Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan retaliates to accusations of diplomatic failures in Karabakh talks
05.12.2020,
13:33
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was quick today to respond to the accusations of the diplomatic failure of the negotiations on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, voiced yesterday by ex- president Robert Kocharyan in an interview with Channel 5.
YEREVAN, December 5. /ARKA/. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was quick today to respond to the accusations of the diplomatic failure of the negotiations on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, voiced yesterday by ex- president Robert Kocharyan in an interview with Channel 5.
In a live Facebook video message on Sunday morning, Pashinyan actually accused his predecessors of a long string of diplomatic failures in the Karabakh issue over the past 20-25 years.
Pashinyan was elected Prime Minister of Armenia in the spring of 2018. His predecessor as head of state was Serzh Sargsyan (the third president of Armenia in 2008-2018), who replaced Robert Kocharyan (the second president of the Republic of Armenia from 1998 to 2008).
Below is the unofficial translation of Pashinyan's message with some abbreviations.
'When I took responsibility for our failures in the war in Artsakh, everyone in Armenia rushed to dump the responsibility for what has happened over the last 25-30 years on me and on my government. Even the person, who pushed Nagorno-Karabakh authorities out from the negotiation process moving them to the realm of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations (he means ex-president Robert Kocharyan), accuses us of making the Karabakh issue a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
However, this issue was placed in the context of a territorial dispute at a time when Armenia began to negotiate instead of Karabakh. And this fact, please note, happened over 20 years ago. We are accused of the fact that the international community views Azerbaijan's aggression this year as the realization of its intention to restore its territorial integrity. And this accusation is voiced by a person during whose rule the international community would accuse Armenia of occupying the territories of Azerbaijan, but that person would say there was nothing dangerous in such wordings as "occupied".
This attitude of the international community was not shaped in 2020, but over the last 25 years. The fact that the Karabakh issue began to be perceived as a territorial dispute and became our biggest problem, the fact that Armenia gradually began to be perceived by the international community as an occupier, did not happen over the last two years. And over the last two years, an attempt has been made to get out of this vicious circle.
Success or failure of diplomacy?
We are accused of diplomatic failure in the war ... Nobody asks the question when and what diplomatic successes in the Karabakh issue did Armenia have after the start of the institutional negotiations? Was the 1995 Lisbon Summit a diplomatic success? Then, immediately after our victory in the Karabakh war, the international community essentially demonstrated its attitude by the formula that Nagorno-Karabakh should be autonomy within Azerbaijan.
Were the package or a common state settlement options presented in 1998 a diplomatic success? They clearly stated that Armenia had to hand back the seven regions (adjacent to the administrative border of Nagorno-Karabakh, controlled by the Armenian forces) to Azerbaijan, as well as that Azerbaijan and Karabakh should be part of one state. Was the 1995 OSCE Istanbul Declaration a diplomatic success? It stated that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of territorial integrity.
Were the Madrid Principles a diplomatic success? By the way, they were declared as a diplomatic success, but in reality they were a real shame saying that Karabakh can be outside Azerbaijan only if Baku agrees to it.
Were the 2011 Kazan talks a diplomatic success? When Azerbaijan slammed the door at the talks, and the Armenian leader said in an interview that "we are ready to return seven regions, but Azerbaijan wants more."
Were the documents adopted by various international institutions over the past 25 years, which clearly state the fact of the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan and the fact that the issue should be resolved within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan a diplomatic success?
Or was it a diplomatic success that in 2013 Azerbaijan began a stage of military escalation and no one blamed it for it? Were the Russian proposals of 2016 a diplomatic success, when the issue of Artsakh's status was essentially removed from the agenda? And now people who conduct diplomacy at this level say that we have suffered a diplomatic failure!
Armenian-Russian relations
Okay, if we have built bad relations with Russia, and you, as you claim, had good ones. Then how did it happen that, at the suggestion of our strategic ally, the issue of Artsakh's status was essentially removed from the negotiations?
How did it happen that in connection with the April 2016 war, Azerbaijan was not punished? Because you went and obediently agreed with what was proposed, that is, you legitimized Azerbaijan's right to wage war!
Attempts by the authorities in the field of diplomacy
We did not fail diplomacy, but the attempts to get out of the burden of diplomatic failures suffered over the past 20 years. This is the truth. We are accused of not being able to avoid war. If you could, you would have avoided the 2016 war, or stopped the war to reclaim territories based on a verbal promise.
Why didn't we manage to do the same? Because we were told that since Armenia has already several times orally promised to return the territories and did not return them, now the conversation can only be conducted in writing and with the indication of the terms.
The importance of the November 9 statement
The war could be stopped only with the signing of a document similar to the statement of November 9 - before the war or at its start. And, by the way, from the first day of the war, from the rostrum of the National Assembly, I said that I could stop the war right now and said at what cost. Why then did not you make statements? Or did you agree with the principle that the war must be stopped?
Now it turns out that everyone is in favor of land surrender according to the 5 + 2 formula! So why wasn't it done in 2016, in 2018? Then the war would have been averted and the Karabakh issue would have been resolved, especially since after the April war you knew what was what.
Some people think that Azerbaijan would calmly agree with the 5 + 2 principle. This was a precondition that still needed to be written, agreed upon and signed. But, as soon as Armenia would agree to any option, Azerbaijan would want more: Shushi, Lachin and others. And I am shocked by some people who, considering themselves a great diplomat, do not understand these simple things or do not want to understand.
