Karen Bekarian. Good evening, this issue of the “Realpolitik” will be slightly different from our previous issues, but we have had such cases and today we are in the status of guests. We are guests in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. We think that it is natural enough to conclude the year in the context of the foreign policy and we want to present our guest, today in our pavilion… No, it is wrong to say that we are in the pavilion; we are the guests of Mr. Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. Good evening Mr. Nalbandian.

Edward Nalbandian. Good evening.

Karen Bekarian. First of all, I want to thank you for this opportunity offered to us, both from the point of timing and for broadcasting our program from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Let us try to summarize the year. In fact we can say that the countdown for the New Year has already started, and my first question would be: Mr. Nalbandian, from the foreign policy angle what will be remembered from the year 2010?

Edward Nalbandian. It depends on who is to remember? I am of course joking.  I think there is sufficiently positive substance that would stay in our memories.

From the point of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue the constructive position of Armenia and the unconstructive position of Azerbaijan became even more obvious to the international community.

It was in 2010 when the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev visited Armenia, which was the first state visit of the President of Russia to Armenia. Those agreements reached between the Presidents of Armenia and Russia are important not only in the sense of further consolidation of the Armenian-Russian strategic partnership relations, but also from the point of ensuring the security and economic development of Armenia.

After a rather long interval the President of the Republic of Armenia visited Washington DC in 2010 and had a meeting with President Barack Obama. And the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Armenia and spent the national day of the United States in Yerevan.

It was in 2010 that we started the Association Agreement negotiations with the European Union.

It was in 2010, that the Presidents of the six member states of the CSTO met in Yerevan and Sevan and made decisions important for the organization and member countries.

It was in 2010, that Turkey was not capable to respect the agreements reached with Armenia and in front of the international community turned out to be a partner that can not be trusted, in contrast to Armenia.

It was in 2010, that in spite of known difficulties, Armenia opened 7 new embassies.

It was in 2010 that we opened the Diplomatic School.
So I think that there is a lot to remember.

Karen Bekarian. Mr Minister, the list is rather extensive, and in fact, it is leading to a lot of questions, because now we will try to go into details in each of the directions. Maybe we will start from the mutual visits. What can be considered as the most memorable and the most striking in the list of visits in the active year 2010?

Edward Nalbandian. You are right, 2010 was active enough both in terms of the visits to Armenia and to other countries. There were a big number of visits paid by the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly, the Prime Minister. I would like to note that the President of the Republic of Armenia made 22 visits in 2010. Each of those 22 visits had its purpose, its significance and its importance. I would specifically note that in 2010 the President of the Republic visited all the permanent member states of the UN Security Council: Russia, United States, China, France and Great Britain.

Karen Bekarian. Mr. Minister, I think that the TV spectators are waiting with interest for us to turn to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, but before touching upon that question, I would like to ask a specific question. Recently there was a big turmoil over the Skype when Azerbaijan raised a protest regarding the provision of telecommunication services to Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr. Minister, do we have any reason to react concerning this situation?

Karen Bekarian. You know, the story of Skype once again laid out the attitude of Baku towards the people living in Karabakh. Some time ago they were protesting against the existence of telecommunication in Karabakh in general. Then they felt fiercely offended that a maternity hospital was opened in one of the villages. They got angry that drinking water pipeline was set up in some villages. If they continue this way, they may well protest against the existence of oxygen in Karabakh. What does it mean? If Karabakh were under their control it could be allowed to have oxyden, but if it is not under their control it can not be allowed.   In this manner they may protest against the Santa Claus coming to Karabakh to greet the Karabakhi children or against the snow falling over the Karabakh forests and fields. 

It is obvious that Karabakh people builds its life – the teacher teaches, the writer writes, the painter paints, the doctor or architect and other specialists deal with their job. They have a right to dispose of their own life no less than anyone under this heaven and what Azerbaijan is doing is nothing than an act against nature or opposing the laws of social development. 

And what can they achieve by such a stance?  I think that the Karabakh issue emerged as a result of such kind of an attitude as well. And, if continued this way, how can one suppose that anyone living in Karabakh would believe in the “beautiful words” of Azerbaijan?

Karen Bekarian. Mr. Minister, let us talk about the negotiation process itself. Where have we reached today and what kind of clarifications did we have in 2010?

