Q : Minister Nalbandian, in the last couple of years Armenia has been in international headlines more often than ever. I would like to hear from you what lays at the basis of your foreign political vision?

E.N.- The South Caucasus is one of the most sensitive regions of the world. In addition to being a geopolitically vital area and a juncture where civilizations meet, it is unfortunately afflicted by conflicts and rivalries. We believe that there is a need for constructive ideas and initiatives aimed at addressing challenges and solving existing problems. If we fail to come to terms with the new realities and reshape our political thinking, it would only mark a roll-back to new tensions in this small yet important corner of the world, with negative consequences for all.

The foreign policy and security priorities for Armenia, therefore, include the establishment of an overall regional security and cooperation framework. This could be achieved through dialogue, negotiations, alleviation of existing tensions and peaceful resolution of conflicts. These are the minimal conditions for making the Caucasus a region of development and opportunity. It is based on those bridge-making approaches that we conduct our foreign policy. And as our efforts have had positive visibility and have been supported by the international community, we feel only encouraged.

Q: Turning to the topic of conflicts, how did the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict originate? Armenians say that historically it has been Armenian and Azerbaijanis point out that it was part of the Soviet Azerbaijan.

E. N. –In 1922 a decision was made by Stalin which annexed the Nagorno Karabakh, populated by the Armenians for thousands of years, to the Soviet Azerbaijan as an autonomous region.

The Armenians never accepted that injustice. They brought the case before the central Soviet authorities several times, asking to reconsider that unjust decision.

Many protestors against this injustice were imprisoned, some even lost their lives, but nothing changed until the time of the Gorbachev détente. In February 1988, taking advantage of the relative ‘freedom’ of perestroika, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh submitted their request for reunification with Armenia to Moscow, Baku and Yerevan. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Kremlin was not in a position to propose acceptable solutions. Baku adopted an unyeilding position of rejecting the request outright. First, the Azerbaijani authorities abolished the autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh. Then they launched a vicious compaign of ethnic cleansing against the people of NK and other Armenians living in Azerbaijan. And finally, they initiated an agression against Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia could not and would not remain indifferent in face of the possibility of the elimination of the Armenians of Karabakh. Naturally we came to the assistance of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. It was a war, which was imposed on us and led to numerous casualties and unimaginable sufferings on both sides. In 1994, a ceasefire agreement was reached between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh to which Armenia joined. This is the historical backdrop of the conflict.

Q: And where do the negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabagh problem stand now? Have the OSCE Minsk Group and its three co-chairs – the United States, Russia and France,helped the conflicting sides reach any results?

E. N. – Currently the basis of the negotiations are the Madrid principles proposed by the Minsk Group co-chairs in 2007 November. Armenia has stated that it accepts those principles as a basis for negotiations. Azerbaijan has almost for a year rejected those principles, thus making it more difficult for having a constructive development of the peaceful settlement of the conflict.

The substance of the conflict is the right to self determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. And it lies in the core of the the Madrid document, where it is noted that the final status of Karabakh should be determined through an expression of the will of the people of Nagorno Karabakh, which will be legally binding. And about this was clearly stated in the fact sheet published after the statement of the leaders of Minsk Group Co-Chairs countries’ leaders, Presidents Dmitri Medvedev, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy in L’Aquila in July, 2009.

Armenia has stated and stands firm in the belief that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict must be resolved based on the principles of international law, namely on the non-use of force or threat of force, self-determination of peoples and territorial integrity. This view is supported by the 56 member states of the OSCE, which adopted a statement underlining those basic norms in December 2009 in Athens.

Q: How applicable is the right to self determination in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh in parallel to acceptance of the principle of territorial integrity? How can those two principles be reconciled?

E.N - The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has no connection with the self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh. The self-determination process in Karabakh started when Azerbaijan was not an independent state, when it was still a Soviet republic. The secession of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan was fully in compliance of the Soviet legislation and the international law. The people of Kharabakh exercised the same right to self-determination as Azerbaijan did, when the latter separated from the Soviet Union. This position is shared by the European Parliament in its statement of 1999.

The Nagorno-Karabakh right to self-determination is no less legally substantiated than that of Kosovo and some others. The documents of the public hearings at International Court of Justice in December 2009, the official positions expressed there by representatives of many countries, including European countries and the USA, should leave no room for double standards in the application of the self-determination principle in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh as well.

The principle of self-determination is a basic norm in the international law. Were it not so, nowadays, we would not have 192 members in the UN but three or four times less that number.

Q. – What about Armenian-Turkish relations? The issue of relations between Armenia and Turkey has always been very complicated. What steps have you initiated to establish a dialogue between Armenia and Turkey?

E. N. – In 2008, President Serzh Sargsyan invited his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül, to visit Yerevan to watch a qualifying football match between the national teams of Armenia and Turkey. The meeting between the two Presidents on the 6th of September in Yerevan established a favorable atmosphere so that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries were tasked with starting negotiations to normalize the bilateral relations. Afterwards there were several meetings between me and my Turkish counterpart. This all eventually culminated in the signing of Protocols on October 10, 2009 on the establishment of diplomatic relation and development of relations. This process was mediated by Switzerland and actively supported by the whole international community, especially the US, Russia and the EU.

