The correspondent of “Interafax” talked with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia about the actual issues of intergovernmental relationships.

Moscow, 22 October. From 23 to 25 of October the President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan is to pay a state visit to Russia. On the eve of the visit the Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandian gave an interview in Yerevan to Alexander Korzin and Hovhannes Qosyan, special correspondents of “Interfax”.

- Mr. Minister, on Sunday the state visit of the President of Armenia to Russia is to start. Which issues will be at the core of the negotiations? Are any signings of new agreements and documents being planned?

- The fact that it is a state visit and it is being held in response to the last year’s state visit of the President of the Russian Federation to Armenia proves the high level of our relationships. The volume, content and scope of our relations speak for themselves. First, it is the intensive and active dialogue between the leaders of our two countries. During the last three years about 40 high level meetings have taken place. When the leaders of two countries meet 40 times, it means that they have a lot of things to talk about, which is natural between allied countries. The agenda of the forthcoming state visit includes the widest range of bilateral, regional and international issues.

Solid legal framework exists between our states. More than 200 agreements have been signed; we are preparing new ones and working on updating the old ones. During the state visit of the President of Armenia to Russia 6-7 new documents are to be signed.

Relations between the countries, even allied, strategic relations as they are between Armenia and Russia, could not be stable if there are no deep contacts between the nations, if there is no sympathy, warmth between the people. It is said that you need to consume pounds of salt to recognize a friend. We have consumed not just one pound of salt, our relations have been proven by time. Our fathers, grandfathers fought and became heroes of many wars. We were always together during both difficult and peaceful times. We have never been on different sides of barricades.

Probably all Armenian adults participated in the Great Patriotic War. My father fought at Stalingrad, two brothers of my mother died during the Patriotic War.

And there are a lot of such families in Armenia. 60 Armenian generals were serving in the Soviet Army. There were 100 Heroes of the Soviet Union. Commanders as Marshals Baghramyan, Babajanyan, Khudyakov, Admiral Isakov are the pride of our two nations. Not only commanders, also the artists, scientists: Aram Khachatryan or Ivan Ayvazovsky, many others are the subject of our common pride. We are connected by many-many deep threads, and it creates the firm basis, on which today we are not only constructing but also adding new stones to the solid building of our strategic allied relationship.

- Today Russia and Armenia are connected by strategic contacts which are unique in intergovernmental relations. Does it find its reflection in practical spheres, including, the sphere of trade-economic and investment cooperation?

- Absolutely! Today Russia is the first investor in Armenia. The volume of investments is about 3 billion USD. Russia is the first economic partner of Armenia, as well as the main market of the Armenian products. In Armenia there are 1400 Russian entrepreneurships. By the volume of trade relations Russia is also the number one partner. Our economic relations, good cooperation in such areas like transport, communication, energy, including atomic energy, mining sphere, high technologies, agriculture, as well as in other directions, are very successfully developing. Jointly we spare no efforts to further deepen and broaden those relations.

-Are there any problems or unsolved issues in bilateral relations? Or you are generally satisfied with the current level of interaction?

-I would not say that we have problems. Taking into consideration the huge scope of relations, of course, there can be some questions. But they are being solved in the way they should be solved between the allies.

- How is the Armenian-Russian interaction in the sphere of military-technical cooperation developing? Do the Russian arm supplies guarantee an adequate level of defense, or the Armenian side would like to get wider scope of armaments from Russia?

- You know that during the state visit of Dmitry Medvedev to Armenia in August of the last year the Fifth Protocol to the Agreement on the Russian military base in Armenia was signed. That agreement has a provision that the Russian military base along with the protection of the interests of the Russian Federation, in cooperation with the Military Forces of Armenia ensures the security of the Republic of Armenia and for the realization of those goals Russia supports Armenia in obtaining modern military equipment and weaponry. And everything is said by that.

-Is the establishment of joint defense entrepreneurships with Russia being planned in Armenia, in particular, on repairing and technical service of military equipment and weaponry?

- On the repairing and maintenance service a Memorandum on cooperation was signed between the Ministry of Defense of Armenia and the Russian Federal Service for Military-technical cooperation. It was also signed during the state visit of the President Medvedev in the August of the last year. As you see, in the course of that visit documents which are important for both sides were signed. The relevant ministries of the two countries are undertaking steps for the realization of agreements fixed in the above-mentioned Memorandum.

-But there are no specific results, yet?