Edward Nalbandian. You know, there are 3 principles and 6 elements on the negotiation table today. Those elements were presented in the presidential statements of both L’Aquila and Muskoka. What are the international community and international mediators saying? What is Armenia saying? The international community, the mediators are saying that those elements have been conceived as an integrated whole. And to select some elements or principles over the others is wrong and unacceptable. What is Armenia saying? Armenia is saying that it accepts these proposals, principles and elements as a basis for the settlement and as an integrated whole. It means, that we are saying what the international community is saying. And what is Azerbaijan saying? I think that even they do not understand themselves what they are talking about. They say “yes, but..”, “yes, although..”, “yes, maybe not..” There is a need of a simple answer _ “Yes” or “Not”-you accept these proposals or not. 

The international community is urging that it is necessary to move towards a peaceful settlement. Armenia is saying that the peaceful settlement has no alternative. What is Azerbaijan saying?  
The positions of the international community were reaffirmed in 2010, which were already evident since 2008, and were even included in the statements of the Foreign Ministers of the OSCE 56 participating States made in Helsinki in December 2008 and in Athens in December 2009, then in the statement of the Heads of the OSCE Co-Chairs countries’ delegations made in the framework of the OSCE ministerial meeting in Almaty in July 2010. All that was underlined also in the statement of the Presidents of Barack Obama, Dmitry Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy made in Muskoka. An important declaration was adopted in October 2010 in Astrakhan by the Presidents of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan, and in December a five-sided joint statement was made by the United States, Russia, France, Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

I can once again emphasize that all these statements and the provisions included in them are in line with the Armenian position. What is Azerbaijan saying? Even after the adoption of tghe Astana five-sided statement the Azerbaijani delegation deployed many efforts in order that the latter statement was not only not-welcomed by other states of the OSCE, but also so that it was not mentioned at all in the final document.

Karen Bekarian. That was done in the case when their signature was under that document?

Edward Nalbandian. Yes, that is in the case when Azerbaijan has accepted that statement. That is why I am saying that 2010 was a year when the constructive position of Armenia and the unconstructive stance of Azerbaijan became obvious. That is to say that Azerbaijan despite pretending that someone is defending its positions, in reality, is opposed to the international community’s opinion. Nowadays, all the international organizations dealing with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, have the positions that are in line with Armenia’s approaches.

Karen Bekarian. Thank you, Mr Minister, let us turn to our immediate neighbours, Georgia and Iran. What is memorable in the relations with our two neighbours in 2010 ?

Edward Nalbandian. You know, when speaking about neighbours we should look at the map to understand how much we are interested in the stability, security of those states and in the development of our friendly relations with them.

2010 was a year, when the relations went not only in their natural course, but new ambitious projects were planned, prepared for realization. The President of the Republic of Armenia visited Georgia. I think that soon we can expect a reciprocal visit by the President of Georgia.

We had rather intensive reciprocal visits with Iran, the Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister, Defence Minister, Energy Minister, Education Minister of the Republic of Armenia visited Iran; the President of the Parliament, Energy Minister, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Iran visited Armenia. These relations truly are important and everything will be done to develop the relations both with Georgia and Iran.

Karen Bekarian. Mr Minister, let us turn to the European direction, noting in particular in the context of the EU-the European Neighbourhood Policy, Eastern Partnership. Within the format of Eastern Partnership, in fact, the association agreement negotiations with the EU have started. Mr. Minister, on what stage are the negotiations now, let us try to summarize from the year’s perspective and talk about the bilateral format in the relations with our European main partners, such as France and Germany.

Edward Nalbandian. As of the association agreement negotiations, I noted that they were launched earlier this year. They started in July and until today there were three rounds of negotiations and seven meetings of the working groups. As a result, there is a good progress. We opened the negotiations on 14 chapters and today, in 5-6 months, in fact, we provisionally closed 9 of these chapters. It shows that the negotiations are proceeding effectively enough and it also shows the closeness of our positions on various issues. The signing of the Association agreement will raise our relation with the EU onto a new level and will put on new legal basis. We are also conducting preparation for the negotiation process in the creation of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. 

Already from the beginning of the next year the negotiations will start about the facilitation of the visa regime. It is a very important direction of negotiations with respect to people-to-people contacts, it will create more favourable conditions not only for humanitarian, but also for business ties. I think we will conduct the negotiations as soon as possible to speak in the next round about the visa liberalisation regime. Of course, it is not a question for near future. But that is our goal for the future.

As of our relations with our partners, we have very good relations with a big number of member states of the EU. There were official visits of the President to both France and Germany, meetings with President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, important agreements were reached. Of course, during this interview we will not have time to go into all the details, but I think that it will be presented in the annual report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in more details.

