Question: Let’s start with the recent Tavush events and with the unprecedented involvement of Turkey in those events. First of all, do you agree that Turkey’s involvement was unprecedented? If yes, what are the possible political and diplomatic consequences?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Thank you, Mr. Abrahamyan. Indeed, Turkey’s position in the light of these developments is another demonstration of Turkey’s destructive and destabilizing policy of this period, which we have witnessed in the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East. And the developments since July 12 indicate its intention to export that policy of destabilization to the South Caucasus, which is unacceptable for us and which we confront in every possible way. We will continue to confront it, as any attempt to destabilize the South Caucasus by the regional neighbor will be unacceptable for us. In this regard, we use all the tools at our disposal through all our national and international formats.  

Question: After a seven-day silence Aliyev spoke again, and if you allow me, I would make a non-diplomatic but rather journalistic expression: It seems like Turkey’s behavior «perks up» Azerbaijan to be more aggressive. Would you agree?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: To be honest, I do not agree with that, and I disagree with that approach, because what we hear from Baku is not very impressive, and I think since July 12 it has become obvious that the language and method of threat either in rhetoric or in actions have no impact on Armenia and Artsakh. It is firmly rejected and such rhetoric does no credit to our region. This rhetoric is more suitable to «settling scores” in a “gang war”. This is unacceptable and destructive. The language of threat does not work. It is strongly rejected. This has been our position for the last two years, and it has been more than clearly and consistently expressed in the political and diplomatic dimensions since July 12. 

Question: Recently Armenia circulated a Note Verbale in the OSCE on the suspension of inspection visits by Turkey to Armenia in the framework of the CFE Treaty and Vienna Document. Can you please explain what it means? 

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: It was our proportionate response to the actions that Turkey and Azerbaijan jointly undertake today by initiating and conducting military exercises at a time when all our resources, resources of the international community and the Co-Chairs were directed towards the sustainability of de-escalation. This is indeed, unacceptable. These military inspections within the framework of the CFE Treaty and Vienna Document include an essential tool. It is a tool for building mutual trust,  a tool for mutual and equal respect of national security interests. What Turkey did, of course, does not demonstrate such a respect, and this was Armenia’s proportional response.

Question: So, was it a response to the Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Yes. 

Question: Regarding the OSCE Minsk Group: are the statements of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs in line with the current situation?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Staring from July 12, right after few hours, we have already been in touch with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, they were actively involved, and we worked together to ensure de-escalation, to restore the ceasefire, to restore the situation that would not lead to a deeper crisis. We made three attempts to restore the ceasefire and after the third time, it became more productive. 

We spoke very openly about the role of all three Co-Chairs, they worked in a coordinated way, and primarily, the Co-Chair of the Russian Federation. We managed to ensure what we have today through the coordination of the Russian Foreign Minister, the General Staff of the Armed Forces. Today the main goal is to ensure de-escalation and restore the environment we are constantly speaking about, which contributes to the normal course of the work and the advancement of the negotiation process.

Question: If you take a look, from a purely journalistic, non-professional point of view: Russia's diplomacy is definitely active in this context. Turkey, which is a member of the Minsk Group but not a Co-Chair, is also active. The other Co-Chairs, judging from the news, the United States and France, did not seem to be very active in this regard. Or is it simply an impression?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: This is probably an impression to some extent, as I have already said, Russia has been quite actively involved. Still, it is very important to emphasize that Russia has worked with France and the United States in a very coordinated way. And during this period,  I have personally worked very actively with all the three Co-Chairs to reach our common goal. And the statement issued by the Co-Chairs on these events was the expression of that work as well.

Question: Armenia’s public opinion varies regarding the CSTO. Some consider it necessary to actively apply to the CSTO in order for the latter to be more actively involved, and the others think that applying to the CSTO wasn’t necessary at all, because there is no use from that. Most probably the reality is somewhere in between, isn’t it? 

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: We have various international formats, and the CSTO is one of them. We are the CSTO member state. It is the international format of our cooperation, and we have our certain functions. When we say using all our international formats, it means working and proportionally evaluating where and how we should work. In this regard, actually, we didn’t apply to the CSTO, we didn’t consider it necessary. We considered necessary to immediately inform the CSTO on the developments taking place since July 12. We have fulfilled this function, and we will continue to work in the framework of the CSTO because this is a platform of our cooperation. We will apply all possible tools at our disposal to use that platform for our primary goal, which, above all, is maintaining stability in the region.

Question: Mr. Mnatsakanyan, in this situation, there are countries and organizations which support Azerbaijan, countries and organizations which call on both sides to demonstrate restraint. However, none of them supports Armenia in the same unconditional way that Turkey supports Azerbaijan. Is it true?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: I would view this issue in a different context, as such assessment is done at a rather emotional, superficial level, and it turns into a sport of who and how supports or doesn’t support this or that side. 