-There are results but it is a matter of specific interaction between the relevant Ministries. So necessary efforts are being undertaken.

-For sure the discussions on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh issue would have an important place in the negotiations on high level in Moscow. Today you had a meeting with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Are you satisfied with that meeting? Is there any specifics?

- Unlike Azerbaijan, where there is a lot of criticism towards the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, we never criticize them in vain, as if the three permanent members of the Security Council of the UN have been called to mediate, then we must appreciate their efforts towards the search of ways of peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In my opinion, the matter is not with the mediators. The matter is how the sides treat the proposals presented to them by the mediators for the settlement.

What do we have today? The ideas coming from Azerbaijan that without agreeing on the principles it is possible to start drafting the main agreement contradict both the logic of negotiations, and the position of Co-Chairs, which they have stated several times. If we cannot agree even on the principles, then on what basis can we prepare the text of the main agreement? It gives an impression that the Azerbaijanis simply do not want to reach an agreement on the basis which is proposed by the Co-Chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group.

- After the Kazan Summit there is a pause in the negotiation process. What is going on now? Is there any progress, what are the perspectives of organizing a new trilateral meeting on the level of ministers or on the highest level?

- First, we are grateful for the tremendous efforts that the Russian Federation is undertaking together with the United States and France, the other Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. We especially appreciate the efforts undertaken by President Medvedev. You know that both the Kazan meeting, and the Sochi meeting before that, and the Astrakhan meeting, and before Sochi there was the Saint-Petersburg meeting… By the initiative and participation of the Russian President many summits have been organized. Before each of them preparatory meetings on the level for Foreign Ministers were held. And here the Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov has done a considerable job.

However, unfortunately, Kazan didn’t become a breakthrough. Though, there was a hope, certain optimism, because, strictly speaking, before the meeting we came to certain understanding. But, unfortunately, in the last moment Azerbaijan took a step back. Azerbaijan suggested 10 amendments to the text which had been practically agreed before. And it was not for the first time; it was a repetition of the scenario which has happened during the previous meetings.

I wouldn’t say that nothing has been happening after Kazan. Today the Co-Chairs are in Yerevan; afterwards they will leave for Karabakh, then for Azerbaijan. The Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan had separate meetings with the Co-Chairs in late September in Warsaw in the sidelines of the Eastern Partnership Summit. Before that I had a meeting with the Co-Chairs in New-York, the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan also met with them. The process is continuing. The negotiation process has no alternative.

-After Kazan meeting, the President Dmitry Medvedev presented to the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan new proposals. Yerevan and Baku answered them. But actually it is still unclear what their answers were. Can the new Russian initiatives, the substance of which was slightly unveiled the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov saying that it is time “to come to an agreement”, serve as a basis for moving forward the process of the settlement?

-We think that it’s time to reach an agreement, as well. But it is necessary that Azerbaijan thought so as well, and not only in words but also in deeds. As for the answers, they are known. They have been voiced. Azerbaijanis, after Lavrov’s visit to the region, have repeatedly stated. Last time it was done the day before yesterday in Baku. What are they saying? “We have no need for the principles, let’s move on to draft the text of the main agreement.” And what does it mean? Simply put, the Azerbaijanis are not ready to accept the proposals of the Co-Chairs and proceed to the settlement on this basis. By declining to work on the approval of the principles, they are thus failing the whole negotiating process.

Here you don’t reinvent a wheel. The principles, which have been developed, are a result of long lasting joint efforts. They have been elaborated in the course of many meetings on the level of the presidents and ministers. When you come up with ten amendments to already practically agreed upon text, it is, I would say not just disrespect to the other sides of the conflict, but also to the mediators- the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

- And how did Yerevan react to the recent message of Medvedev, which Lavrov brought?

- We have said and are saying that we are ready to accept the proposals presented in Kazan and move forward on this basis, if Azerbaijan withdraws its new ten objections, which in fact return to the formulations of three-four years ago. You cannot participate in a dozen meetings on the level of the presidents and ministers of foreign affairs, and then say you know all we have done is down the drain and it is needed to return to some old formulations. We too can revert to the old formulations and even some much older ones. I do not think it is a serious approach.

There is a well-known principle, one of the most fundamental principles of international law, pacta sunt servanda: if you agree on something, then you should respect those agreements. When it happens once, you think people may be made a mistake and did not figure out something, but then second time, third, fourth and fifth. Trust is lost, not only by Armenia and Karabakh, but also by mediators and the international community.

