Question: Mr. Kocharyan, the talks over the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are going on for almost 20 years. There is no real progress in the resolution of the problem so far. At what stage is the process of the settlement as of now?

Answer: The achievement of any progress in such a complex issue as the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict requires the fulfillment of two conditions: first, the presence of confidence-building atmosphere between the sides and, second, the readiness of all the sides to the conflict to compromise. The very failure in fulfillment of these conditions has led to a lack of progress in the negotiation process and, moreover, to mounting tensions between the sides. The main reason for that is that one of the parties to the conflict, Azerbaijan, builds its strategy and tactics on an absolute lie, being ready neither to compromise, nor to the creation of the confidence-building atmosphere.

Question: How is that lie revealing itself?

Answer: There is no domestic and foreign policy in Azerbaijan in the classical sense of the terms. It is replaced by propaganda - a propaganda which is primarily directed towards the maintenance of the hereditary authoritarian regime. The Azerbaijani leadership tries to consolidate the people around the created image of the external enemy in the face of all Armenians. All the Azerbaijani statements about the strength and unity of the Armenians, the power of the Armenian lobby suggest that the Azerbaijani leadership has not found a better way but to copy in a distorted way the advantages that the Armenians possess from their point of view.

The fact of the thousand years Armenian history and the Armenian statehood, including the Armenian state of Artsakh (historical name of the Nagorno-Karabakh), is well-known thanks to the works of the ancient authors – Strabo, Plutarch, Pliny, Ptolemy and others. While the appearance of Azerbaijan on the world map as a state first dates back to 1918. In response to that we see ordered “research” of the Azerbaijani historians, extending to such a nonsense that the Azerbaijanis are of Sumerian origin.

It turns out that in different periods there were states, Azerbaijani origin of which was not known either to the contemporaries of those states or to the historians.

In many countries of the world there are lots of monuments of cultural and historical heritage of the Armenians, such as architectural buildings, including churches, manuscripts. In response, Azerbaijan tries to erect monuments to Heydar Aliyev with petrodollars possibly in any part of the world.

It is known that Armenia was the first in the world to adopt Christianity as a state religion. In response Baku claims all the Armenian churches of the region to be part of the Azerbaijani cultural and historical heritage. Furthermore, the Azerbaijani leadership tries to appropriate such a unique form of the Armenian architecture as khachqars (cross-stones - form of the Armenian architecture, presenting stone stele with a carved image of the cross – Ed.). The Azeris replace the word “khach” (“cross”) with “dash”, calling them dashqars, introducing the monuments as part of their cultural heritage. If it was real part of their cultural heritage, they would have never mercilessly destroyed the cross-stones in the medieval cemetery of Julfa (Nakhichevan).

Question: Are the same tendencies seen in the issue of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey in 1915?

Answer: These tendencies are not only seen, but have also become an integral part of the propaganda. Baku is under the impression that the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire is a factor that consolidates all Armenians, who are fighting for the restoration of historical justice. They try to copy here too, based on a lie. On the one hand, they deny the fact of the Genocide, more aggressively than the Turks, on the other hand promote fictional “Khojaly genocide”. Fictional, not because there was no tragedy there, but because the tragedy was organized by the Azerbaijani leadership. There is evidence for that by the Azeris themselves, among them being then high state officials.

Armenians remember and honor the heroes of national liberation wars against foreign invaders, World War II heroes against the fascism, the heroes of self-defense of the people of Artsakh against aggression unleashed by Azerbaijan. In response the Azerbaijani leadership glorifies thugs of the unprotected Armenian population of Sumgait, Baku, other cities of Azerbaijan and the murderers like Safarov that murder in the dark with an axe.

Azerbaijani leadership is going to extreme length to implant in the minds of their own people a made-up history of their state, made-up ethno-genesis of their people, made-up genocide and the image of an external enemy. To what extent can one suffer from inferiority complex to deprive its own people of their own history, to ascribe them the cultural and historical heritage of the indigenous peoples of the region and disseminate hatred towards neighboring nation? Baku was not able to realize that the strength of the Armenians is founded on the love towards their arduous, and sometimes, tragic history, love towards their cultural and historical heritage and not on hatred towards neighboring people.

Question: What does the Azerbaijani leadership rely on acting that way? It's quite obvious that a lie can never be taken for truth.

Answer: They also realize that. That’s why any truth and even some grain of it causes panic rage. It is sufficient to recall the reaction of the Azerbaijani authorities, which can be associated with the dark times of fascism, to the publication of the book “Stone dreams” by Akram Aylisli. The reaction included public burnings of the author’s works and the promises of a reward to the one who cut off Aylisli’s ear.

Question: It can be inferred that the actions taken by Azerbaijan are directed against the creation of the confidence-building atmosphere. What about making a compromise? Is Azerbaijan ready for that?

Answer: An explicit evidence for the unwillingness of the Azerbaijani authorities to compromise is the endless layers of lie concerning the essence of the Karabakh problem, the causes of the armed conflict, the interpretation of fundamental rules and norms of international law and the negotiation process itself.