Karen Bekarian. Thank you Mr. Minister, let’s talk about Turkey. We have, let’s say, sufficient perplexity. On the one side, the Turkish authorities speak about the normalization of the relations with Armenia in the highest levels of President and Foreign Minister. On the other hand, they continue to link the normalization with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. And at the same time, they use the normalization process to dissuade various countries from the recognition of the Armenian Genocide claiming that it could harm the normalization process. Are not Turkey’s real intentions visible to the international community?

Edward Nalbandian. I would say that in 2010 it became obvious that the ball definitely is in the court of Turkey. And it is strange that all talk about…. You know you may play football badly but when the ball is in your court and the tribunes are shouting about it, roaring that the ball is in your court and you do not see it, it is already from another sphere. And pretending that you do not see that is a self-deception. By such a self-deception you can deceive only yourself. You cannot persuade anyone. It is obvious that from various capitals it is sounded that Armenia has done everything possible, passed its way, that now it is Turkey to take respective steps. The return to the language of preconditions, which was used before the start of this process, and which was not employed during the process, of which the mediators and the supporters are aware, is unacceptable. 

The Turks say that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide can cause harm? First of all, it is the Turkish side that has caused and causes harm to the process of normalization by their position. The international community is inclined to the recognition of the Genocide. All the Turkish attempts to oppose it are surely doomed to failure. 

I think that if Turkey really wants to normalize relations, then it must respect the reached agreements and ratify the signed protocols without preconditions. The entire international community, the UN Secretary General, the European Union, other international structures, several countries urge and expect from Turkey exactly that. So 2010 showed that Turkey did not find enough strength in itself to respect its commitments before the international community and acted as a partner which can not be trusted.  

Karen Bekarian. Mr. Minister, 2010 was striking with respect to the Wikileaks scandal. Actually the publication of all those documents made much noise on all international levels. What kind of impact will this scandal have in the context of international relations generally, diplomacy and real politics?

E.N. I think and I hope that it is a temporary process. Once it happened in the history of diplomacy when after the revolution in Russia in the newly re-established Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where over 30 persons worked, by the order of Lenin a group was created where half of the Ministry was included. The group headed by Nikolay Markov dealt with the preparation, editing and publishing of the diplomatic secret documents which were published in seven volumes. Of course the main goal was to discredit the erstwhile authorities. In parallel to it, it was also being stated that the new government was against secret negotiations and against any non-public negotiations in general.  Afterwards, they quickly thought over and everything turned to its normal circuits. As diplomacy is not Wikilism and I think the latter is hardly able to change the methods and forms of diplomacy. I do not know any successful cases when through newspaper publications it was possible to negotiate and reach positive steps.

Karen Bekarian. Mr Minister, thank you, 2010 was a difficult year financially. We witnessed the opening of a number of embassies. What was its cause, and I will frame my question thus-were the expenses justified?

Edward Nalbandian. You know, not everything can be measured by finances. I will bring one example. My last visit this year was to Spain. Our neighbouring countries have had embassies in Spain for a long time. Spain is not only an important European country with a big role in the international relations. There are also almost one billion people around the world speaking in Spanish. And this whole, I would say, Spanish civilization directly or indirectly are connected with Spain. Do we need an embassy in Spain? I think that the answer is evident.

Karen Bekarian. Mr. Minister, let me thank you for the interesting talk. On behalf of “Realpolitik” let me wish you Happy New Year and Merry Christmas, wish you everything good in your difficult work. To you, as the head of the whole diplomatic personnel, which does truly hard work in this sphere. At the same time, using the opportunity I want to thank you for the active cooperation with “Realpolitik”. And of course I pass you the floor for the New Year and Christmas wishes.

Edward Nalbandian. What could I wish on Christmas and New Year's Eve? Simple human wishes. That all the dreams come true, the wishes that everybody thinks about in the midnight of December 31 come true, that there was love, health and happiness in families, that new families were created and healthy children were born in those new families who would bring only joy to their parents.

2011 is an Anniversary year and we are going to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of our Republic. Our people have a history of millennia and twenty years of new statehood. Prosperity and strengthening to our state, and let the friends of our nation, of our state be multiplied around the world. 
Happy New Year to everyone!

Karen Bekarian. Thank you, Mr Minister, I wish you every success and happiness. Our guest today was Minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia Edward Nalbandian. For today that is all. Happy New Year and Merry Christmas, goodbye, we will meet again!