During the Antalya Diplomacy Forum Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan gave an interview to representatives of several Turkish media.

Journalist (Habertürk): Could you describe the meeting with the Foreign Minister of Türkiye? 

Ararat Mirzoyan: Well, thank you for this opportunity. For me, this is, of course, first of all, an opportunity to speak to you and through you, to your colleagues, to the Turkish society, because I have the feeling that sometimes there are some perceptions in both societies which do not necessarily reflect the true, real relations and perceptions among the leaderships of the two countries. So I think this is a very good opportunity. 

I just had a meeting with Minister Fidan. That was, of course, not the first meeting of ours. We had a very good discussion about our bilateral agenda, the steps that have been implemented bilaterally, but also the plans, and general regional issues as well, as you may assume. 

Journalist (Habertürk): Can you specify, are there tangible results?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Look, if you speak about the Armenia-Türkiye bilateral agenda, several tangible steps already have been implemented, like using the airspace, like the specialists from the two countries who made an evaluation of the infrastructure on Margara-Alijan ground passage, the checkpoint on the border. Also, the two countries bilaterally, jointly made an evaluation of the infrastructure of the Gyumri-Kars railway, part of which is on the border. Several days ago, specialists from two countries met in Türkiye, specialists from different agencies, and the aim is the restoration of the Ani historic bridge, again on the border. There are several other plans.

So things are moving, things are happening. At the same time, I cannot avoid saying that there are also some agreements which are not being implemented, like we had an agreement to open the border for third country nationals and also citizens of Armenia and Türkiye who have diplomatic passports. This agreement, unfortunately, has not been implemented.

But also, we both have the understanding that the final goal, the aim, is to fully normalize relations, including establishment of diplomatic relations and opening the whole border. Moreover, today, interestingly, I and Minister Fidan and the delegations, we discussed opportunities that can bring normalization of relations. I mean, I'm saying this to show that our dialogue is not only about merely establishing diplomatic relations and formally opening the border. It's about a huge trade that can take place between the two countries. It's about, and we have discussed, some joint energy projects, transit opportunities. Moreover, we have touched upon the topic of cooperation on international fora as well, because the reality shows that sometimes when it comes to, for instance, to Middle Eastern issues, our views, our perceptions are closer than one could assume. So there are lots of opportunities. 

Journalist (CNN Türk): During today's session, you also mentioned, but I still want to ask maybe one more time, maybe you can give additional information. So about a month ago, a significant development took place. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister, Jeyhun Bayramov, announced that peace talks with Armenia had been concluded and that both sides had agreed on a potential draft peace agreement. So what is the current status? What is holding up the signing? Have discussions begun or are they ongoing regarding a date and location? Is it too hard to specify that? And also, is there any possibility that Türkiye could host the signing? Or is there a deadlock in the process? 

Ararat Mirzoyan: Of course, this is an important question, and I am not going to hide it. This is part of the Armenia-Türkiye general conversation as well. As you noted, we have managed to agree on the text of the draft peace agreement, and it's completely ready to sign. This is quite an achievement. This is, I would say, a historic event, an unprecedented thing. Imagine Armenia and Azerbaijan after long years of conflict, after the blood that we have seen in our region, we managed, we succeeded to agree on a text.

Now, we suggested immediately to start consultations with our Azerbaijani colleagues, to start consultations to define the venue and the date of the signing ceremony. Unfortunately, we see that Azerbaijan has a little bit different perception of the issue. They think that Armenia should implement some other things to make the signing possible.

For instance, they mentioned the dissolution of the Minsk Group of OSCE. And our perception, our response is that we are completely ready to start, initiate the process of dissolution of the Minsk Group of OSCE. Օur understanding is that if there is no conflict, and the Minsk Group is about conflict, then there is no need for this Minsk Group as well. But we should see, if I may say so, the institutionalized ending of the conflict, which is the signing and ratification of the peace treaty. So we believe and we suggested, we proposed to our Azerbaijani colleagues to sign two documents on the same day. First, the Peace Treaty, the peace agreement between our two countries, and secondly, a joint application to the respective secretariat of OSCE about our intention to initiate this process of dissolution of the Minsk Group.

