Question: First of all, thank you for finding time for us. You know there is a Russian proverb that a poor peace is better than a good war. Do you agree with it? Can it be applied to this conflict?

Edward Nalbandian: First of all, I would like to express my condolences on the many victims of terrorist attack at Domodedovo Airport. Surely it was an awful incident. We condemn this crime and grieve together with Russia. Please accept our condolences. Once again my condolences!

Question: Thank you.

Edward Nalbandian: As for the proverb, surely I agree with it. Is there anyone who does not agree with it? A patched-up peace is better than any war. It’s obvious, because you can’t solve any issue through war. Those who think that it’s possible to solve conflicts through military operations or use of force, it is a big illusion as after all wars it’s necessary to return to the negotiation table, but negotiation conditions will be much worse.

Question: Well, everyone knows that negotiations often last for a long period of time. A ceasefire between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh was signed in 1994.  Probably ever since, the sides’ positions in the diplomatic sense did not become closer. Do you think the time plays in favor of one of the sides– for example yours – or it just preserves the status quo?

Edward Nalbandian: Firstly, I think that the time is not on either side of the conflict. As soon as we settle the conflict it will be for the benefit of all sides of conflict. Regarding the talks process, I do not quite agree with the view that the sides’ positions have never been closer. For example, back in 2001 we were close to the conflict’s settlement during talks in Paris through the mediation of France. At that time, as a co-chairman of the Minsk Group, France was playing a more active role, and the sides were very close to the conflict’s settlement. Unfortunately, Heydar Aliyev, the then P-resident of Azerbaijan rejected the agreements reached in Paris – the so-called Paris Principles which were later committed to paper in Key West. He explained his decision by the fact that allegedly public opinion in Azerbaijan was not ready for that. But for settlement of any conflict the public opinion should be prepared in advance–not afterwards. The public opinion should not be aroused. You know, by pouring oil on the fire – what’s happening in Azerbaijan at the moment – but it is necessary to prepare public opinion for the settlement, prepare for compromise.

Question: It’s common knowledge that this conflict actually started long before the bloody events of the beginning of the 90s. And back in the 20s there were, so to speak, armed clashes between Armenians and Azeris on that issue. And many think that one of the reasons that led to the war and the freezing of the conflict in the end was Stalin’s decision to give Karabakh autonomy to Azerbaijan. For a brief background for our viewers. As I know the territory is still mainly populated by Armenians. Armenia considers that this territory is an integral part of her cultural and historical heritage. Am I correct?

Edward Nalbandian: Well, you are not far from the truth; as it was the decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the Bolshevik Party. Based on that decision, they made Karabakh part of Azerbaijan. Of course the population, people of Nagorno-Karabakh did not agree with that decision. But the Soviet leaders replied that they did not have any borders between the states – there were only territorial-administrative borders, we all lived in one country. When the USSR was collapsing, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh organized a referendum.

Question: And it was boycotted by the Azeris?

Eduard Nalbandian: … and 99,89% percent of population voted for the independence.. You should recall that before that, on the 26th of November 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan liquidated the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy as a national and territorial entity. In two days time the Constitutional Supervision Committee of the USSR – it still existed back then - condemned that decision. The referendum took place almost two or three weeks later, in December. The voting showed that not just majority, but almost all the people were for Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence. In response to that, Azerbaijan started the large-scale military actions and ethnic cleansing both in Karabakh and other settlements of Azerbaijan. Actually, it was an aggression against Karabakh.

Question: As far as I know several thousand people died in those clashes on both sides, dozens of thousands of people had to leave their native towns. And as everyone knowsthey had to agree on armistice but at the same time news is regularly coming about minor clashes on the line of contact and several soldiers from the Azeri side, as I understand, died. In your opinion how can it be explained? Are they just minor provocations or does it show that the conflict may have turned into a passive stage, but it is still boiling?

Edward Nalbandian: What’s important is that the ceasefire signed in 1994 has practically been maintained up to the present day. Certain incidents, you’ve mentioned do actually take place. To avoid them, there were suggestions from the international community, the OSCE, the co-chairmen of the Minsk group, supported by Armenia, on undertaking measures to consolidate the ceasefire, pull out the snipers from the line of contact and a proposal to reach agreement on non-use of force. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan refuses to implement those proposals of the international community. That is the reason of numerous incidents, which happen from time to time at the contact line. And regarding what you are saying, that a few Azeri soldiers were killed in the last year incidents, it’s not so at all. In June of last year the meeting between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan took place in Saint-Petersburg on the initiative and in presence President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev and was dedicated to the discussion of the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh, and immediately on the night after the meeting the Azeris carried out a provocation at the contact line. 5 Armenian soldiers were killed. The person who killed those Armenians was awarded the title of national hero of Azerbaijan, a street and school were named in his honor, and a film about him was ordered. Stepping to the contact line and committing those murders he was killed too, while being on the Armenian side. After the Astrakhan meeting between the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, an agreement was reached to exchange the dead bodies and the so-called prisoners of war. The body of that man was given to the Azeri Party. Despite the fact that it’s obvious that such an exchange could not be used for propaganda purposes, Azerbaijan made a celebration of the body’s returning, and the Azeri authorities set that young man as an example to all the youth saying that they should follow his example. Calling him a shahid, it was not the first time that Azeri authorities tried to give a religious angle to such an event, including through the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

