Samvel Farmanyan. Distinguished Government, dear colleagues, to be honest, I expected that today’s Q&A topic would be focused on the situation unfolded along the Nagorno-Karabakh frontline and the recent developments, as there is not a more important issue at the moment. I would like to extend my question to the government, probably, to Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandian. Mr. Nalbandian, what are the prospects of the peace? We are familiar with the official statements, developments taking place in the diplomatic field, destructive steps undertaken by Azerbaijan. However, the adversary keeps shelling along the entire Line of Contact, using heavy weaponry. First question, that touches each and every citizen is the following – what are the prospects of peace, is there any prospect in the negotiation process throughout these days to force the adversary not to fire along the entire border, Line of Contact and return to the negotiation process? Thank you.

Edward Nalbadian. Thank you for the question, Mr. Farmanyan.

You reflected on the prospects of the negotiation process. Those prospects first and foremost are linked to overcoming of the consequences, created by the aggressive, large-scale military actions launched by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh.

This is exactly what the President of Armenia stated in his recent statements and interviews. Indeed, today the international community, first and foremost Armenia and the Co-Chair countries exert efforts to overcome these consequences, in order to exclude, to the possible extent, the reoccurrence of what happened in early April. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia expressed the same stance during his visit to Yerevan.

There were rumors, that Lavrov brought some kind of a package with him. I think it is obvious that in current circumstances in the absence of appropriate conditions it is difficult to conduct negotiations on the settlement. Azerbaijan vainly strives to misrepresent as if Armenia has withdrawn from the negotiations and opposes the peace process. It is an outright lie.

Armenia has never abandoned the negotiation process. Armenia has always favored the settlement exclusively through negotiations and peaceful means. And it was not Armenia that refused to have meetings. If there were any meetings on high-level, ministerial or other levels that were canceled or postponed, that was Azerbaijan’s fault.

The latest such case was in Washington, when Azerbaijan rejected to have any meetings, whatsoever, even with the Co-Chairs. Today Azerbaijan undertakes futile attempts to question if the trilateral ceasefire agreement and agreement on the consolidation of ceasefire are still in force. Such attempts were made in the diplomatic circles in Vienna and New York. Respective reaction followed by the Co-Chairs, and it was the same as ours, that the terms of the1994-1995 trilateral ceasefire agreement and agreement on the consolidation of ceasefire do not expire, they are in force, and their provisions should be implemented unconditionally. This is the shared opinion of Armenia, the international community and the Co-Chairs.

This once again factually demonstrated that Azerbaijan opposes to the opinion of the international community. It was a rather erroneous diplomatic calculation. It is hard to believe but upon our inquiry in Vienna, Azerbaijan on the highest level answered to the Co-Chairs that their ambassador who had sent the note verbale questioning if the cease-fire agreement is in force, acted upon his own initiative, without respective instructions and coordination with his authorities in Baku. The same happened in New York. Obviously they have acted like that to avoid the consequences of their irresponsible step. As the saying goes, an uneasy conscience betrays itself. And this is not done for the first time. This is a well-known Azerbaijani style, when they do not know what to say, they pretend they are not aware…

Samvel Farmanyan. Thank you, Mr. Nalbandian. In fact, the circumstances that you have mentioned, speak about the non-implementable nature of the goals of settlement of the issue through negotiations declared by Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan’s military aggression is the best proof to their failure at the negotiation table. And I do agree with you that it is contained in the assessments of the international community, at least in their perception. But, in the end, if even in the created circumstances Azerbaijan continues carrying out of overtly destructive steps of explicitly provocative nature, be it the note verbale concerning cease-fire agreements in the OSCE, or documents put into circulation in the United Nations.

You may agree, Mr. Nalbandian, that the international community, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, as the only format enjoying international mediation mandate… There is a need to expect more addressed, impersonated assessments, labeling and so on. Otherwise, Baku is under the impression that unaddressed, impersonalized assessments of the international community, in the end, contain also a kind of a carte blanche to undertake steps, which on the one hand would destabilize the region from security perspective, and on the other, question peaceful negotiation process. Indeed, the President of Armenia, as you quoted, mentioned the situation unfolded in the negotiation process. I also share the view that indeed there could be no alternative to the negotiations, as the war is not a solution. But for that, you also share the view, it is necessary that Azerbaijan proved its commitment to the peaceful settlement.

Edward Nalbandian. Mr. Farmanyan, I agree with you, but I would like to continue with what I wanted to say.

Azerbaijan pretends, as if it has not been aware when on April 2 it launched large-scale military actions against Nagorno-Karabakh, has not been aware how many human losses that adventure caused to them, has not been aware of the mechanism of investigation of cease-fire violations, has not been aware of the 5 statements of the Co-Chairs on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

I think that we could remind those who are unaware that lack of information does not relieve of responsibility.