The other issue is much deeper, which is about the important impulses expressed by the Co-Chairs. This is the platform and format recognized by the international community as the main platform for the peace process, and that mandate is given to the three Co-Chairs. Their position has received widespread support from the international community, which was expressed in numerous ways: by the individual states, the OSCE, the EU, and the UN Secretary-General. The main essence of this position, which is expressed in their statement, refers to fundamental principles: to restore stability, to restore the ceasefire, to exclude the threat and the language of threat, to exclude maximalism and to work on solutions, which are necessary to achieve a compromise-based balance in the context of the peace process. This position is more important for us than getting involved in sports by assessing how Turkey supported Azerbaijan. 

Question: Ukraine was among the supporters of Azerbaijan on this issue. Can it be considered an omission of our diplomacy? Ukraine could have also stayed neutral, couldn’t it?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: I would say that Ukraine seems to have a complex when it comes to perceiving the essence of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, to perceive the most serious threats that the people of Artsakh, the Republic of Artsakh face, the real threat that is posed to the security of the region. Ukraine has a complex to differentiate and assess the conflicts by their values, essence and history. We disagree on that. 

During the last two years we have been consistently working with Ukraine, because we do not have any difficulties, any problems with the people of Ukraine and will continue to work in that direction and to make our messages and approaches clear.  We are patient and will continue to work. But we also will continue to consider unacceptable the positions that are cut from reality, which are based on those “putting in one basket” approaches. This is beneficial neither for the region, nor for them and us. 

Question: Sometimes there are calls to return to substantive negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Those calls are also made by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. People assume that they are referring to the "Madrid-type", "Kazan-type" principles. Is it possible at this moment?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: In fact in two years we have been implementing those functions, and at this period three working directions have been outlined for us. The first direction refers, as you say, to the substantive issues, where we have pursued essential, very important goals to nail down the priorities, the correct expression of which is one of the necessary components to build balanced compromises. Disregarding those will not lead to a compromise. There will never be a concession, there will never be an unbalanced solution in this resolution. We expressed those priorities in two very simple words: status and security. And those two words contain quite a lot of content - substance. The status refers to the recognition of Artsakh's right to self-determination, the implementation of the function of free will, without limitations and with a legally binding result. They refer to a security system that does not violate, does not pose a threat to the comprehensive security of Artsakh, for which today Armenia is the only guarantor. These two contain deep, substantive details that we have been talking about for two years, and listening to the other side, how they perceive, how they are ready to work with us in this regard.

The second most important direction of work for us has been the creation of an environment necessary for reaching a real progress in the negotiation process. This refers to both the reduction of the risk of escalation and the environment conducive to peace. The rhetoric that has developed in this period, which we have continuously witnessed, does not contribute to that environment at all. The rhetoric that has been consistently heard does not affect us; the threat is rejected and does not affect. Presenting Armenia and Artsakh as useful enemies for addressing domestic political issues is not a solution, it only deepens the issue. And in this regard, we highlighted the rejection of threat, the change of the rhetoric and, more importantly, the introduction of such mechanisms that ensures stable, durable ceasefire, where the risk of escalation is excluded. Here we have to discuss very specific issues and suggestions. Issues related to the monitoring system and other investigative mechanisms, as well as the provision of a direct line between commanders on the ground, which are specific suggestions. It is not just about the increase of the number of monitorings, but the introduction of a monitoring on the ground in a way that allows to monitor the violations, the situation that can lead to escalation, to introduce such investigation mechanisms that allows to monitor the situation and identify the threats of risks, that deliberately leads to escalation. The direct line, the direct contact both in line of contact and along the state border are also tools that allow us to maintain the environment conducive to the peace process.

The third main direction which has been very essential for us, is the Artsakh’s participation, its involvement in the negotiation process: a function which is really essential. This doesn’t mean changing, but restoring the format, which was changed 22 years ago. We need to restore that format. This is a practical issue and we have explained very clearly why it is practical and necessary, because the people of Artakh in all respects have shown their capability to govern, to organize their social, economic, political life, to defend, to have an elected government, to participate in international processes. The peace process refers directly to Nagorno-Karabakh and their authorities have the mandate given by the people through democratic processes. Their non-participation brings to a situation where they lose the sense of ownership towards the peace process and creates a situation where we cannot ensure serious and real progress in the peace process. 

Armenia fulfills its functions. In this regard, we have been consistently working with the authorities of Artsakh to ensure much deeper sense on how it is implemented. You have seen that we have different formats. Today, by the way, we met with the Foeign Minister of Artsakh, once again assessed the situation together, and worked together on all the priority issues for us. We have the functioning method of the Security Councils, our leaders, both the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Artsakh, work very actively together, and we have all the necessary measures to ensure our common security system. During these two years we have consistently worked in these three directions and it means that the work on substantive issues neither started nor will start for us. This has been a very consistent work during these two years and we clearly realize what we are doing and we have expressed it in a very simple way.

From time to time there were situations when we face a complex of either deliberate or non deliberate perceptions on what this means, what that means, but I think that this all has been consistently expressed over the years and is summed up by the Prime Minister in his remarks at the Government session - those seven provisions to some extent summarize what we have been doing.