The essence of the problem lies in the implementation by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh of their inalienable right to self-determination – in full compliance with the norms of international law and domestic law of the Soviet Union, before its collapse in 1991. The conflict broke out in response to the self-determination as a result of power politics, accepted by the leadership of Azerbaijan, displayed in brutal massacres and ethnic cleansings of the whole four-hundred-thousand Armenian population of Azerbaijan and unleashing of full-scale military aggression against the self-determined Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

In vain attempts to decline all the responsibility for the bloody consequences of the conflict unleashed by themselves, the Azerbaijani leadership tries to present the conflict as a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time the incumbent Azerbaijani leadership pretends to be ignorant about the calls of four UN Security Council resolutions of 1992-1993 requiring immediate cessation of military actions, Azerbaijan started new offensives on the Karabakh frontline. As a result Baku suffered new military defeats by the NKR Defense Army until on September 3, 1993 the leader of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev empowered with his own signature the high ranking officials to hold negotiations on organizing of his meeting with the head of NKR (yes, with the very NKR and by his own signature). And as the result of that meeting the foundation was laid for signing a cease-fire Agreement in Moscow in May 1994, to which Armenia became a party then.

The background of the signing of the cease-fire Agreement perfectly illustrates, that when Baku is really striving for reaching some results, it turns to the genuine side of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, i.e. the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and doesn’t prevent its full participation in the talks, trying to present Armenia and Azerbaijan as parties to the conflict, the way incumbent Baku leadership does.

According to the UN Charter, respect for equal rights and self-determination, which is one among four aims of the UN and, not territorial integrity of states, is considered as the principle in achieving the organization’s ends. Distorting international law and acting against the UN Charter, the Azerbaijani leadership with a persistence, which is worth for a better use, tries to oppose the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan to the right of self-determination of the Nagorno-Karabakh people.

According to the Madrid document and repeated public statements made by the co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group, the conflict must be settled on the basis of three principles of international law - non-use of force or threat of force, territorial integrity and equal rights and self-determination of peoples. By claiming Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan, Baku rejects the right to self-determination, moreover, using militarist rhetoric it rejects non-use of threat of force. The only principle Baku accepts is the principle of territorial integrity, but in a manner of distorted interpretation of the Madrid document and in contradiction with the UN Charter.

Baku’s similar selective and distorted interpretation is also present in relation to the 6 elements on the settlement of the conflict announced by the Co-Chair states. The Azerbaijani leadership continuously talks from all platforms about the return of the Azerbaijani territories, simultaneously taking for granted the preservation of the occupation and the settlements of the territories of NKR. In contrast to the raised position of Co-Chairs, that is, “the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence” the Azerbaijani leadership pretends that there are no Armenian refugees, while repeating the necessity of the return of the Azerbaijani refugees to their former places of residence.

Baku is either silent or denies the other four principles of the settlement, including “the determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will”, as if it doesn’t realize the impossibility of selective realization of any of the elements without reconciling all of them. That was stressed by the Secretary of State of the USA during OSCE Astana Summit in 2010 and recently – month ago – by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov during joint press-conference with the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. The same has been voiced in the numerous statements of the OSCE MG Co-Chair states.

The above-mentioned is enough to conclude that Azerbaijan is not ready to compromises and acts according to the principle “all or nothing”. Zero progress in the settlement of the conflict, i. e. “nothing”, is the result of such a destructive position of Baku.

Question: However, Azerbaijan continuously raises thesis over unacceptability of existing status quo and necessity to change it. Does Baku really need settlement of the problem?

Answer: It is not true, as the Azerbaijani leadership actions are aimed precisely at the maintenance of the existing status quo, as a necessary nourishment to the maintenance of the hereditary authoritarian regime. If Baku really wanted to change the status quo, it would have accepted the MG Co-Chairs’ proposals on strengthening the confidence-building measures and ceasefire regime.

Approximately 10 days ago, on May 28, the first person of Azerbaijan expressed regret that the Co-Chairs are engaged in strengthening confidence-building measures, stabilization of the situation on the line of contact and other similar questions, which are not allegedly the substance of the talks.

This goes along with the fact that Baku has its signature on the agreement between the sides of the conflict concluded on February 3, 1995 on the strengthening of the cease-fire regime, where the procedure of carrying out of the investigations on contact line is anticipated. Moreover, the President of Azerbaijan signs the Declaration in Sochi in 2011 on the necessity of a mechanism to investigate the ceasefire violations, and the soon afterwards Azerbaijan manages to remove from the budget the funding proposed for the ensuring of mechanism to investigate the incidents, under the threats to veto the entire OSCE budget.

Baku’s rejection to reconcile the principles of the conflict settlement, contrary to previously reached agreements and the calls of the OSCE MG Co-Chairs and authoritative representation of the international body is an obvious evidence of the unwillingness of Baku to change the status quo.

Question: After the recent meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Krakow the possibility of organization of a meeting between the Presidents of two states was stated. It is two years since the last meeting of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Under the given circumstances what is the possibility of holding of the mentioned meeting, and what can be made out of it?
Answer: The fact that Azerbaijan is behaving in such a destructive way, doesn’t mean, that it is necessary to suspend the talks. There are at least two reasons for that.

First, such a situation can not last forever. Acting that way, under the existing status quo, either the process of international recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic will take over or Baku, pursuing its stubborn policy, will finally come to its senses and start acting in a constructive way.

Second, it is significant that the three MG Co-Chairs, which are also permanent members of the UN SC, are responsible for the stability in all parts of the world. They insist on the peaceful resolution of Karabakh conflict. It means that the current format of the settlement has another important mission, i. e, to prevent the truce from developing into an armed conflict. That’s why Azerbaijan doesn’t stop its attempts of taking the discussion of Karabakh issue into various international organizations and parliaments of different states, openly seeking to abolish or to replace the MG Co-Chairmanship format.

The Armenian side has always supported the initiatives of the Co-Chairs on organization of the meetings, including high-level ones. That kind of meetings will become productive in terms of making progress in the settlement of Karabakh conflict once the leadership of Azerbaijan gives up its destructive policy based on lie.