Turkish factor
We are accused of Turkey's involvement in the Karabakh issue. But Turkey got involved in the Karabakh issue as a result of football diplomacy (Serzh Sargsyan's initiative in 2008). And as a result of the failure of the Armenian "football diplomacy" Turkey announced that it would not establish relations with Armenia as long as the territories of Azerbaijan remain occupied. It was 10 years ago. -0-
In a live Facebook video message on Sunday morning, Pashinyan actually accused his predecessors of a long string of diplomatic failures in the Karabakh issue over the past 20-25 years.
Pashinyan was elected Prime Minister of Armenia in the spring of 2018. His predecessor as head of state was Serzh Sargsyan (the third president of Armenia in 2008-2018), who replaced Robert Kocharyan (the second president of the Republic of Armenia from 1998 to 2008).
Below is the unofficial translation of Pashinyan's message with some abbreviations.
'When I took responsibility for our failures in the war in Artsakh, everyone in Armenia rushed to dump the responsibility for what has happened over the last 25-30 years on me and on my government. Even the person, who pushed Nagorno-Karabakh authorities out from the negotiation process moving them to the realm of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations (he means ex-president Robert Kocharyan), accuses us of making the Karabakh issue a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
However, this issue was placed in the context of a territorial dispute at a time when Armenia began to negotiate instead of Karabakh. And this fact, please note, happened over 20 years ago. We are accused of the fact that the international community views Azerbaijan's aggression this year as the realization of its intention to restore its territorial integrity. And this accusation is voiced by a person during whose rule the international community would accuse Armenia of occupying the territories of Azerbaijan, but that person would say there was nothing dangerous in such wordings as "occupied".
This attitude of the international community was not shaped in 2020, but over the last 25 years. The fact that the Karabakh issue began to be perceived as a territorial dispute and became our biggest problem, the fact that Armenia gradually began to be perceived by the international community as an occupier, did not happen over the last two years. And over the last two years, an attempt has been made to get out of this vicious circle.
Success or failure of diplomacy?
We are accused of diplomatic failure in the war ... Nobody asks the question when and what diplomatic successes in the Karabakh issue did Armenia have after the start of the institutional negotiations? Was the 1995 Lisbon Summit a diplomatic success? Then, immediately after our victory in the Karabakh war, the international community essentially demonstrated its attitude by the formula that Nagorno-Karabakh should be autonomy within Azerbaijan.
Were the package or a common state settlement options presented in 1998 a diplomatic success? They clearly stated that Armenia had to hand back the seven regions (adjacent to the administrative border of Nagorno-Karabakh, controlled by the Armenian forces) to Azerbaijan, as well as that Azerbaijan and Karabakh should be part of one state. Was the 1995 OSCE Istanbul Declaration a diplomatic success? It stated that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of territorial integrity.
Were the Madrid Principles a diplomatic success? By the way, they were declared as a diplomatic success, but in reality they were a real shame saying that Karabakh can be outside Azerbaijan only if Baku agrees to it.
Were the 2011 Kazan talks a diplomatic success? When Azerbaijan slammed the door at the talks, and the Armenian leader said in an interview that "we are ready to return seven regions, but Azerbaijan wants more."
Were the documents adopted by various international institutions over the past 25 years, which clearly state the fact of the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan and the fact that the issue should be resolved within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan a diplomatic success?
Or was it a diplomatic success that in 2013 Azerbaijan began a stage of military escalation and no one blamed it for it? Were the Russian proposals of 2016 a diplomatic success, when the issue of Artsakh's status was essentially removed from the agenda? And now people who conduct diplomacy at this level say that we have suffered a diplomatic failure!
Armenian-Russian relations
Okay, if we have built bad relations with Russia, and you, as you claim, had good ones. Then how did it happen that, at the suggestion of our strategic ally, the issue of Artsakh's status was essentially removed from the negotiations?
How did it happen that in connection with the April 2016 war, Azerbaijan was not punished? Because you went and obediently agreed with what was proposed, that is, you legitimized Azerbaijan's right to wage war!
Attempts by the authorities in the field of diplomacy
We did not fail diplomacy, but the attempts to get out of the burden of diplomatic failures suffered over the past 20 years. This is the truth. We are accused of not being able to avoid war. If you could, you would have avoided the 2016 war, or stopped the war to reclaim territories based on a verbal promise.
Why didn't we manage to do the same? Because we were told that since Armenia has already several times orally promised to return the territories and did not return them, now the conversation can only be conducted in writing and with the indication of the terms.
The importance of the November 9 statement
The war could be stopped only with the signing of a document similar to the statement of November 9 - before the war or at its start. And, by the way, from the first day of the war, from the rostrum of the National Assembly, I said that I could stop the war right now and said at what cost. Why then did not you make statements? Or did you agree with the principle that the war must be stopped?
Now it turns out that everyone is in favor of land surrender according to the 5 + 2 formula! So why wasn't it done in 2016, in 2018? Then the war would have been averted and the Karabakh issue would have been resolved, especially since after the April war you knew what was what.
Some people think that Azerbaijan would calmly agree with the 5 + 2 principle. This was a precondition that still needed to be written, agreed upon and signed. But, as soon as Armenia would agree to any option, Azerbaijan would want more: Shushi, Lachin and others. And I am shocked by some people who, considering themselves a great diplomat, do not understand these simple things or do not want to understand.
Turkish factor
We are accused of Turkey's involvement in the Karabakh issue. But Turkey got involved in the Karabakh issue as a result of football diplomacy (Serzh Sargsyan's initiative in 2008). And as a result of the failure of the Armenian "football diplomacy" Turkey announced that it would not establish relations with Armenia as long as the territories of Azerbaijan remain occupied. It was 10 years ago. -0-
