Hoagland’s statement on Karbakh peace no ultimatum - official

In his statement proposing future peace efforts over Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh), the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group does absolutely not impose an ultimatum or dictate methods of coercion, says David Babayan, a spokesperson for the Nagorno-Karabakh president.

“Such a statement or document does not absolutely imply that the conflict has been resolved in question; neither does it say that all the parties have reached consent. We dealt with a document of the kind also before; it is just a vision, not coercion,” he told Tert.am, commenting on the six-clause proposal unveiled by Ambassador Richard Hoagland.

“One [of the proposals] deals with a peaceful settlement; the second calls for treating Artsakh as a separate [administrative] unit not belonging to Azerbaijan. As for the rest of issues, there are certain phenomena not acceptable to Azerbaijan. They have never considered the possibility of Nagono-Karabakh’s autonomy or recognition. What it [the document] says virtually is that Artsakh doesn’t belong to Azerbaijan; an interim status is the point at issue. That document neutralizes Azerbaijan’s seemingly legitimate claims towards Nagorno-Karabakh. But that does not absolutely mean it is fully acceptable and respectable,” Babayan noted.

Reiterating the country’s stance on the peace process, the spokesperson further highlighted several key approaches in the statement, particularly the call for reinstating the full-fledge format of negotiations (by making Nagorno-Karabakh a direct negotiating party).

“The second important position is that the conflict must have a packaged-based solution. Every issue has to be resolved in entirety not to leave anything to the future. The conflict should have the kind of solution that would rule out a more complicated and worse scenario. If Azerbaijan wishes a phasal solution, why doesn’t it then recognize the Republic of Artsakh to allow us to launch negotiations?” he added.   

Highlighting Azerbaijan’s anti-Armenian policies, Babayan said he doesn’t think that every single approach needs a thorough consideration.

“As for Hoagland’s statement, I have to repeat myself – it is just a vision; there were different approaches which they abandoned earlier.  What the co-chairs repeatedly stated is that there isn’t any coercion. It is just a combination of different approaches, which doesn’t signal the impossibility of changes or suggest that the document is perfect,” he added.