“Novosti-Armenia” – Mister Kocharian, can we say that there is a new situation in the settlement of Karabakh issue after the meeting of the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia in Sochi?

Shavarsh Kocharian - Yes, you can, but after the Sochi statement, Azerbaijan stated that the peaceful settlement does not exclude military activities. That was the same situation as after the signing of Maindorf Declaration.

“Novosti-Armenia”- According to some assessments, today against the efforts undertaken by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, particularly Russia towards the settlement of the Karabakh issue, the tension in the conflict zone is not only decreasing, but even increasing. How do you explain it?

Shavarsh Kocharian – Really, there is a correlation between the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, concretely meaning the initiatives of Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President and the growth of tension. If you try to portray it in the form of points or curves, it turns out that the increase in tension and the efforts of the President of Russia as it goes along. So, it turns out to be a strange pattern- the greater efforts undertaken by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs countries to progress in settling of the conflict, the more tension increases in the Azeri-Karabakhi line of confrontation, the more militaristic and anti-Armenian statements are spoken out in Baku.

These actions of the Azeri side to escalate the tension directed both to the preventing of progress in the settlement of the Azeri-Karabakhi conflict and discrediting of the OSCE Minsk Group. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs together with the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk are conducting two important missions. The first is to assist the sides in reaching a comprehensive peace agreement that involves compromises on all sides of the conflict. The uncompromising and destructive position of Baku has clearly been understood by everyone: "everything or nothing", "everything or war." Naturally, such a position to get everything unilaterally "on a plate bordered with oil” and intimidate its own people for the domestic political purposes is doomed to failure in advance and remains as the main obstacle on the way of settlement. However, Azerbaijan is trying to lay its own responsibility for unresolved conflict on co-chairing of the Minsk Group.

“Novosti-Armenia” – And what is the second mission of the Minsk Group and Andrzej Kasprzyk?

Shavarsh Kocharian – The second mission of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs and Ambassador Kasprzyk is to promote the consolidation of the existing ceasefire regime. Somehow, but it persists and does not turn into open warfare, though the Azeri side made such attempts during the presidential elections in Armenia. It was a failed policy of reconnaissance, but in general, there were no the large-scale fightings. The fact that the armistice is consolidated without any peacekeepers only by the efforts of the sides, is the merit of the Minsk Group together with a monitoring group and it is natural, that each meeting, particularly on the high- level, facilitates the maintaining of the ceasefire. So, any provocation conducted on the border before or after the meetings is aimed at discrediting of those mediatory efforts. It means that all actions and statements of Azerbaijan are aimed at discrediting of co-chairing of the OSCE Minsk Group in both directions. Adding to this, the well-known fact that Baku is maniacally attesting to track the issue from the format of the Minsk Group into other formats, the policy of Azerbaijan on torpedoing the negotiations and discrediting the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing is becoming more apparent.

“Novosti-Armenia” - What steps, by the viewpoint of the Armenian side, are need for the strengthening of confidence-building measures in the zone of conflict?

Shavarsh Kocharian – Surely, when we are talking about the Armenian side, it is important to take into account that the main side of the conflict is the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. That is way the position of NKR is an imperative firstly. It is well-known that the proposal, presented by the mediators and also voiced by the UN Secretary General, as well as representatives of many international organizations on withdrawal of snipers from the line of contact, was responded positively both in Stepanakert and Yerevan, but Baku refused it. The withdrawal of snipers is one of the steps that may support confidence-building measures and reduce the tension.
Secondly, it is surely need to adhere to the documents signed already by the sides.

We are talking about the most agreement on the cease-fire in 1994, as well. In 1995, Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed another document, where are outlined in detail all the steps that are need to be undertaken for the exception of all possible incidents, inform each other, as well as carry out investigations. Signatures are, but it remained on paper and not by accident during the last meeting in Sochi, there was again a necessary to revive the part of an agreement, which speaks of the need to prevent and investigate incidents.

The third step is surely the need to control the supply of arms to the region. After all, there is no secret that Azerbaijan is arming and is not hiding why is doing so. The Armenian sides have an adequate response to any adventure of Azerbaijan, but the arms race is contrary to the obligations of confidence-building measures. The strict control is also needed to do, as the Azeri side has violated all the norms provided by the agreements on armaments.

It is also necessary to use diplomatic pressure and public statements, addressed to the people of Azerbaijan, who may have a false impression that the whole world supports the adventurous course of Baku due to tight control over the media in this country.

But one thing is absolutely clear- we can not speak about any confidence-building measures if one of the sides on the highest official level is carrying out an anti-Armenian propaganda and cultivating Armenophobia all the time.
I'm not talking about the acts such as a destruction of historical monuments, particularly, the barbarous destruction of khachkars (cross-stones) in Jugha. And all these are against of a militaristic rhetoric and preventing the establishment of confidence-building measures.

If the above-mentioned steps are not implemented or give results, the international recognition of NKR will be the only way.

“Novosti-Armenia” – Most recently, on air of "MIR" TV, you showed a document where Heydar Aliyev instructed Vice-Speaker of the Azeri Parliament to hold a negotiation on the organization of meeting between the leadership of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh?

Shavarsh Kocharian – To date, no official reaction has been made by Baku and I think it is not accidentally as such a document is not in line with the today’s policy of Azerbaijan. The Azeri side, who is conducting a large-scale aggression against the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, since the summer of 1993 has to ask for armistice. Before it, Azerbaijan was ignoring all calls for mediators, UN resolutions, each time cherishing an illusion that a new military campaign would bring their desired results, that is to complete the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh.