Also, our Azerbaijani colleagues make continuous references to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. They demand an amendment in our Constitution. They say that in our Constitution, in the preambular part of it, we have a reference to our Act of Independence, which is true, in which we have a territorial claim against their territorial integrity, which is a little bit not true, because only those parts of our Act of Declaration of Independence are valid in the sense of Constitution, which are literally quoted in the Constitution. Moreover, the agreement which we are going to sign addresses the issue. So, here I need to give a little bit more details  for you to fully understand the situation.

So, in the agreement, we recognize each other's territorial integrity within the borders that existed between our countries as Soviet Socialist Republics at the time, at the moment of dissolution of the Soviet Union, and then they became internationally recognized borders. So, this fully addresses the concerns of the Azerbaijani side, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed over the text, and this fully addresses also our perception.

If we sign this treaty, during and within the process of ratification, it should go to our Constitutional Court for a conclusion, for an opinion. This is our legal procedure. So, if our Constitutional Court says that this sentence, this provision fully complies with our Constitution – I mean not having any territorial claim beyond the borders, which is acceptable for Azerbaijani side, which is internationally recognized – if the Constitutional Court says that this sentence, this provision complies with our Constitution, that means there is no issue. So, the answer, the solution is not beyond the peace agreement, but it is within, it is inside the peace agreement. And the shortest way to address the issue is to sign and ratify this peace treaty.

At the same time, and I can say that, of course, theoretically there is a possibility that the Constitutional Court gives a negative conclusion: they say that this does not comply with the Constitution. But I have a solid basis to say that most probably they will say yes, they will give a positive opinion, because, and this is very interesting, several months ago, in September, our Constitutional Court gave an opinion on a very similar issue. We had another document signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This was the first ever international document signed between the two countries. This was the regulation of joint works of respective border commissions, in other words, the delimitation commissions. So, in this regulation, we, the two countries, again agreed that the basis of the delimitation should be the Alma-Ata Declaration, which says almost the same, which I just quoted: the borders are those which existed at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 

So, again, to ratify the document, we applied to our Constitutional Court, and our Constitutional Court said that this fully complies with our Constitution. So, I have a solid ground to suppose that in case of the peace agreement, which says the same thing, there is a good chance that our Constitutional Court will again say that this corresponds to our Constitution. So, there is no issue. 

In parallel, we see and have our own concerns regarding the Azerbaijani Constitution. And, again, I will explain. This is not just a mere mirroring of the issue. In their Constitution, they have a reference to their Act of Independence. So, in their Act of Independence, they declare that this Republic of Azerbaijan is the successor of the first Azerbaijani (Democratic) Republic, not the Soviet one. And the first Azerbaijani Republic, which existed before the Soviet Union, declared their sovereignty over much larger territories than today's Azerbaijan. It includes more than 60% of today's Armenian sovereign territories. So, we see, we have our own concerns, but why aren't we raising this issue continuously? Because we see, as I said before, in the case of our Constitution, the solution is in the peace agreement. We sign it, and we address the issue. That's it. 

So, coming back to the main issue, we are very constructive. We are very flexible. We have worked hard to have this text. Now it's ready to sign. There is no single peace agreement in the world that addresses all possible issues. If the two societies, any two societies, have the history of enmity, history of hostilities, they cannot solve everything by one document. And in our peace agreement, we establish a bilateral mechanism, a bilateral commission, to oversee the implementation of the agreement, to handle all possible hardships, turbulences, which can and definitely will occur. But we establish a mechanism to manage this process. So, again, the expectation that all possible questions should be answered before they can sign, I would say, is not fair and is not realistic. 

Journalist (CNN Türk): So, what should we understand? Are you still negotiating? Do you have an offer for the time and place? And can Türkiye be the host? 

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yeah, I'm sorry, I forgot that part of the issue, because I think this is important for everybody to understand all the nuances. Otherwise, you won't have a clear picture of where we are currently. Yes, we do negotiate because there is no other option. Which is the alternative of negotiations, if we do have a peace agenda?