Question: But for the sake of justice, we should mention that the international community and many international declarations and resolutions think the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh belongs toAzerbaijan. And if I am not mistaken, Nagorno-Karabakh is just 9 per cent of Azerbaijan’s territory. It may be an explanation for some political games. You’ve also mentioned about the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and I know that it adopted a resolution qualifying the actions of Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh as occupation of Azerbaijan territory. Do you think the Azerbaijan position is stronger than that of Armenia in terms of international law?

Edward Nalbandian:I must say that you are mistaken. All the organizations involved in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, as well as mediator countries  - the Minsk Group Co-chairs, including Russia, the US and France, which have the mandate of the international community, all those countries, institutions and organizations – by saying international organizations I am first of all talking about the OSCE as, the negotiations are held in the frameworks of the OSCE and OSCE Minsk Group, as well as by the mediation of the OSCE Co-Chairs.

 All of them issued statements, resolutions and decisions during those three years that are in line with Armenia’s position. What does it mean? It is about 3 principles and 6 main elements on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The negotiations are currently conducted on the basis of the Madrid proposals that were presented to the sides back in November 2007. The six major principles were picked from the Madrid proposals and voiced in the statements of Presidents Medvedev, Obama and Sarkozy on Nagorno-Karabakh in L’Aquila and Muskoka in the frameworks of the G8 Summits. What are the international community, international mediators, Armenia and Azerbaijan saying? The international community through the mediators is saying that that the issue should be settled on the basis of the three principles and six elements.

What are they? There are the principles of non-use of force or threat of force, right to self-determination and territorial integrity. I don’t know whether we have enough time to talk about mentioned six elements in detail..

The international community is saying that the parties are to conduct negotiations on that basis to reach settlement. And it is underlined that those 3 principles and 6 elements have been conceived and proposed as an integrated whole, and it is unacceptable to select some elements or principles over the others. What is Armenia saying? We are saying that we are ready to move forward towards the settlement on the basis of those principles and elements proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group. And we are totally sharing the approach of the international community that they have been conceived as an integrated whole, and it is not acceptable to select some elements or principles over the others

And what is Azerbaijan saying?. Azerbaijan is saying that they accept only one principle out of the three, as for the six elements they are saying that they will be ready to hold a discussion on the five other elements after the implementation of one of them. With regard to this, at the OSCE Summit in Astana the US Secretary of State, on behalf of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs stated, once again reminding that those principles and elements have been conceived as an integrated whole ,it is a package. And we should move forwards towards the settlement of the issue on the basis of it.

And what the Azerbaijanis are trying to present that some organization backs them, what are they talking about? For example, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that does not deal with the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh issue. And how are the decisions made in that Organization? If there is an issue concerning a Muslim country and a non-Muslim side, by the opinion of the Organization, it’s always the Muslim side that is right. Actually, no voting takes place there. However, many Muslim countries do not vote for the resolutions in other international organizations that are introduced by Azerbaijan.
What is the international community saying? That the settlement of the conflict must be based on those three principles and six elements, proposed by Russia, the United States and France, that the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be decided by the Nagorno-Karabakh people through free expression of will that should have a legally binding force. And before that final decision, Nagorno-Karabakh should have an interim status. What does the interim status mean? Saying interim status, it is supposed that the final status has not yet been defined. And it is one of the main elements proposed by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group as a basis for the settlement.

Question: Correct me if I am mistaken...

Edward Nalbandian: Please.

Question: As far as I understand, the major part of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh – 75 percent of the population according to the data of 1989 – is ethnic Armenian.

Edward Nalbandian: Right. Before the conflict, the biggest, and the overwhelming part of the population - about 75 per cent were…

Question: So, regarding it, everyone knows that the referendum takes place; this explains that in case of a referendum the result will be obvious. But I want to ask you…

Edward Nalbandian: You are right, it’s clear to everyone, but one. Or they may pretend it’s unclear.

Question: I would like to ask you, in what status would Armenia like to see Nagorno-Karabakh – as part of its territory, or as a separate friendly sovereign state?