After the signing of the Protocols, the Turkish side, having easier domestic procedures, has taken practically no steps towards their ratification, except from sending the Protocols to the Parliament, and has effectively blocked the internal ratification process for 6 months now. Armenia has gone through several intra-state procedures, with the decision of the Constitutional Court, a month in advance of the statutory deadline announcing the Protocols in line with the country’s constitution. The President of Armenia announced in his Chatham House speech in February that the Armenian Parliament, where the party led by the President has a majority, will ratify the Protocols as soon as Turkey does.

Q : What is the problem with the Turkish ratification? Why does not Turkey want to proceed with the ratification?

E.N- Despite the fact that we started this process, conducted it and came to an understanding that there were no preconditions in it whatsoever, unfortunately, after signing the protocols the language of preconditions again resurfaced in the statements of Turkish politicians.

Turkey attempts to find a linkage between the Armenian-Turkish normalization and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. This position is absolutely unacceptable and it does not go in line with the good faith exerted in the negotiations and the signed Protocols. The Armenia-Turkey normalization and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution are different processes and independent from each another. This is a position that the whole international community shares with us.

Turkey delays the ratification also by misinterpreting and misrepresenting the above mentioned decision by Armenia’s Constitutional Court and trying to create a pretext, that the ruling of the court contradicts the Protocols. Not only Armenia, but also the international mediators of this process and international community, have publicly made it clear that the Court’s decision is in no way an impediment, but a step forward in the ratification process and that both sides should proceed further to ratify and implement them without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe. And as I said earlier with this common understanding we have started, conducted this process and came to agreements.

We believe that the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations would only have a positive impact on the consolidation of peace, stability and cooperation in the region.

Q: Turkey reacted very harshly against the Genocide resolutions adopted by the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and the Swedish Parliament. Is there a threat that Genocide resolutions could hurt the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement process?

E.N.- After the recent resolutions by the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives and the Swedish Parliament recognizing the Armenian Genocide, Turkey reacted inadequately. While Turkey states that its’ Parliament would never make any decisions under pressure, at the same time Turkey itself continues to keep pressure on the foreign legislative assemblies to block Armenian Genocide bills, as the recent examples proved. It is more than a pressure; I would say, these are threats, fed by official denial tales, used constantly by the Turkish officials. Turkey uses the normalization process as a smokescreen for their baseless argument that the passage of resolutions on the Armenian Genocide in the US House of Representatives, Swedish Parliament or elsewhere can damage the normalization process.

Referring to the last recognition of Genocide in the US, some of the Turkish politicians ironically mocked the narrow passage of the resolution saying that it was a “comedy”, thus insulting the memory of the victims, survivors as well as insulting all those Congressmen who voted for Armenian Genocide resolution. Even those congressmen who voted against the resolution passage were noting that they did accept that Armenian Genocide occurred in the beginning of the 20th century.

True reconciliation does not consist in forgetting the past. Nevertheless, Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian genocide was not put by Armenia as a precondition for the normalisation of bilateral relations.

Q :What about your plans regarding the European Union?

E. N. – Armenia attaches great importance to cooperation with the European Union and its member states. The Eastern Partnership initiative, of which Armenia is a member, provides a new framework for this relationship through enhanced political dialogue, increased trade opportunities and people-to-people contacts.

Among Armenia’s priorities I would like to single out continuation of the political dialogue, which is an essential element for our cooperation. Armenia’s relations with the European Union are regulated by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which was signed in 1996 and entered into force in 1999. Since then the political landscape of Europe has significantly changed, new challenges and opportunities have emerged. The Eastern Partnership not only reflects the progress achieved in Armenia’s democratic development and relations between Armenia and the EU in the last decade, but also offers a perspective of Association Agreement, that will adapt our cooperation to the new realities and will take into consideration the aspirations of each partner state and the European Union.

Partnership means common set of values, interests, trade and human contacts. The ultimate beneficiaries of this process will be the peoples of Armenia and the European Union, who are united in their diversity, as each of them has different traditions, history and customs, but they share the same vision of a Europe based on cooperation, peace and prosperity. They want to trade with each other and to enrich knowledge of each other’s culture. To this end one of our common priorities is facilitating visa regime in order to gradually remove obstacles to mutual connectivity between our societies.

Q: And our last question: What would you like to say to our readers here, in Bulgaria?

E.N. –Friendship of our two nations dates back centuries; there are many parallels in our past and probably it is one of the reasons we have a good common understanding. Armenia enjoys excellent relations with Bulgaria through intensive and successful political dialogue, economic cooperation and exchanges in all spheres of mutual interest, including culture and education. We have more than 40 bilateral agreements signed between Armenia and Bulgaria, which testify to the scope of our cooperation. There are friendly ties and good relations between the Presidents of our countries. Our two Foreign Minsitries regularly conduct political consultations on various issues of bilateral and international importance. The prospects of economic cooperation between our two countries are discussed at Armenian-Bulgarian Inter-Governmental Commission, which meets periodically in Sofia and Yerevan.

We want to see more Bulgarians visiting Armenia, establishing ties, businesses and we wish to provide more opportunities for our citizens to visit your beautiful country. I am sending my warm greetings to the readers of your magazine, to all Bulgarians and wish you all the very best!