So, we continue the conversation. As for the venue, you know, it's not important. There is an idea to sign it on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are several other capitals who suggest their services. I'm not excluding anything. I haven't got that proposal. I'm not excluding anything. 

Journalist (Reuters): Mr. Minister, just a follow-up of the first question of my colleague. By the way, I also followed your interesting debate with Jeyhun Bayramov and your Georgian counterpart. I mean, as you explained it, there's a solid demand by Azerbaijan to change your Constitution. So, a short question. Would you consider a Constitutional change? I mean, there were talks of holding a referendum. So, would you consider a Constitutional change to sign a peace agreement with Azerbaijan or not?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Well, when the democratic revolution in Armenia took place and our current ruling party came to power, we almost immediately said that we are going to amend our Constitution. Moreover, as I see it now, it's going to be a new Constitution, not even an amendment to the existing one. And the mandate of the current commission, which is preparing the Constitutional amendments, discussing the legalistic and legal mechanisms, the mandate is coming to its end in 2026, I believe. And in 2026, we are having parliamentary elections. So, since 2018, we have been speaking about the necessity of a new Constitution, and it is in our agenda. So, we are going to have it. 

But connecting it with Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization is not constructive. Again, I will come back to my previous sentence, previous formulation. You have two choices, two options. You can sit and wait until all answers to all possible questions are given and then only act, or you can start. I will use the same thing that I said during the panel discussion. Putting a brick, and then another brick, and then another brick, start the process of normalization. And I'm confident that sometimes later we can look back and see that we have built a solid, powerful bridge. So, we suggest starting immediately.

Journalist (Middle East Eye): Do you find the Azerbaijani demands, not only the amendments of the Preambule, or the OCCE mission, or even the EU mission, the monitoring mission, even though many of these demands are already addressed, as far as I understand from your comments, within the peace treaty, do you find them with good intentions, or do you think Azerbaijan has a broader imagination or agenda over here? Because as far as I know, you were supposed to release a joint declaration on the peace treaty draft, and then it didn't happen. And the Azerbaijanis have unilaterally released a statement before you did, and then they made those demands. And it looks like even though this Preambule debate has been going on for a while, and both sides have been trying to address it, it's still hanging over the treaty. And also, my question is very late, and I'm trying to bring my mind into it, but do you think there might be an escalation out of this process? I mean, hopefully not, but where is this going?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Very important question. Regarding the details, for instance, the European monitoring mission, the mandate of the mission is, in general, to support the normalization process, to support stability along the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And as soon as we have a peace treaty entering into force, we won't be needing this monitoring anymore.

As soon as we have stability along the border, that means that the mandate, the mission is accomplished, and we won't be needing any additional services there. But in general, this is the main problem, I believe. Not the Constitution, not the Minsk Group, not any other detail. The problem is that sometimes we have the feeling that Azerbaijan just does not want to build peace with Armenia. For what calculations, I cannot say, but we do have concerns that they don't want to finalize the normalization, they don't want to finalize the negotiations to sign the peace treaty. 

There are several other tracks. We have made several other proposals on connectivity issues, on mutual verification and arms control. We have made very tangible and solid proposals. No positive response. And the feeling is that they just don't want to finalize this normalization process, they are not going to build peace. Moreover, we also, from time to time, see the signs of escalation on the ground. We see this escalation in the rhetoric of Azerbaijani leadership, and unfortunately we see that this escalation has the potential to become an escalation on the ground as well. 

The Armenian public opinion, for instance, if you look at it, you will find out that citizens of Armenia mostly think that Azerbaijan has further plans to attack Armenia again, to take control over some of its sovereign territories, etc. So probably the answer to all possible questions is in your question. As soon as we find out the true intention of Azerbaijan, we most probably will find out answers to the other questions as well. 

Journalist (Middle East Eye): From your comments, I understand that Azerbaijan has not yet given a definitive answer for further meetings on where and how to sign this peace deal, right?

