Edward Nalbandian had a speech in the International Institute for
Strategic Studies (IISS)

On July 13, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Edward Nalbandian paid a visit to London.

In the capital of the United Kingdom Edward Nalbandian had a meeting with
William Hague, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of
the UK and David Liddington, Minister of State for Europe.

Before the meeting, Edward Nalbandian and David Liddington signed a
“Convention between the Government of the Republic of Armenia and the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for
the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with
respect to taxes on income and capital.”

A wide range of regional and international as well as bilateral issues
were on the agenda of the talks.

Edward Nalbandian had a thorough talk with the British Ministers on the
steps to be undertaken towards the promotion of political dialogue,
bilateral relations, and the intensification of interaction in the
international organizations, business ties, and cultural exchanges.

Minister Nalbanidan said that the Armenian-British relations have a
serious potential for the development and stressed the importance of the
intensification of the cooperation between the two countries in various
spheres_IT, energy, transport and banking sectors were mentioned as
possible spheres for the deepening of economic interaction. The sides
mutually underlined that the agreement on the avoidance of double taxation
signed during the visit could give a serious impetus to the
intensification of economic ties and agreed to hold an Armenian-British
business forum.

The Ministers touched upon the cooperation between Armenia and the
European Union. In this regard, the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs of the Great Britain William Hague welcomed the
deepening cooperation and rapprochement between Armenia and the European
Union.

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and the United Kingdom also
talked about the regional issues and the developments in the Middle, Near
East and the North Africa.

The sides discussed the issues of the settlement of regional conflicts. In
that context, Minister Nalbandian presented the position of the Republic
of Armenia on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and expressed
hope that in the case of the Azerbaijan’s relevant political will, realism
and constructivism, it would be possible to achieve the solution of the
issue. In this context, Minister Liddington presented the United Kingdom’s
support to the negotiations conducted by the mediation of the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs, stressing the importance of the steps undertaken towards
confidence building measures and the peaceful solution of the conflict.

On the same day, Edward Nalbandian delivered an extensive speech in one of the eminent political science centers of London, the International Institute for Strategic Studies- that was dedicated to Armenia’s foreign policy. Political scientists, journalists, analysts and Ambassadors accredited in London attended the meeting.

In his speech, Minister Nalbandian talked about the Armenian -British
historical ties, the current stage and perspectives of the relations.
Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs also presented the priorities and
main directions of Armenia's foreign policy, as well as answered numerous
questions of the attendees.

Minister Nalbandian said that the Azerbaijani leaders have put themselves
in an awkward situation in front of the international community; one could
simply say they are discrediting themselves. If by distorting the facts
they expect to continuously mislead their own public opinion, it is
impossible to do the same with respect to the international community.

“They say that the Prague process appeared in 2004, but they do not to say
why it “appeared”. While it appeared as the previous one, the Paris
process, summarized by the Key West document was rejected at the last
moment by the Azerbaijani side, so it failed because of them. It is said
that the Madrid principles presented to the sides in November 2007,
consisted of a few phrases of a very general character. It just can be
reminded that the document – the Basic principles of the settlement -
presented in 2007 in Madrid consisted of fourteen paragraphs as well as
the last version presented in June 2011 consists of fourteen paragraphs.

Let me remind also that for nearly one year since November 2007 Baku
publicly argued that negotiations were not conducted on the basis of the
Madrid document.

In the period from November 2007 to 2011 a number of working versions were
presented. Azerbaijan did not give its consent to any of them – from the
first one to the last one. The maximum was that they stated about the
acceptance of one version but with reservations. You either accept or not.

If you are accepting with reservations, it means that you are not accepting.

This scenario was repeated several times during the last year. Armenia
gave an unequivocal answer to the June, October and December versions of
2010 and June version of 2011. Each time Azerbaijan proposed many
amendments – at least ten changes in March 2011, in Sochi when the
December version of 2010 was discussed, and again ten changes – during the
last meeting in June 2011 in Kazan.

They are emphasizing that the December version of 2009 was presented by
the three Co-Chairs and pretend that all the following versions were
presented only by one of the Co-Chairs. Making of such a reference is not
happening for the first time. It is hard to find words to describe how it
is called. It can be reminded that the Co-Chairs, as well as the leaders
of the Co-Chair countries have expressed and are expressing their full
support to the efforts of the leadership of the Russian Federation. It is
sufficient to read the Deauville statement.

