Artsakh peace process focused on enacting 'revised package of negotiated principles' – Arman Melikyan

Hripsime Hovhannisyan 

Tert.am has interviewed Arman Melikyan, a former foreign minister of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh), for comments on the Geneva summit between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers and the current phase of the peace efforts to reach a final deal.

Mr Melikyan, the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Geneva on January 29 and 30 to conduct negotiations. Many considered their duration record-breaking. What do you think is the expected outcome of such long-lasting meetings – taking two days and so many hours? Can they, after all, be considered negotiations? Or were they just discussions, as the Armenian authorities assure time and again?

Given that no articulate information was presented regarding those meetings, anything that we can say now will be on the level of just presumptions. I see little chances that they discussed the necessity of elaborating new approaches to [conflict] settlement. Relying on the text of the co-chairs' statement – and the scanty information by representatives of the participating sides - it is possible to think that, though, certain work is indeed being carried out to enact the formerly negotiated and circulated approaches and principles in a repackaged format. The sides, in all likelihood, used the time to coordinate issues daeling with the revised ″packaging″. Weather or not the parties will call those meetings, negotiations, contacts, conversations or just a debate, the fact remains that they are the official representatives of their states. And hence any joint decision will be virtually made by Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan on behalf of the Republic of Armenia with the mediation and under the auspices of the US, French and Russian official representatives.   

The meeting duration inspired many with confidence that there is a package of proposals on the negotiating table. Does the wording ″principles and elements forming the basis of a future settlementbasis of future settlement″ actually prompt that there is a package of proposals over which the negotiations are going on? Why do not the imcumbent authorities admit that now?

If the negotiations are pursuing the old agenda, they will remain ineffective and fruitless despite the repeated statements by the sides and the mediators. The important thing, to may mind, is the offically stated position by the Armenian authorities that they cannot act on behalf of the Armenians in Artsakh and are not going to ever replace the Artsakh authorities at the negotiating table. Baku must initiate a dialogue with Stepanakert. If this is the starting point for the political leadership of Armenia, they may also meet Azerbaijan half-way in that case, refraining from open discussions until Azerbaijan itself formulates a satisfactory reasoning addressing its own needs (in terms of the domestic political situation).

In the statement released by the Foreign Ministry of Armenia, Minister Mnatsakanyan's focus on the engagement of 'selected representatives of Artsakh' is emphasized as a necessary component.  Does the wording itself sound problematic in essence? Why isn't it the 'elected authoriities of Artsakh' being used instead?  

″If the participation of the NGO calling itself the 'Azerbaijani community of Artsakh' is excluded, I will not consider 'selected representatives of Artsakh' problematic - provided those negotiating on behalf of Artsakh are vested with the same rights and authorities as the other negotiating parties″.

What the joint statement by the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers says is that thet reaffirmed their full commitment to the principle of confidentiality. This seems to be the first time they are addressing such a commitment. What element is it in the negotiation process?

Very sensitive topics are probably beging discussed, with indiscretion by any of the sides potentially posing domestic political problems for the other party, threatening to derail the current efforts towards a breakthrough. This is why the sides have jointly committed themselves to a vow of silence.

The ministerial meetings are, interestingly, very intensive, with each consecutive talks highlighting the plans for another scheduled meeting. To what extent do they contribute to an effective settlement process?

To measure the effectiveness of the process, specific weighy outcomes are necessary, which we do not have for now. The outcomes of the presdiential and parliamentary elections in Artsakh may, by the way, enrich the negotiation process with new factors.