Armenian, Russian FMs 'engage in wordplay' over Nagorno-Karabakh - opinion

13:40 • 28.04.20

Politics

Hripsime Hovhannisyan

With their recent statements on Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh), the Armenian and Russian foreign ministers engaged only in a unique kind of wordplay without a substantial reference to future steps, according to Ara Papian, the founder and Head of Modus Vivendi Center.

In an interview with Tert.am, the expert questioned especially FM Zohrab Mnatsakanyan's remark - ruling out the presence of a negotiable document and insisting only on specific elements and principles as the key issue on the negotiation agenda.

"But there is a kind of wordplay here. Even if the elements and principles are, one way or another, discussed in a written form, there is no verbal discussion in point of fact, as the draft [document] on the [negotiating] table undergoes certain textual changes and later kept again in a written form. It is initialed at times, and the sides later say that it is the final version," he noted.

Papian said he also believes that the general perception of the concept matters to a great extent when it comes to a substantial dialogue. "The dominating perception by the current Armenian authorities is that a document is something which has been agreed upon and signed. In that sense, of course, there isn't any document as such, but what [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov literally says is a specific 'project' was distributed among the sides, and discussions are now going on over those issues. While by saying 'project', we envision something in a physical shape," he noted.

Asked whether any negotiations can be said to be in progress now, Papian referred to the UN terminology where he said "consultations" also imply a subtype of negotiations. "If they now say this isn't a negotiating process but just a consultation, we have to take it for granted that a consultation is a subtype of negotiations," he explained.

What matters essentially, however, are the earlier mutual agreements over the exchange of territories for something else, Papian noted. "It used to be the status or security time and again, and now they are making manners as though it will be achieved in return for lifting the border blockade. All these are unacceptable to me given that the handover of the security zone will cause the collapse of the entire system, blocking any chances to keep Karabakh even through the right to self-determination. We will be facing the problem of a mere physical defense," he added.

Papian said he finds heavy reliance on self-determination as the main principle the major error in the entire peace process. "And that means our Armenian jurisdiction may apply to the [former] Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. This is why Lavrov says, 'You need security guarantees', and here is actually why we are offering an alternative."

Addressing FM Mnatsakanyan's statement ruling out the possibility of unilateral concessions, Papian agreed to the truthfulness of the remark yet questioned the implication behind the concept.

But he dismissed the feasibility of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's call for returning Artsakh to the negotiating table. Papian said he doesn't expect the Azerbaijani authorities to ever have the desire to accept the trilateral format. "It is an error on our part to state that Artsakh must 'return' to the negotiations. Has Artsakh ever been a participant in that process? Artsakh was a party to the Ceasefire Agreement signed in Bishkek (Kyrgzstan), because it was a 'fighting party' in essence. But it is not an agreement. A ceasefire is concluded even by troop commanders. A ceasefire agreement, however, implies a completely different thing. So do peace negotiations. Artsakh, as an independent unit, has never taken part in the negotiations for a peace agreement," the analyst said, noting that the process earlier involved Artsakh's legitimate authorities, as well as other representatives (including the so-called Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh).

"After Nikol Pashinyan said Artsakh must participate in the negotiations, Azerbaijan moved to step up that community. And the ambassadors of the countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group started meetings also with that structure, because if Artsakh is to participate in the negotiations, they too, are logically supposed to follow suit," Papian added.

Asked whether he thinks the Armenian authorities are pursuing a clear-cut plan to eventually settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Papian agreed that they attach priority to the right to self-determination, the status and security of the people of Artsakh, but he hesitated to admit that there is the proper understanding of the logic behind the stated concepts..

"The concept of security does not imply that we are by all means keeping those lands under our control. When we speak about the status, that does not convey any message either. What needs to be stated is a status 'no less than what we have at present' or one ruling out [Artsakh's] presence on the territory of Azerbaijan, etc. The same goes for 'self-determination'; what do we mean by saying that? Those are words which are just being stated - and not in the least bad words in essence - but we need clarity, which we do not practically have. What Nikol Pashinyan said in his speech after the joint meeting of Security Councils was that we are waiting for the clarification and simplification of those three principles and six elements. And they are enshrined in the Madrid Principles. There is uncertainty. And when we add to this the fact that the decision must be acceptable to all the sides - Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan - the solution becomes impossible indeed. We do not even a decision that will be universally acceptable in either Artsakh or Armenia," the expert added.

Armenian News - Tert.am