Armenian Foreign Minister Warns Turkey, Cools Karabagh Peace

“If we were to believe in what opponents of the protocols have said, then Turkey should have rushed to ratify these protocols a long time ago,” he scoffed.
Nalbandian insisted that the Sargisian administration will not stop campaigning for greater international recognition as genocide of the 1915 mass killings and deportations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, despite agreeing to what is expected to be a joint Turkish-Armenian study of the issue. The subcommission in question, he said, would be tasked with “restoring mutual understanding and trust between the two peoples,” rather than determining whether the massacres constituted genocide.

“Such statements show that Azerbaijan is not prepared for mutual concessions in 2010 as well, and that Azerbaijan remains a threat to the security of the Karabagh people.”

Turning to the Karabagh conflict, Nalbandian denounced Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s latest threats to win back the disputed territory by force.
“Such statements show that Azerbaijan is not prepared for mutual concessions in 2010 as well, and that Azerbaijan remains a threat to the security of the Karabagh people,” he said, adding that they “cannot make any impact on or intimidate Armenia or Artsakh [Karabagh].”

Aliyev issued the warning in a New Year’s address to his nation. He also claimed to have secured broad international support for Karabagh’s return under Azerbaijani rule.

Nalbandian brushed aside the claim.

“What are the mediating countries saying? They are saying what Armenia says: That the Karabagh problem should be solved in accordance with the principles and norms of international law and, in particular, the principles of nonuse of force, self-determination and territorial integrity,” he said. “This is made clear in the statement which was recently adopted in Athens by the 56 OSCE member states.”

“Azerbaijan’s leadership is trying to predetermine the result of the negotiations,” he continued. “Namely, the question of Karabagh’s status, Karabagh’s self-determination. And yet the question of Karabagh’s status must be decided by the people of Artsakh themselves.”

‘Basic Principles’

Nalbandian pointed to a joint statement on Karabagh that was issued by the presidents of the United States, Russia, and France — the three countries spearheading the peace process — in July. The statement reaffirmed, in general terms, the essence of the “basic principles” of Karabagh peace proposed by the American, French, and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

“Contrary to Baku’s claims, it is indicated there that the people of Karabagh hold the key to the Karabagh settlement,” said Nalbandian. He also stressed the importance for the Armenian side of the reference to peoples’ self-determination made in a Karabagh-related declaration that was adopted during an OSCE ministerial conference in Athens last November.

“It was the first time that such a statement upheld the right to self-determination,” he added. “A statement that was also signed by Azerbaijan.”
Azerbaijani leaders maintain, however, that under the existing Minsk Group proposals, Karabagh’s predominantly ethnic Armenian population would be able to exercise that right only within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. These diametrically opposite interpretations of the proposed deal raise questions about the mediators’ ability to get the conflicting parties to overcome their remaining disagreements anytime soon.

Nalbandian cautioned against excessive expectations from the negotiating process in the coming months.

“I see no point in artificially accelerating the process, and I think everybody agrees with that,” he said.

“Of course, some progress in bringing the parties’ positions closer to each other was registered last year,” he added. “But that was not enough to achieve a breakthrough. If we are able to maintain the positive dynamic of 2009, then it will be possible to improve prospects for the conflict’s resolution.”