Armenian political elites co-ordinate positions ahead of Karabakh talks

Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan has pushed through his vision for a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, convening in Stepanakert on Tuesday (11 March) a joint meeting between the National Security Council of Armenia and of security council of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The meeting provided an unprecedented opportunity for the Armenian  political and security elites to compare notes and present a united front following weeks of internal speculation, and confusion in the international community as to what Armenia's immediate objectives were.

The meeting opened with remarks by prime minister Pashinyan and NKR president Bako Sahakian.The semi official Armenpress news agency carried the following text of Pashinyan's speech:

"Allow me to welcome the joint session of the security councils of the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh, which is an unprecedented event during the entire period of existence of our republics. This event has a very symbolic and on the other hand very concrete reason. This means that the relations between Armenia and Artsakh are entering a new qualitative phase. As to what other manifestations this phase can have in the future is perhaps among the important topic of our today's discussion", Pashinyan said.

This is my first visit to Artsakh after the 2018 December 9 parliamentary election in Armenia, and I would like to emphasize that the My Step Alliance has received a strong mandate from the people in the parliamentary election for increasing the level of the topic matter of the Republic of Artsakh and making steps aimed at the involvement of Artsakh, as the main party to the conflict, in the NK conflict settlement process. These are points that had a key significance in the My Step Alliance's campaigning message.

The Government of Armenia and myself, as the prime minister who received the vote of confidence of the people, will therefore make coherent steps in this direction, and this issue remains one of the important points of our discussions with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. I find it noteworthy that Artsakh's involvement in the negotiations process isn't a whim for us, and not even a precondition, it is a simple recording of a fact that Artsakh's involvement has key importance in the settlement of the NK conflict.

This stance expresses our respect not only to Artsakh's people and their rights, but also to all our colleagues who participate in the negotiations process, because we are truly interested and are willing to reach an exclusively peaceful settlement of the issue and we have faith in the negotiations process, the efficiency of which is a highly important priority for us, while in terms of efficiency of the negotiations process this issue has key importance.

The circle of negotiations known up to this point, basically, involve all stakeholder parties except of one. Azerbaijan, in person of President Aliyev, is represented in these negotiations. The latter, by the way, is also representing as he himself likes to say the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh, because the representatives of this community, being citizens of Azerbaijan, have voted in the Azerbaijani presidential election and therefore have given the President of Azerbaijan the authority to represent them, therefore the presence of the Azerbaijani president at the negotiations table also provides the presence of Azerbaijanis who have lived in Karabakh in the past.

The Republic of Armenia, in person of the Prime Minister, is also represented in these negotiations, who proceeds as a representative elected by the people of the Republic of Armenia in the given case. Therefore, the people of Armenia are also represented in the negotiations process.

The international community, in person of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmanship, is also represented in the negotiations process. This all, of course, is good and extremely important, and we highly appreciate the efforts that the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairing countries have contributed and continue contributing in the settlement process. But the main issue is the following - who is representing the people of Artsakh, like they say in certain cases the Armenians of Karabakh in the negotiations process?

The problem is that today there is no representative in the negotiations process to have the authority and legitimacy to represent the people of Artsakh, because no subject having the authority or vote of the people of Artsakh or, as some of our colleagues prefer to say, the Armenians of Karabakh, is present at the negotiations table.

I've numerously said that the Prime Minister of Armenia cannot implement such authority due to the simple fact that the people of Artsakh do not vote in elections in Armenia and thus the Prime Minister of Armenia isn't included in the circle of persons authorized to represent the people of Artsakh. And this isn't a matter of whim or precondition, this is a matter of simple legitimacy, and legitimacy is a key factor of modern relations, not only domestic but intergovernmental and international relations.

By the way, all the commentaries claiming that this way the Republic of Armenia or the Prime Minister is shaking off responsibility and placing it on the government or people of Artsakh are absurd. In order not to leave space for any manipulation I find it noteworthy to emphasize that the Republic of Armenia has been, is and will remain the number one guarantor of Artsakh's security and will continue its involvement in the peace process.

The next highly important question that requires an answer is the following - does the Government of Armenia accept the 3 principles and 6 elements of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs as a basis for negotiations process? This is truly a highly important question, but in response to this question we need important clarifications. And what might these principles mean practically, and who has the right to interpret them? This is important, because the way these principles Azerbaijan is interpreting is unacceptable for us. We certainly can proceed with our own interpretation of these principles, but this has no sense because our goal isn't an verbal altercation but efficient negotiations process. And therefore, records not giving way for misinterpretations should become basis of negotiations process. But the principles and elements proposed by the Co-Chairs, as I already mentioned, have caused the most various and most differing interpretations in the past 10 years, and therefore the clarification of the so-called main contradictions, the 3 principles and 6 elements, must be the important goal of the upcoming negotiations process, and we are ready for this kind of a talk also.

The next important issue is preparation of the populations for peace. I find it noteworthy to stress that preparing the populations for peace cannot be the individual problem of a given government involved in the talks, this is a joint work. I mean, for example, preparation of the Azerbaijani community for peace must take place not only with the participation of Azerbaijan, but also the Government of Armenia. This is the very realization that forced me in autumn of 2018 to make basically an unprecedented statement in our times from parliament floor, saying that any solution of the Karabakh issue must be acceptable for the populations of Armenia, of Artsakh and of Azerbaijan. This was my contribution in preparing for peace not only the populations of Armenia and Artsakh but also of Azerbaijan. Regretfully, we don't see adequate statements or steps by the Azerbaijani president. Despite this, I am ready to continue dialogue not only with the Azerbaijani president, but also the people of Azerbaijan, because I am sure that the people of Azerbaijan are as much peace-loving as the people of Armenia and the people of Artsakh", he said.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment that Nikol Pashinyan is positioning himself ahead of the expected summit with the Azerbaijani president, which is likely to happen soon. It is interesting that he made it a point in the speech to emphasise his mandate as a result of his overwhelming parliamentary victory in December. This was a message to his many vocal critics who keep projecting Pashinyan as some kind of usurper.

Throughout the last year Pashinyan has projected two parallel arguments: the first that the leadership of the Karabakh Armenians need to be in the talks and have a defining say in any end game; the second that he was willing to take a new approach to the issue, including direct talks with his Azerbaijani counterpart, and explaining that for any deal to be successful it needs to be approved by what he sees are the three constituencies: Armenians,Azerbaijanis and Karabakh Armenians. In Baku they have not quite made up their mind whether Pashinyan is a statesman or a charlatan. They will be reading the speech in Stepanakert very carefully. Not surprisingly there will be different interpretations. In the end president Aliyev will have to decide if he can do business with Pashinyan, or whether to dismiss the whole thing as a charade.

source: commonspace.eu

photo: The security councils of Armenia and NKR held an unusual joint session in Stepanakert on 12 March 2019 (picture courtesy of Armenpress news agency, Yerevan)

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)