Edward Nalbandian: As I said, Armenia is supporting the elements and principles proposed by the Co-Chairs as a basis for the negotiations and for reaching the settlement., One of those elements just related to your question –is that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh should decide – with whom and how they want to live, in other words to be the master of their own destiny.
And this free expression of will should have a legally binding force. It has been conceived in the proposals presented by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

Question: President Aliyev many times made a statement that Azerbaijan does not exclude the use of force, including…. – I do not know how to put it right – to return the territory which Azerbaijan thinks belongs to it. You know that on the post-Soviet territory there were such attempts recently, .particularly in Georgia that led to human victims and to a result with which Georgia does not quite agree. Is such course of action very dangerous? Is it possible?

Edward Nalbandian: You know, actually, it’s dangerous, when someone declares, and does it daily, that one’s ready or getting ready to use force. I do not think there is a country which would share or support such a viewpoint. It’s clear that the use of force is not a way to resolve problem. That is way, the international community suggests the non-use of force and threat of force as one of the main principles of the settlement. According to international law, even the threat of force is regarded as aggression. But unfortunately, in Azerbaijan, they think that they can continue to threaten with the use of force and renewal of hostilities. Evidently, they have forgotten how it began. The conflict started when they used force against Nagorno-Karabakh, started a large-scale military action. What’s more, they hired mercenaries with close links to international terrorist organizations. You see what it has led to! They must have forgotten what it has led to. Evidently, human memory is short.

Question: I would also like to ask you about Turkey’s position. There is even a historic theory saying that one of the reasons that made Stalin to give Nagorno-Karabakh to the autonomy of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic was his desire to somehow pacify Turkey, may be y direct it to the communist way of development. It’s clear that Armenia and Turkey have a long and complicated history of their relations, though it is obvious that they have been trying to somehow overcome the historic differences over the recent years. How constructive is Turkey’s position at the moment, do you think?

Edward Nalbandian: Turkey’s position is not just unconstructive, but even destructive both in the viewpoint of this conflict and normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations. You know that it was initiated by the Armenia’s President to start the process of normalizing Armenia-Turkey relations. Yes, we started the process; we conducted negotiations and came to the signing protocols, from the beginning having agreed with the Turkish side that we were doing it without any preconditions. But after protocols were signed, Turkey failed to respect one of the major principles of international law, which was born together with diplomacy – the “pacta sunt servanda” principle, meaning that all the agreements are to be respected. We reached those agreements and signed them in the presence of Switzerland, Russia, the United States, France, as well as representatives of the European Union and the Council of Europe. And then the Turkish side has got back to the same preconditions it was presenting before the start of this process, the preconditions keeping normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations at a deadlock. What are those preconditions? First, it’s an attempt to link the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement with Armenia-Turkey relations. Russia, the US and France –the mediators of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement – repeatedly made statements that attempts to link those two processes would harm both of them. The Turkish side is pretending that it does not see or hear what the international community is saying. The second issue is the recognition of the Armenian genocide. When we started this process, we said that genocide recognition by Turkey is not a precondition for normalization of our relations despite the fact that Turkey has been denying Armenian genocide for 95 years. But this cannot be Turkey’s precondition to Armenia. We have been emphasizing that Armenia will never question either the fact of genocide, or the importance of its international recognition. We told about it Turkey, the mediators and all the countries supporting the process of normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations. Unfortunately Turkey has returned to the language of preconditions that was used before the beginning of the process. By doing so it took a counterproductive position both in settling the Armenia-Turkey relations and the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh issue , because as I have mentioned before, the international community is saying that linking these two processes may affect the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.

Question: If you allow, I would like to ask last question. You have built a career as a diplomat and have devoted many years to diplomatic service. We’ve learned that you dealt with the Middle East conflict, which many experts compare to the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Do you think such a comparison is possible – many analysts compare the position of Armenia with that of Israel saying that just like Israel Armenia regards demographic aspects as of paramount importance often ignoring historic facts in favor of the opposite side? Are such statements appropriate do you think?

Edward Nalbandian: Well, you know, I don’t think Israel is ignoring historical facts or that it is done by the other side. Armenia has never ignored them and can’t ignore historical facts. You know, closing eyes on the historic facts, ignoring the historic roots, I don’t think that could be useful to find solutions. We should be looking into the future and searching for ways to find solution, rather than creating new problems. Every conflict has its own peculiarities, its own roots and its own dynamics and its own developments, it has its own negotiation formats. Therefore, comparing or drawing parallels is not entirely correct. But still there may be some similarities. But I don’t think we should directly compare one conflict with another. Quite recently in Sudan, where a referendum took place and a new state is emerging, I was asked how it can impact the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh and whether it may become a precedent for Nagorno-Karabakh. Well, of course it can. But the precedents, they are not few in number, there are lots of such examples. Most UN member states, formation of each of them, can be viewed as a precedent, because practically all of them became independent states by using their right to self-determination. Therefore, Nagorno-Karabakh, or the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have the same rights to master their destiny as any other country under this heaven.

Question: Thank you very much.