Let us try to understand the reasons for Vardan
Oskanyan’s good mood by quoting his own statement: “The decisions by
the UN General Assembly are not imperative and have no legal
force. They can only be of a non-binding nature and reflect the
opinion of the General Assembly.” So, if they do not have legal force,
there is no point in spoiling one’s mood.
[Zurabyan] I should not have to explain to the professional diplomat
that there is the notion of a “critical mass” of this type of
decision, which finally leads to the adoption of documents that are
legally binding.
Change in terminology to Azerbaijan’s advantage
[Correspondent] Another reason for the good mood of the foreign
minister is the following: Vardan Oskanyan claims that the “documents
that are adopted by international instances can pose a threat if the
issue of the further status of Nagornyy Karabakh will be raised in
them, but there have not been such reports yet.”
[Zurabyan] Azerbaijan has achieved its main goal of depriving the
Armenian side of its trump card in the talks – the occupied
territories. I want to remind you that the passage was struck from the
latest resolution by the UN Security Council, Resolution No 874, in
which the demand was made that the Armenian side should “immediately
and unconditionally withdraw its troops from the occupied
territories”. The diplomatic process which is under way at present
will lead to accusations against Armenia of occupation of Azerbaijani
territories and demands that it unconditionally withdraw its
troops. The change of terminology in descriptive documents on the
Karabakh conflict is also important. For example, in the resolution by
the Committee of Ministers of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe [PACE], expressions such as “annexation attempt” by
Armenia, “ethnic cleansing”, “violation of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty”
and so on are used. These terms reflect the position of the
Azerbaijani side, according to which Armenia lays claims to
Azerbaijani territories. It was clearly pointed out in the 1993
resolution that the Azerbaijani territories were occupied by the
“local Armenian forces”. The report by the PACE rapporteur [David]
Atkinson includes the term “separatist forces”, which has never been
mentioned before.
It is with heartache that I have to agree with Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
thought that sad consequences are brewing with respect to the Karabakh
issue. We will not be able any more to get what could have been
achieved in 1997. But this does not mean that we should despair. I
think that the only way out is for Armenia to abandon its maximalist
and unrealistic policy.