- This year South Sudan gained independence and became the next member of the UN. Palestine filed an application to the UN for the recognition of its independence and receiving of full membership or at least the status of observer in the UN. Can those examples serve as precedent with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh?

- Why not? But there is no lack in precedents. The majority of the UN member-states gained their independence realizing the right to self-determination. And why the people of Nagorno-Karabakh should have less right to self-determination than any other nation under this heaven. Naturally the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have no less right and the provision on this right is right in the text over which we are conducting the negotiations with Azerbaijan. The principles and elements presented by the Co-Chairs and were voiced in the frames of three G8 summits in L'Aquila, Muskoka and Deauville by the Presidents Medvedev, Sarkozy and Obama, are just about this right to self-determination- that the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined through a legally binding free expression of will of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. That says it all.

- Are you convinced in the outcome?

- I think that not only we believe in it. As history and examples, which you brought, show, there is no other way.

- President Medvedev, on the eve of the anniversary of the events of August 2008, stated that those were a serious lesson for Armenia and Azerbaijan in that it’s necessary to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh issue through negotiations, not use of force. What would you say about it?

- I think it is not just a lesson, but a cold shower for Azerbaijan. And actually that was why Azerbaijan came to the signing of Maindorf Declaration (Interfax-signed in November of 2008 by the mediation of Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev). There was mentioned about the peaceful political settlement of the issue. Maybe the human memory seems to be short. The effect of old shower was probably short as almost after a month Baku expressed an opinion on the highest level that the peaceful political settlement does not presuppose a commitment to refrain from the use of force. Here I will not make any comment.

- To what extent in your opinion now is it likely that the situation in the conflict zone can get out of control and escalate into an armed confrontation?

-In view of the war rhetoric voiced from Baku, and not just rhetoric but concrete steps- increase of military budget 20 times, provocations on the line of contact and much more, when Azerbaijan openly is preparing for war and even boasting of it, the situation is not simple. We must be alert. The international community has repeatedly warned Azerbaijan not only about the unacceptability, but also impermissibility of a new attempt to use the force. There was very real and strong message of the Presidents of Medvedev, Sarkozy and Obama from Deauville about the inevitability of a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Given the fact that the use of force created the conflict situation and that new use of force would be strictly condemned by the international community, someone should pay serious attention to it.

Armenia will continue to do its utmost for the peaceful settlement of the conflict, as the military way is not a solution.

- What is your opinion on Russia’s reaction, if there is a threat of war in the region and whether Armenia expects Russia and CSTO to help and provide support?

- I would refer to the statement made by President Medvedev in the joint press conference with President of Armenia held in Yerevan during his state visit in August of last year. He gave a very clear and precise answer to practically a similar question.

- The Russian side urged both Yerevan and Baku to pay prior attention to the issues of the consolidation of cease-fire, strengthening of measures of mutual confidence-building, including withdrawal of snipers from the line of contact on both sides. Is there any progress and is Yerevan ready to take such steps?

- By the mediation of the President of Russia Medvedev in Astrakhan, very good agreements were reached on the creation of investigation of the incidents on the line of contact, which could become a mechanism to prevent incidents, and generally the violation of cease-fire. The Presidents reached an understanding, and under this declaration there is the signature of the President of Azerbaijan. But immediately after this agreement the Azerbaijanis made a step back, speaking against the creation of such a mechanism. More recently, literally a few days ago this question was discussed in Vienna and Azerbaijan’s representative spoke out against it. The Co-Chairs, the OSCE and other international organizations, the Secretary-General of the UN appealed to withdraw snipers and consolidate the cease-fire regime. There was a proposal to reach an agreement on non-use of force or threat of use of force. All those proposals are supported by us and the international community. Azerbaijanis are speaking out against them. It is one more proof that Azerbaijan’s leadership actually is not ready to move forward with the settlement. It has some other dangerous plans in its mind, which may bring serious consequences not only for the region, but first of all for Azerbaijan.

- How do you feel about the proposals to change the existing format of mediators, including Turkey in it, as well?

- Regarding Turkey I think that it is a Turkish phantasmagoria. As for changing of format there is no need for that.

- Will there be a proposal to continue the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations? And on what factors it may depend on?

- I would like to remind about the statement, which has been repeatedly voiced, that Armenia passed its own part of the path and the ball is in the Turkish court. Turkey should fulfill the obligations it has taken before the international community. The leaders of many states and international organizations have stated and state about it. We fully share this viewpoint.