- Mr. Oskanian, you met your Turkish counterpart Sukru Sina Gurel in New York recently. Despite the fact that the bilateral meetings were initiated at the beginning of this year, the meeting with Gurel was the first one after Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem's resignation. Can we say that regardless of the political changes in Armenia Turkey has realized the necessity for continuing the direct dialogue with Armenia?

- I think that the dialogue we have commenced is also useful for Turkey. The meeting with Gurel allowed us to discuss the current problems in Turkish-Armenian relations and to present to each other our positions without mediators, especially on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. In spite of the fact that these meetings have not given any tangible results yet, I believe the fact of the dialogue itself is useful.

If the Turkish authorities express willingness to continue the dialogue after the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Turkey, Armenia is ready for it, following the aim of eventually achieving noticeable shifts in our bilateral relations.

-How real is the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations before the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

-The establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey or complete re-opening of the border before the conflict's final settlement is not probable, but not impossible, either. I think that the policy of Ձsmall stepsձ, which, I believe, will allow us to achieve certain shifts in relations with Turkey before the settlement of the conflict, is more real.

- About two years ago you said that if, during the last 10 years Armenia and Turkey had good neighborly relations, it would have been quite possible that the problem of Nagorno Karabakh would have been already resolved, since Turkey's policy forces Armenia to secure itself from a possible negative turn of events, laying down conditions on security issues. What is the reaction of the Turkish side to this argument? 

- The Turks understand this very well, but this factor does not play a serious role in determining their position. Turkey has driven itself into a corner during the last 10 years, and the way out of this situation has become a rather serious problem for this country.

-Two years ago you spoke quite harshly about the military rapprochement between Turkey and Georgia. This rapprochement continues, but, now, Yerevan does not express much anxiety. What is the reason?

- Georgia has assured us that it will not take any steps which could threaten Armenia's security or lead to Armenia's isolation in this region. This is quite a serious promise and a rather encouraging. At the same time, we continue to follow these processes closely. Of course, we do have certain concerns since, sometimes, irrespective of one's wishes, the situation can develop in a different way.

- You met the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, in New York. Did this meeting help achieve mutual understanding on the problem connected with the capture of land belonging to the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem by the Israeli army?

- There were serious, positive developments after this meeting: the construction of the wall separating the Israeli and Palestinian territories was stopped, the talks between the Armenian Patriarchate and the Israeli Defense Ministry became more active. I spoke to the Patriarch recently and today the situation is such that the parties seem to have managed to find a solution, which, on the one hand, meets the demands of Israel's security, and on the other hand, the interests of the Patriarchate Հ if not fully, then to an acceptable degree.

- You have said recently that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan managed to reach an agreement on a number of issues. Did you mean the previous agreements or the results of the last two meetings between Kocharian and Aliyev in Sadarak and Kishinev?

- The negotiation process for the settlement of the Karabakh conflict has gone through many turns during the last 10 years. After the meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Paris, a new phase started in the peace process and a definite Ձturnձ took place. The parameters of the settlement were clearly defined there. This process found its continuation in the meetings of the two Presidents in Sadarak and Kishinev. Today, there are both settled and disputable issues. During the last two meetings, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan focused particularly on the contentious issues and according to their own assessment, they made some progress. Most probably, this process will continue in the coming months.

- The conflict settlement issue will eventually become an election issue, in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Donղt you think that it would be more expedient to stop the active negotiation process before the start of the presidential elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan?

- I donղt think so. It's worthwhile that the presidents maintain this dynamic and continue their meetings. They are right in not divulging the details of their talks, so that conflict settlement does not become a hostage of domestic political speculations. The meetings between the two presidents should continue, so that after the elections, the peace process can be activated and carried to its conclusion.

- The American co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Rudolf Perina, who also holds the post of the US President's special representative for the settlement of conflicts in Eurasia, recently visited Tbilisi and presented to the Georgian authorities Washington's Ձnew approachձ for the settlement of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Can we assume that certain elements of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict settlement, for instance, the resumption of the Abkhazian railway, can be considered one of the components of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

- Armenia's position is that each of the existing conflicts demands an individual approach. As for the Abkhazian railway, its reactivation will have a positive impact on the economy of Armenia, Georgia and Russia. But I donղt think that this can directly influence the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. 

- If Georgia officially declares its wish to join the North Atlantic Alliance during the NATO Summit in Prague, can this lead to the emergence of new dividing lines in the South Caucasus?

- Our position is clear enough: every country has the right to independently determine its security requirements. At the same time, one should be cautious about the interests of one's neighbors and regional security. It is apparent today that NATO does not consider the South Caucasian states ready for membership in the Organization. Thus, it is early to speak about the appearance of new dividing lines.

- In recent years, Armenia has noticeably activated its contacts with NATO and the European Union. What are Armenia's main expectations of cooperation with these organizations?

- Our cooperation with NATO through the Partnership for Peace program and within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council expands and deepens every day. This cooperation, along with the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, supplements Armenia's security policy, the components of which are bilateral relations with Russia, cooperation within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty and the recently commenced Armenian-American military cooperation.

As for cooperation with the European Union, then we have set a goal to make maximum use of the opportunities, provided by the Agreement on Cooperation and Partnership, which we concluded with the EU about 5 years ago. At the end of this process we will tell the European Union that we are ready to start a new phase of cooperation.

- Will Armenia manage to solve the problem of the death penalty which is the sorest point in our relations with the Council of Europe, and do away with it by the specified date?

- We have no other alternative. The Council of Europe understood our internal political situation and broke its own rules to set a new deadline for the abolition of capital punishment - May 2003. Now we must do everything possible to make the necessary legislative changes and abolish the death penalty. They made it clear to us that on this issue the Council of Europe will not make any compromises. We must answer a very simple question - either European integration or capital punishment.