At the beginning, using the advantage in the military equipment and assistance about 2000 fighters from the international terrorist organizations, Azerbaijan succeeded in occupying and implementing of ethnic cleansing in nearly 40% of the territory of the NKR. Until now, some of these territories are under the occupation of the Azerbaijani army. But then every military attack was ended by the defeat and pushback of the Azeri army.

As a result, Azerbaijan asked for armistice itself and for it, naturally, it had to turn just to the side of the conflict - the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. The negotiations were being hold in the bilateral format and there are a number of signed documents on the subject.

In particular, the Azeri present Minister of Defense Safar Abiyev, who was then Chief of Staff, has repeatedly appealed to the letters with his signature to the Ministry of Defense of the NKR, the commander of Karabakh armed forces. Then a number of short-term armistices were reached. Here, the key role had a Russia's mediation through the "fax diplomacy." That is, the Russian mediator Kazimirov sent out texts to the sides, they made their changes and each signed individually the agreed texts. As a result, the agreement entered into force.

To come to a termless agreement on termination of military operations, Heydar Aliyev authorized the Vice-Speaker of the Azeri Parliament Jalilov to hold the negotiations. The same authority was given then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nagorno Karabakh Republic Arkady Ghukasian. Their meeting took place in Moscow and the result of this meeting was an adoption of communiqué, and delivering of speech before the press. Afterwards, the meeting of Robert Kocharian (then President of the NKR) and Heydar Aliyev took place in Moscow. These negotiations exactly prepared the background for the adoption of the Bishkek Declaration, and then the unlimited agreement was signed on ceasefire, which still functions. Unlike other short-term armistices, this agreement was signed also by the third side- Armenia.

Heydar Aliyev gave a written authority for his signature to hold negotiations for the organizations of meeting between the leadership of Azerbaijan and the NKR to not only Jalilov, but also Guliyev, then Deputy Prime Minister.

This shows that the sides must be contacted directly for the achievement of a tangible result. If Azerbaijan wants to progress, he must keep a direct contact with the NKR that has been done then when it needed to have the result of the negotiations.

Today the question of the involvement of the NKR in the negotiation process is a kind of litmus test of true intentions of Baku. Until Azerbaijan excludes the direct participation of Karabakh in the negotiations, the negotiations for him are a screen to continue conducting of propaganda in distorting of essence of the conflict and attempt to lay the responsibility for the consequences of aggression unleashed by him on the Armenian side.

“Novosti-Armenia” - How would you assess the statement of Foreign Minister of France Alain Juppe that the right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental principle and the stir caused by this statement in Azerbaijan?

Shavarsh Kocharian – It would be surreal not to assume the right of peoples to self-determination as a fundamental principle of international right when it is recorded in the UN Charter, as well as many other international documents. It was, is and will remain a basic principle, regardless of the fact that Baku considers it as a fundamental principle of international law.

In fact, the right of nation to self-determination and territorial integrity can not be counterposed. By itself, the principle of territorial integrity is extremely important and seeks to ensure that a strong state can not absorb a weak one or part of its territory. But in the case of opposing the territorial integrity to the right of peoples to self-determination, the self-determination beats purpose.

In accordance with the first chapter of the UN Charter, one of the four goals of the UN is the equality of peoples and their right to self-determination. In the second chapter, which states the principles aimed at the achievement of this goal, is mentioned about territorial integrity. That is, in this case, the principle of territorial integrity applies to self-determined NKR, and not to Azerbaijan.

According to the definition of aggression under the UN General Assembly Resolution of 14 December 1974, the use of armed force against an unrecognized or not a UN member state is also aggression. Namely Azerbaijan carries out aggression against the self-determined NKR and responsibility for the consequences of armed conflict is on it - as the aggressor country. That is why just mentioning about the self-determination as a fundamental principle of international law brings Baku’s panic reaction.

“Novosti-Armenia” –And how would you assess the positions of the sides regarding to the settlement of the conflict?

Shavarsh Kocharian – To reach a settlement, the Armenian sides have already showed a maximum possible compromise and I can bring some examples. So, initially was not put entirely justified and fair conditions for the return to the NKR its occupied territories and recognition of the NKR. While such a step would demonstrate that Baku has no previous intent to carry out ethnic cleansing and assimilation of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In addition, the Armenian sides agreed to accept the Madrid principles as a basis for the negotiations.

These principles suppose a pending legally-binding referendum for the sides on independence, while the referendum in Karabakh was conducted in accordance with international law and legislation existing in the USSR in 1991, and the NKR was established as a democratic state, in the situation of the Azerbaijani military aggression.

The other days, the RA President Serzh Sargsyan during a visit to Latvia, reiterated that the Armenian sides are ready for a compromise solution based on three principles – non-use of force, right to self-determination and territorial integrity.
And what is saying Azerbaijan? It is not ruling out the military solution, in fact denying the self-determination and speaking about the territorial integrity, distorting this principle, raising to a absolute. That's why we do not have any progress.

The international community is also considering that the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity should not be opposed to each other. This clearly was demonstrated by the decision of the International Court of Justice Rules on Kosovo Independence

It may be recalled how many acts of recognition of self-determined states were conducted recently that are not the precedents, but long-established regularity- if the principle of territorial integrity used in versus to the right to self-determination, the number of internationally recognized states that are members of the UN since the end of the World War II, grew to more than 3.5 times. The Republic of Azerbaijan was formed in violation of internationally recognized borders of the USSR.