Ararat Mirzoyan: No, nothing. No news on that. They say that their position is that they are not going to discuss it unless this is done, then the other demand is fulfilled, and then the third thing, and then the fourth thing. This is the reality, but we continue speaking to them.

Journalist (Middle East Eye): Do you think Türkiye can play a constructive role to bring both sides, like at the leaders level, and did you discuss it with the Foreign Minister?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yes, obviously, and Türkiye's public position is that we are doing very well. This is my interpretation. I'm not literally quoting any statement by Turkish officials, but my overall impression is that Türkiye's position is the following: yes, we are doing very well on our bilateral track, we have this project, that project. We have the intention to fully normalize Armenian-Turkish relations, but we cannot do it completely before the Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization is completely implemented. So, our perception, my personal perception is that if we start with the other end, if we succeed to fully normalize Armenian-Turkish relations, that will obviously and definitely, for sure, have its positive impact on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. But this is an issue, this is a question that, I mean, everyone has his or her answer to, and yes, there are different views on that. But you ask me whether Türkiye can have a positive role? Absolutely, yes.

Journalist (CNN Türk): So today, during these meetings, have you set a date to come together, three countries? Or do you think that there can be another option? I mean, what can be the underlying reason for Azerbaijan.

Ararat Mirzoyan: There is no plan or agreement to come together, the three countries, but there are several discussions. Hopefully, we will have a happy ending to this story.

Journalist (CNN Türk): What did Hakan Fidan tell you when you said that if we normalize Türkiye-Armenia relations that might have a positive effect on the other side? What was his reply? 

Ararat Mirzoyan: It's probably worth asking this to our Turkish colleagues. If you have an answer, please share it with me.

Journalist (Anadolu Agency): So you said the general elections are next year, right? In 2026? So if there is a change, if the Government changes, will there be a reversal in the stream about the negotiations?

Ararat Mirzoyan: An interesting aspect of the whole story. I can say for sure that the peace agenda of the current Armenian government and Prime Minister Pashinyan finds full support in Armenian society. Well, of course, there are those who criticize. This is how democracy works. I mean, if we don't have an opposition saying different things, then how can we ensure development of the society in any issue, in question? But, in general, we have the support of the majority of the Armenian society. What about the parliament? In the parliament as well, we have the majority.

But, time passes, and if the Armenian government does not deliver tangible outcomes of the normalization process, even those who believe in a peace agenda will come up with a question asking, “okay, peace agenda sounds nice, but you cannot build peace alone. It looks like your neighbors do not share your vision of a peaceful and prosperous region and normal relations with the neighbors. This means that it makes no sense for me to support your peace agenda tomorrow as well”.

So, I'm saying this to show that we have the support, but nothing is unlimited in this world, and things may change of course. But at the same time, it is obvious that if we have results in normalization, if we, for instance, sign a peace treaty, open the communication infrastructure, people start, restart, I would say, trade, people would start interactions, humanitarian issues are being addressed, etc. It will make the development of neighborly relations natural, normal, and the reverse to the era of hostilities would become less and less tangible, less and less realistic.

The same I can say for the case of our normalization with Türkiye. We have already done several joint things. If we open the border, if we start implementing joint energy projects, if the direct trade increases, that will change the mood, that will change not only the mood in our societies, that will change the whole region, I believe. We do have this window of opportunity.

We do have public opinions supportive of this opportunity more than ever in the past. So we have a choice. We can focus on obstacles, we can focus on history, on the past, or we can focus on the present and build a better future. We should decide jointly.

Journalist (Middle East Eye): Did you have any interaction with the Trump administration? Because with the Biden administration, you signed some important agreements before the departure of the last administration. But with the Trump administration, did you have any engagements? Because, as you know, there are lots of talks about Witkoff visiting Baku and signing, potentially, or proposing the signing of an Abraham Accord that can give security guarantees to Azerbaijan. And, of course, that will basically change the balances on the ground as well, and it will empower Azerbaijan through the horizon. So do you have any engagements with Trump? 

