Question: Mr. Minister, I would like you to sum up the results of the Ministerial Council, especially concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh issue?

Edward Nalbandian: As you know, the annual OSCE Ministerial Council is an important venue to discuss various issues related to the European security.

Every December in the framework of the OSCE Ministerial Council statements are adopted on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This time, of course, the conditions were not favourable for five-party statement adoption, and the Co-Chairs decided to issue a trilateral statement which was made on the level of the Heads of delegations, i.e. Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Lavrov, US State Secretary Kerry and Secretary of State for European Affairs of France Harlem Desir.

What is this statement about? The Co-Chairs once again stress that there is no alternative to the negotiated, peaceful resolution of the issue. To whom is it addressed? It is obvious to whom. Armenia on the presidential and other levels has stressed on numerous occasions that the sides should settle the issue exceptionally through peaceful means, negotiations.

As you know this year marked the 20th anniversary of the Ceasefire Agreement, and in their Statement the Co-Chairs particularly highlighted that steps should be undertaken aimed at the consolidation of the cease-fire regime. To whom is that addressed? Armenia and Karabakh have always expressed that the Ceasefire Agreement of 1994, as well as the Trilateral Agreement of 1995, signed between Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan on strengthening of the ceasefire should be respected. It is Azerbaijan that has always violated, does not respect those agreements.

That was another opportunity for the Co-Chairs to underline its significance, because, unfortunately, during this year Azerbaijan has launched rather large-scale military actions both along the Line of Contact and along the border with Armenia, made provocations, which resulted in many human losses, serious escalation of the situation. The Co-Chairs are referring to that, especially to the July-August provocations launched by the Azerbaijani side. They make reference to the arrangements reached in Astrakhan and the Statement of the Presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, which states that the sides in cooperation with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs and the ICRC out of humanitarian considerations should immediately exchange the prisoners of war and return the bodies of the dead.

First, Azerbaijan refused to cooperate on those issues with both the Co-Chairs and the ICRC, putting forward some preconditions. Second, what kind of humanism can we talk about if Azerbaijan, after shooting down the helicopter, which the Co-Chairs characterize as tragedy, for 10 days was keeping the shooting site under intensive fire, not allowing rescue teams, OSCE, ICRC representatives to approach the site and evacuate the bodies of the killed 3 men? Clearly there is no sign of humanism here.

The Co-Chairs speak in a very diplomatic, I would say extremely delicate, language: they say it was possible to avoid that tragedy, that is, they want to say it should not have been done, it was wrong.

As you know, after the previous statement Azerbaijan raised hysteria against the Co-Chairs. Even though they were again speaking in a rather diplomatic language, while assessing the shooting down of the helicopter.

In yesterday’s statement the Co-Chairs call upon the sides, again speaking in the in their capacity as mediators, but it is apparent that this is addressed to Azerbaijan as it is Baku that violates the ceasefire. It is also clear that Azerbaijan is continuously rejecting the proposals of the Co-Chairs to create a mechanism of investigation of ceasefire violations and accidents, thus taking the whole responsibility of the consequences on itself.

Question: Mr. Minister, they speak about the importance of the confidence building measures. Are there any concrete proposals? Or is this another ordinary statement?

Edward Nalbandian: Of course statements have general terms. But indeed concrete proposals on confidence-building measures are introduced to the parties. That is a package presented by the Co-Chairs several times.

A package on confidence-building measures was introduced during the last regional visit of the President of France Hollande, when the organization of a Summit in Paris was proposed.

Armenia absolutely supports those proposals. Azerbaijan rejected all proposals which were made by France surely in consulting with the other Co-Chair states. Out of 6-7 proposals they chose one, on the exchange of information through ICRC. This, for sure, is not the most important one from amongst the confidence-building measures proposed by France and, generally, proposed over the last years.

Those proposals were once again reaffirmed before the Paris meeting. Azerbaijan did not even agree to discuss the above-mentioned confidence-building measures in Paris.

Their argument is that we can speak about confidence-building measures when there is progress, when we reach the resolution of the conflict. That is a very illogical approach, because if we reach the settlement of the issue there would be no need for such an extent of confidence-building measures. This is exactly what the Co-Chairs state in their last statement - about creating more favourable atmosphere of mutual trust aimed at avoiding future accidents and promoting the negotiation process. That would also avert the deterioration, escalation of the situation, which occurred especially during the recent period.

Question: As you mentioned about Paris meeting, I will ask another question: yesterday’s statement of the Co-Chairs mentions that the principles especially those discussed in Paris are the basis for the settlement. What is it about?

Edward Nalbandian: In Paris we discussed what was discussed during the recent years of the negotiation process. I would not say that something new was discussed.

In their last statement the Co-Chairs particularly underscore the statements made on the level of the Presidents of the Co-Chair states. I mean the 5 statements made in L’Aquila, Muskoka, Deauville, Los Cabos and Enniskillen. The Co-chairs stress that the principles and elements, outlined in those statements, are the basis for the resolution of the conflict.

If you pay attention to the fact that it is about some principles discussed in Paris...

In Paris a proposal was made to issue a joint statement and include the 3 well-known principles - the non-use of force or the threat of force, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and territorial integrity. Azerbaijan was against the mentioning of these principles in the joint statement. That was the reason why there was no joint statement. I think the Co-Chairs speak exactly about this.

I should remind you, that in 2009, in Athens within the framework of the OSCE Ministerial Council the five-party statement was adopted by the Heads of the delegations of the United States, Russia, France, Armenia and Azerbaijan where the very three principles are clearly mentioned. And now Azerbaijan, in fact, is making a step back.

I also mentioned in my yesterday’s statement that Azerbaijan, in fact, rejected all the proposals on the resolution of the issue, be it during the last Kazan Summit, or in Sochi before Kazan, Astrakhan before Sochi, Saint Petersbourg before Astrakhan.

The Azerbaijanis agree on something, the next day or, at best, several days later they backtrack. This is one of the main reasons which, actually, leaves no sign of confidence during the talks. If the sides reach an arrangement, and one of them backtracks each time, how can one trust, believe that you negotiate with serious people, that the next time, after reaching arrangements, they will be respected?

Question: When are the next negotiations scheduled?

Edward Nalbandian: There is no alternative to the negotiations. This is our principles.

This rather complicated situation created as a result of the downing of the helicopter and provocations by Azerbaijan, requires additional steps for creating favourable conditions aimed at moving forward the negotiations.

With its provocative statements, actions Azerbaijan does not contribute to the creation of such conditions, does the exact opposite. In this period first of all efforts are to be exerted towards securing respective, at least minimal conditions for the negotiations.

Question: Mr. Minister, the last statement declares that the Co-Chairs call upon the sides “to negotiate comprehensive peace agreement”, that is a comprehensive agreement which seems to be in line with the formulation periodically mentioned by Mammedyarov, and we ask how can we discuss this if you reject those principles?

Edward Nalbandian: It is not quite as Mammedyarov is saying, he is interpreting that way, tries to present his desire as a reality. First of all the Co-Chairs make reference to the well-known five statements. And what is stated in the statements adopted by the Heads of the Co-Chairs states? That the sides should accelerate the agreement on the Basic Principles which will allow to start the drafting of the comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Once there is an agreement on the basic principles, and Nagorno-Karabakh approves it, it will be possible to open negotiations between Azerbaijan, Karabakh and Armenia to draft the comprehensive peace agreement.