The July 12’s most powerful message was that the language of threat, the attempt of use of threat and force are not a factor; they have no effect, never had and never will. Armenia and Artsakh remain utterly committed to the peace process and the peace process has no alternative; the alternative leads to very serious consequences for the region. We have enough confidence to say that, because we have efficient capacity to defend, which was demonstrated also on July 12.

Question. The Prime Minister’s remarks contain the things you have mentioned, that not only the diplomacy or the government but also the whole nation say that both the status and that security are, indeed, a priority. And as a response to this Aliyev tweeted that “you see, the demands of Armenia are minimalistic”. 

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Let me go back to where I started. Such a discourse will not get us anywhere. That's not good. I try to say diplomatically, but it is very difficult to respond to something that just leaves the impression of "settling scores" in a "gang war". That's not good, because maximalism derives from something else.

While speaking about the maximalist approach, I would like to note that so far, we have not heard any signal and any word from the Azerbaijani authorities that shows sensitivity towards the priorities of Artsakh and Armenia. Any position, any step demonstrating that they are also ready to work towards a compromise. And in that sense, if we listen to their positions more carefully, we can see that it is maximalism, which sees the solution acceptable exclusively for the Azerbaijani side. It will not work, it is not a compromise. As for the solution based on concessions, no one will move in that way.

Question: Speaking about the risk reduction and establishment of an environment. Do You deliberately avoid mentioning St. Petersburg and Vienna? And this is where Azerbaijan has seemed to agree on everything.

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Let’s start from the fact that Azerbaijan has not agreed to anything. And regarding the cities of St. Petersburg and Vienna, regarding those names - from time to time it sounds like a new type of “halva” or some kind of dogmatic approach, because, in fact, the principles, methods and ideas expressed in that period have been in our agenda; both the investigation mechanisms and the monitoring. They have always been in our agenda.

I have already mentioned that regarding the monitoring issue we don’t symply speak about the increase of the number of the monitors, but we speak about the more practical implementation of the monitoring mission in order to have more real, practical mechanism which reduces the risks of escalation, as well as best regulates the stability of ceasefire, the preservation of the ceasefire system, as we say it. The same refers also to the investigations. We say even more than that, we speak about the fact that it is necessary to have a direct line so that we will be able to give solutions and control non deliberate incidents. We have that experience to comprehensively ensure a solid ceasefire, to provide an environment of sustainable risk reduction. 

If Azerbaijan supposes that in that sense we halt the situation, that's what we occasionally hear from them, so that is unacceptable. If it is assumed that we are able to have progress in the conditions of the  escalation, that will never happen. If it is assumed that we can watch the threat of use of force as a factor in the peace process, that will not happen, as well. This seems to be more than clear, this has been clearly expressed both in political and diplomatic and recently in military terms.  

Question: For 20 years, the Azerbaijani officials have always been referring to the four resolutions of the UN Security Council, which, according to them, Armenia does not implement. Since it was a long time ago, please remind us what those resolutions are about, who does not implement them?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: This method is not useful as well, because these resolutions were adopted in 1993 and they reflected the events of that time, besides these resolutions, became one of the means that shaped the current peace process. And in that sense, today we are involved in the peace process, the essence of which is to reach a compromise. If these resolutions are interpreted or expressed in a way Azerbaijan wants, then we will not solve the situation in such a way. Using the tool to promote maximalist policies is not effective. 

In this regard, Azerbaijan is obliged to immediately sit at the negotiating table with Artsakh's authorities if it continues unconditionally mentioning these resolutions.

Question: Mr. Mnatsakanyan, this is the final question. Did you have contacts with the new Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov, and do you plan to have such contacts? 

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: I did not have immediate contact for simple reasons. Now it is essential for us that we strengthen this de-escalation and prepare for the next stage of our work. Let me remind you that our previous meeting was at the end of January, and we had quite a long, meaningful, in-depth work in all directions. And we had to move on to the next stages, which we were absolutely ready in all the directions I was talking about.

Questions: Do you mean the meeting with Mammadyarov?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Yes, which, by the way, was supposed to be held in spring - that was the arrangement. However this pandemic indeed hindered and revealed new realities, new developments, different domestic processes, including in the same Azerbaijan. Using Armenia and Artsakh as useful enemies is unacceptable, inefficient and it will be more useful if Azerbaijan effectively addresses its domestic issues, issues related to its democracy, human rights, corruption without us, without presenting us as useful enemies.  

Regarding the new minister, I didn’t have a chance to meet him, indeed I am looking forward to that meeting. In principle, today I have an honour to bear responsibility, participate in the negotiation process at the level of Foreign Ministers. I have expressed all the approaches which are the basis of Armenia’s position, and I am ready to work with anyone holding relevant responsibility, with the Foriegn Minister to move this process forward, regardless of who that person is. Naturally, I expect that I will be working with a constructive and responsible person.  

Thank you.