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yes, we do. We do have engagements. The U.S. new administration welcomed our statements on agreeing over the text of the peace agreement. I can also say that there is an interest in the new United States administration towards normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We see the signs of it. And if this results in a positive contribution, then why not? 

Journalist (Habertürk): You mentioned the potential changing mindset of Azerbaijan. Can we say that the public opinion of Armenia has a distinctive difference between the normalization process with Azerbaijan, and the normalization process with Türkiye?

Ararat Mirzoyan: You know, to tell the truth, some wounds are still very fresh. And it's not easy. The issues are very sensitive for both societies, I believe, not only for Armenian society. I probably shouldn't express an opinion on Azerbaijani society or its public opinion. I mean, that would need a little bit more study or information, but I can say for sure that in Armenian society, there is support for the peace agenda, as I said. There is support for this normalization process, despite the fact that the wounds are still very fresh.

But also, we should deliver – this is the main issue – we should fulfill the expectations. Otherwise, again, the moods can change. I cannot see a huge difference regarding the perception of normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and Armenian-Turkish relations, except the fact that, as I said, in the case of Armenian-Azerbaijani topic, the wounds are very fresh. There are still humanitarian issues that are not addressed so far. But there is readiness in both cases, I believe. 

Journalist (CNN Türk): What I'm going to ask is, you said the wounds are very fresh. But last month, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan made remarks to Turkish journals that were widely interpreted as signaling a new chapter in relations between the two countries. Pashinyan said, that your official position is that international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not currently among your foreign policy priorities. So do you believe this issue won't be a source of tension between Türkiye and Armenia? Can it finally be resolved?

Ararat Mirzoyan: The Prime Minister said that. Moreover, I myself said that in the Parliament. But, you know, history is history, memory is memory. It could be very hard to forget the ancestors and forget the history. But one thing is paying tribute to the past, to history. And a completely different thing is living in history. It is very easy to remain in the past.

Most probably, moving forward needs a little bit more courage, a little bit more understanding, and a little bit more focus and belief in the future. So we prefer the future. We jointly should do that. You know, I cannot do it alone. My Turkish counterpart cannot do it alone. No one can do it alone. But together, we can remember history, but we can move forward and build a better future. Time and again, I'm not getting tired of repeating this sentence today: it's a matter of choice, what are we choosing? 

Journalist (Habertürk): Can you say that these comments of the Prime Minister of Armenia are unprecedented for statesmen speaking on the Armenian side?

Ararat Mirzoyan: To say so, we need to dig a little bit deeper. I believe there have been signs from the Armenian authorities in the past as well. Once, we even succeeded in signing protocols, and then we gave up their ratifications.

Ararat Mirzoyan: Այդպես ասելու համար պետք է մի փոքր խորանալ։ Կարծում եմ՝ նախկինում էլ են եղել նախանշաններ Հայաստանի իշխանությունների կողմից։ Մի անգամ մեզ հաջողվեց նույնիսկ արձանագրություններ ստորագրել, հետո դրանց չվավերացվեցին։

Journalist (Reuters): I'll go back to Türkiye's role. You said that the Turkish Minister obviously will speak on behalf of Türkiye, which we will ask him tomorrow. But I'm going to ask you, did you ask Türkiye to play any facilitator role between Armenia and Azerbaijan in this difficult time? I mean, in this deadlocked, obviously, talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Look, the short history of Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations show that there have been several facilitators, moderators, like the Russian Federation, like the United States, like the European Union, different countries. But the history of Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations shows that when we had bilateral negotiations, those negotiations were the most successful. So, probably, we can have the engagement of all the countries that are interested in peace in the South Caucasus, in peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan in some way. But when it comes to concrete negotiations, when we are left alone, the two countries alone in the room, we can, we are able to talk directly, we have the contacts, we easily exchange thoughts.

So in terms of technicalities, we don't have any problems. So we probably also don't need any other facilitation. But again, all the countries which I mentioned, most probably some others as well, can have a positive contribution. So the involvement should not be limited to facilitating the negotiations. 

That's it, dear colleagues. Thank you very much.

I think this was an interesting conversation.