Good morning,

I would like to welcome Mr. David Lidington, the Minister for Europe of the United Kingdom. This is his first visit to Armenia. During the recent years I and David Lidington have had many meetings in London and other capitals, we have had many phone conversations. I am very happy to host Mr. Lidington in Armenia.

This is a good opportunity to continue the talks on the regional and international issues of mutual interest. This year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and the United Kingdom, and we can state that today our relations are relying on a strong basis.

In the course of the meeting we touched upon a wide range of issues of bilateral relations. You are aware that Mr. Lidington is in charge for the European issues in the British government, and naturally the EU-Armenia relations were an important topic of our negotiations. We had a detailed conversation on the negotiation process in the framework of Eastern Partnership. The considerable progress recorded in this direction was underlined.

I presented David Lidington the latest events concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process. Certainly, we also touched upon the release of Safarov and the great damage caused to the negotiation process and generally to the security and stability in the region.

We discussed a number of other regional and international issues. Today we will have an opportunity to continue our negotiations.

I pass the floor to Mr. Lidington.

Question, H2: Let me to address two questions to You Minister Nalbandian and our guest. And the first one is for you Minister Nalbandian. The international community seems to have unanimous reactions over the Hungarian-Azeri deal. Does it mean whether Azerbaijan is losing its international credibility?

Edward Nalbandian: The international community has no shortage of facts for which it could not have any trust on Azerbaijan for quite a long time.

If we set aside the question why the current Hungarian government believed in the Azeri promises and released Safarov, then you know that on September 2, the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice stated that the Azeri side had given a promise that Safarov at least 25 years after the verdict would stay in jail. But Azerbaijan did not fulfill it promise.

Many times Azerbaijan disregarded and ignored its given promises and agreements. As it happened with the agreement reached at the presidential level of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia and about which was stated two times in the statements adopted by three Presidents during the meeting in March of 2011 and January of 2012 in Sochi. I am talking about the creation of a mechanism to investigate cease-fire violations in the line of contact.

Despite that agreement and despite the fact that it was officially stated by the President of Azerbaijan, Baku did everything not to implement those agreements which hindered the creation of such a mechanism.

In May of 1994 when the trilateral cease-fire agreement was signed between Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan, two months after the agreement was reached on the consolidation of cease-fire regime Azerbaijan breached it.

In February of 1995, a new agreement was reached on the consolidation of cease-fire regime, which so far Azerbaijan refuses to implement.

Azerbaijan rejected the agreements that were reached before the meetings in St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Sochi and Kazan. We can bring a lot of similar examples.

Even if we go back to 2001, when an agreement was reached over the so-called Paris Principles and when they were included in the document in Key-West, Azerbaijan again rejected them.

So there is no lack of those facts. By its activities and steps, Azerbaijan deepens the abyss between Azerbaijan and the international community. Yes, you are quite right that the international community is united, and unanimously expressed its indignation over the decision, which was adopted by Azerbaijan. But Azerbaijan pretends as if rain is falling.

Question, Panarmenian.Net: Mr. Lidington, Great Britain is one of the greatest supporters of Kosovo’s independence and Falkland Islands’ self-determination. British Foreign Secretary William Hague also stated that the principle of self-determination is one of the cornerstones of the UN Charter. Is it so that, when the principle is in the best interests of the United Kingdom it is superior, and when it does not, the UK has another attitude towards the issue of the self determination?

Edward Nalbandian: I would like to add that the principle of self-determination is not only the main purpose of the UN Charter, but also it is also one of the most important principles of international law. But in this regard the factor of security is of a great importance. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh can not feel safe in a country where during sniper trainings the soldiers repeatedly fire on a target on the forehead of which is written Armenia. The Artsakh people cannot feel secure in a country, where murderer Safarov is brought as an example to the policemen.

The security factor has been the most important one for the recently self-determined peoples. Here we can say all factors were unified as an objective of the UN Charter, the most important principle of international law and the factor of maintenance of security for the Artsakh people.