While agreeing with you, I would like to add, that it is high time for the international community to take concrete steps to bring Azerbaijan to senses and back to the constructive mood. Then, it would also be possible to continue the negotiation process. And today our meetings and discussions refer to the ways of overcoming the consequences resulted by the Azerbaijani aggression.

Khachatur Qoqobelyan. I extend my question to the distinguished Foreign Minister, Mr. Nalbandian. First, during the session of the National Security Council the President assigned the MFA to draft an agreement on mutual military assistance with Nagorno-Karabakh. I would like to know at what stage is the drafting process, and what steps were carried out. Second, during the tough military days, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia D. Rogozin made a statement, that Russia would continue provision of weapons to Azerbaijan. It was quite appropriate when the MFA summoned Ambassador of Belarus. I would like to know, what steps were undertaken regarding that statement? And second, I would like to know your personal stance, do not you think that the main reason behind the resumption of hostilities is that Azerbaijan used the loophole of late delivery of the Russian weaponry for our loan commitment. It is interesting. Thank you.

Edward Nalbandian. Thank you for your question, Mr. Qoqobelyan.

Regarding the President’s assignment, the process in underway. The agreement or the treaty is in the drafting process together with Nagorno-Karabakh. I think, you can imagine, that it is not a simple process, and there is a considerable need for expertise and other efforts. Once the work on it is over, opinions from respective institutions are expressed, and time becomes ripe for adoption, it will be implemented.

The issues regarding to Rogozin’s statements, to what happened after the statement of Belarus, for which the Ambassador of Belarus was summoned to the MFA, and Deputy Foreign Minister met with him, I also had a phone conversation with Foreign Minister of Belarus, as I said during my TV interview, not everything can be publicized or announced in diplomacy, given its nature and working style. What is announced is just a portion, I would not say whether it is small or large, but a portion of what we are doing and we work quite openly. During the recent period the MFA made several statements, a number of press-releases were published, the Minister, Deputy Ministers gave interviews.

But there are some ongoing meetings, conversations which are preferable no to publicize from the efficiency point of view. Regarding what you recalled, indeed such conversations and meetings had taken place and opinions had been expressed.

Regarding the war launched by Azerbaijan, first of all, it was the result of Azerbaijan’s failure in negotiations. Azerbaijan tried to create favorable conditions for itself in the negotiations and absolutely failed. You are well aware that basic documents for the settlement of the issue are the statements made by the Heads of the OSCE Co-Chair states, the only format that enjoys international community’s mandate. Azerbaijan avoids any reference to those statements, pretending that is not aware what these statements are about. It presents the working documents, which were on the table of negotiations in a distorted manner.

According to them, it turns out, that from 2009 onward the Co-Chairs have not presented any working document during the negotiations. In that case what they were discussing on the presidential level, including also during numerous Summits where the President of Azerbaijan participated? What the Foreign Ministers were discussing during dozens of meetings? What the Co-Chairs were discussing during their numerous regional visits to Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan?

They failed in negotiations and made an attempt to get some advantages in the military field. They failed again. Of course, they would be obliged to return to the negotiation table, because there is no alternative to that. There is no conflict or war in world history, after which the parties would not return to the negotiation table, in order to find solutions.

Khachatur Qoqobelyan. Thank you. I consider discussions on that matter important, I consider it essential, but I think that it would be better to publicize about them; this is on Rogozin’s part. I see some risks in what you said, of course, it is good, that preparatory works on the agreement on mutual military assistance are underway, as I think this is even overdue, but I also see a risk when you say when appropriate time comes. Each day is an appropriate time for that, and its necessity is an imperative of the day, in my personal opinion. Regarding the provision of Russian weaponry, as I understood, you also consider it one of the reasons, but not the key one. In any case, if you consider it as a reason, I find it quite significant. And I consider essential that the Government, Armenia, as a party, definitely, has commitment, and I think it was always like that, to participate in the negotiation process and resolve the issue through negotiations. Thank you.

Edward Nalbandian. Mr. Qoqobelyan, regarding D. Rogozin, I would add that as far as I know, he removed his post from Facebook.

You said, that it is your personal opinion. I do respect your as well as others’ views, and attentively and seriously follow and take them into account. But you should also take into account that there are situations when, perhaps, there is no need for publicity.

Regarding the agreement with Nagorno-Karabakh, perhaps, you are right. But once such kind of steps are undertaken, especially, when we are interested in the settlement of the issue through negotiations and continue that process, we should take into account a number of other factors and circumstances too.