By the way, regarding the Deauville statement-what does it say? First of
all, it speaks about preparing populations for peace and not for war. It’s
obvious that it addresses Azerbaijan, and how did Azerbaijan answer? It
answered with the threat of a new war-by a military parade, by saber
rattling and by bragging about the increase of its military budget 20
times during the last 7 years, as well as by the territorial claims
towards Armenia. I do not think that one should be patted for such an answer.

One more important element of the Deauville statement. It is addressed to
all parties of the conflict and this is not the only time that the issue
is presented in this way. Why? As it is clear that without the approval of
the Basic Principles by Nagorno-Karabakh it is impossible to start
drafting of the peace agreement and without the direct participation of
Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiations on the project of peace agreement it
will be impossible to sign an agreement, to reach the settlement of the issue.

It is good that Baku paid attention to the reference of the Helsinki Final
Act made in the Deauville statement, according to which the principles of
the right to self-determination and territorial integrity do not
contradict each other. Of course, it was the reason as well that after the
adoption of the Helsinki Final Act, over thirty new states were created
and mainly thanks to the implementation of the unequivocal right to
dispose of their destiny and self determination of people.

Baku leads its public opinion into delusion by claiming that the Helsinki
Final Act speaks about the settlement of the conflicts in the frames of
territorial integrity. Simply, there is not such a thing in the Helsinki
Final Act.

And to those who read the lines in the Helsinki Final Act that they prefer
and are disinclined to read to the end, I would like also to remind that
in the Final Act it is underlined that in the event of a conflict between
the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the Charter of
the United Nations and their obligations under any treaty or other
international agreement, their obligations under the Charter will prevail.

Surely, it is also important that the Deauville statement mentions about
the unacceptability of preserving of status quo. In order to reach it,
there is a need to implement all three principles and six elements about
what the leaders of the Co-Chairs talk in their statements. Let me remind
that there is a very important element, which the Azerbaijani side is
trying to neglect or at least to push aside. It is the right of the
population of Nagorno-Karabakh to determine the final status of
Nagorno-Karabakh by a legally binding free expression of will,” said the
Minister.

Responding to the distorted view voiced from Baku recently on the future
status of Karabakh, the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs underlined
that until the determination of the final status, Nagorno-Karabakh will
have an interim status that should be internationally affirmed. The
interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh means “status quo plus”, i.e. all that
Nagorno-Karabakh has today, plus the international recognition of that
status. It is just what was proposed by the Co-Chairs and about which the
leader of Azerbaijan agreed in May 2009 in Prague.

No one needs the Azerbaijani leadership’s interpretation of the Madrid
principles. The principles and elements were presented and interpreted by
the leaders of the Co-Chair countries. The leaders of the Co-Chair
countries referred to the same principles and elements in the statements
made in June 2009, in July 2011 and in May 2011 in L’Aquila, Muskoka and
Deauville. That is why it is at least a self-deception to argue that the
proposals made by the Co-Chairs in 2010-2011 changed the essence of the
negotiations and of the Basic Principles.

Commenting the statement of the Azerbaijani Minister of Foreign Affairs
that there is no sense to spend time on reaching agreement on the Basic
Principles and it would be right to pass directly to the drafting of a
peace agreement, Edward Nalbandian said that it is an old repetition of
the Azerbaijani old undersong. The Co-Chairs have presented their opinion
on that idea voiced by the Azerbaijani leadership for two years. If
Azerbaijan is not able to come to an agreement over the Basic principles,
then how is it possible to talk about the drafting of a peaceful agreement?
Edward Nalbanidan noted that this stance of Azerbaijan is an evident
desire to get rid of the Basic Principles presented by the Co-Chairs and
actually to fail the negotiations of recent years.

Summarizing, Minister Nalbandian mentioned that as soon as Azerbaijan gets
rid of its big illusions that money stemming from oil revenues could
become a major factor in the conflict resolution in favor of its
interests, as soon as Azerbaijan gets rid of its attempts of directing oil
revenues for funding a new military adventurism, then progress in the
peace process could be more visible.