Question: Minister Nalbandian, I would like start from the denied bids. On the one side, we are saying that the Diplomatic Academy which was eventually established is needed for Armenia, the graduates of which after studying here and in Fletcher, come back, but the requirement of the law according to which they must be taken to a job at the Ministry, is not fulfilled. I am raising this issue not only in the context of the need to recruit necessary personnel to the diplomatic corps. It’s a pity that our state makes such kind of expenses and the students get the knowledge in such an eminent institution and then they are bid farewell, having no ability to provide a job for them.

I am expecting the representative of the Ministry of Finance to give an answer regarding to this.

The second question is about the issue of adequacy of those expenses in the context of solving the challenges facing the MFA in this year or in previous years. To what extent are they adequate? Mr. Minister, surely you are well aware of our critical attitude towards the activities of our MFA on the election of Azerbaijan as a non-permanent member in the UN Security Council. I would like to understand: the Deputy Minister said that the expenses scheduled for the next year exceed 6.5% to the expenses of this year. On the one side we can say that we have a growth of budget expenses allocated to this sphere, on the other hand, we have the challenges which, in comparison to the 6.5%, are exceeding. To what extent are the activities undertaken in this sphere adequate, particularly taking into account that at least two years, only the membership of Azerbaijan to the UN SC would bring a serious problems. And we have no ability to provide a job to ten attaches, so that the graduates of the Diplomatic Academy could be recruited to the Ministry, we reduce the expenses for communication and information.

Answer: I have some correction. We are not talking about all the graduates to be admitted to the MFA. Each year we hold a competition and from 200 applicants 27 are admitted to the Diplomatic Academy. And after the completion of the course, the best ones should work at the MFA as anticipated by the Law on Diplomatic Service which was adopted by the NA.

Concerning Azerbaijan’s becoming a non-permanent member in the UN Security Council, I would like to answer not only the statement of Mr. Safaryan, but also the rather emotional comments recently voiced about it, maybe impressed by the Azeri propaganda as of what Azerbaijan has achieved, what it is going to do, whether it is going to shift the Nagorno-Karabakh issue to the Security Council, etc.

Actually, I don’t think this membership deserves a big reaction. That’s first. As of shifting the Nagorno-Karabakh issue to the Security Council, I would like to remind that the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group are permanent members of the Security Council-Russian Federation, the USA and France repeatedly stated that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue should be settled within the frames of the Minsk Group, and not be shifted to other platforms. I think that a clear answer has been given and there is no need to become emotional here because of statements coming from Azerbaijan.

Secondly, everything voiced from Baku influence some experts here, as if the voting in the Security Council is a proof that the international community supports Azerbaijan’s position on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, as if it creates more favorable conditions for Azerbaijan. I do not share this opinion.

Azerbaijan has put itself into a deadlock. The international community has already presented its position which is in line with the position of Armenia and I would not say that it is in line with Azerbaijan’s approaches, otherwise it would not have been rejected.

Those statements made by the co-chairing countries reflect the opinion of the international community, and the Co-Chairs have the mandate of the international community. Those positions were publicly stated by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries on the highest level in L’Aquila, Muskoka and Deauville, the appropriate statements were made in the frames of the OSCE in Helsinki, Athens, Almaty and Astana. This position was voiced during the Kazan meeting, through the document presented to the sides, which was rejected by Azerbaijan.

This is the approach of the international community with respect to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and Armenia has said, and today I reaffirm it once again, that those positions are in line with our position. We are ready to continue the negotiations based on them and move forward to the settlement.

May be Azerbaijan, becoming a non-permanent member of the Security Council would have more serious and constructive approach. We will see. It’s rather doubtful. According to Article 23 of the UN Charter, the member of the Security Council should contribute to the maintenance of international security. Will Azerbaijan able to step back from its militaristic policy, from the calls provoking war and from the statements propagating hatred and racial discrimination. It’s highly doubtful. We will see.

There is no need to become emotional, as if they gained something special, and as if Armenia had huge loses or will have more losses. Armenia will continue its consistent and balanced policy, without any nervous convulsions we will continue to undertake steps towards both the settlement of the Karabakh issue and in general the reinforcement of stability and security in our region.

Question: Mr. Nalbandian, as you have touched upon foreign policy, I would like you to clarify a question. Regarding the aid provided by Armenia to Turkey, Davutoğlu said that it could not have any positive impact on the process of the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations. What is your comment on it?

Answer: It is well-known that there was an earthquake in Turkey. Armenia lent its hand of relief, and stated that could provide an aid. And we did it. It was a humanitarian aid.

I do not think that similar statements quoted by you could have a positive impact on the process of the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations. It once again demonstrates that the Turkish side continues its destructive approach which it adopted after Zurich and which it continues to keep.