Mediamax. Mister Minister, how would you comment the voting on two anti-Armenian resolutions during the PACE session? I also would like to ask your opinion on the Co-Chairs’ position, their statement. Was it of any surprise?

Edward Nalbandian. I think that the Co-Chairs’ position, approaches, statement on these resolutions came as no surprise to anyone. The Co-Chairs, being the only internationally-mandated mediation format on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution, have stated on numerous occasions that the attempts to shift the discussions on this issue to other formats cannot contribute to the conflict resolution, but rather can undermine the process. The Co-Chairs issued similar statement prior to the PACE session.

I think it should not be of any surprise to Azerbaijan either. It is another thing that Azerbaijan, actually, is displeased. Why? Because this statement is foremost addressed to Azerbaijan. Who tries to shift the discussions to other formats? It’s Azerbaijan.

When it comes to Armenia, on numerous occasions we have stated the same that the Co-Chairs have outlined. On this issue we are on the same line.

It is good that the PACE parliamentarians at least did not allow the adoption of Walters’ resolution. In other words they voted in favor of the peaceful process.

As for the resolution on Sarsang reservoir, it has a technical nature, and that’s why right from the beginning it was considered not in the Committee on Political Affairs but in the Committee on Social Affairs, despite the fact that the rapporteur tried to include some political wording in it.

I will leave it to those who voted in favor to answer to the question to what extent it is acceptable to have such a resolution when the rapporteur, despite numerous invitations, did not even visit the place where Sarsang reservoir is located

Not us, but the leadership of Azerbaijan claims that the documents, resolutions, statements adopted by the PACE are nothing but a scrap of paper. They state it on the highest level. We have never said such things, but at the same time it would be wrong to exaggerate the significance of such resolutions.

I do not think that those who serve Azerbaijan’s interest in certain structures, those who have never been in Karabakh and many of whom have no clue where Karabakh is located on the map, can dictate the international community how the conflict could be settled.

Despite the Co-Chairs’ clear position, it is not for the first time that Azerbaijan tries to exploit the PACE platform. Attempts have been made to adopt different documents, if you remember, the ones drafted by Davis or Atkinson, or other documents. Did they have any impact on the negotiations?

When the Co-Chairs tell that such resolutions harm the negotiation process, first and foremost, they mean that Azerbaijan uses those documents as a justification for hardening its position, for the refusal to continue the negotiations aimed at the settlement of the issue based on the principles and elements proposed by the Co-Chairs.

Azerbaijan spares no effort to intentionally undermine the Co-Chairs’ efforts and their format of negotiations. Why? Because within that framework, at the negotiation table they have not been able to impose their views, their one-sided position, they contradict the Co-Chairs’ approaches, and not only them, but also the the OSCE, the European Union, as well as the Council of Europe itself. Why do I mention the CoE, because it is the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe which expresses the positions of this Organisation. We have also chaired there. Not only during our chairmanship, but before and after it the position of the CoE remains the same that it supports the efforts of the Co-Chairs for the exclusively peaceful settlement of the issue.

In fact, as Azerbaijan contradicts the position of all those international structures, it tries to seek some consolation within other formats. This time it tried to find a “balm for the soul” in the PACE, but they did not succeed. In fact they failed.

What was the reaction to the PACE resolutions by the highest leadership of Azerbaijan… And let us not forget that PACE itself has adopted many other resolutions and also recently another resolution was adopted which contained a strong wording on the situation of human rights in Azerbaijan.

News.am. If I may, I would like to follow up the previous question. Nevertheless, the PACE resolution became a basis for sharp criticism towards the ambassadors and parliamentarians. How would you comment on that?

And another question. Foreign Minister of Turkey once again stated that the normalization of relations with Armenia is not possible without the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Do you have any expectations in this regard?

Edward Nalbandian. I think that throwing stones on diplomats is as immoral as throwing stones to the back of a soldier facing the enemy, because a diplomat is the same soldier in the external arena. Seems many specialists and experts of international relations have appeared who voice their criticism not as an analytical conclusion but as an introduction to their analysis: first they criticise, then try to justify it. There is a French proverb, maybe I will not be able to translate it literally, but we also have something similar to that: “The goodness of wine is not known by the fashion.”

Both our diplomats and parliamentarians have spared no efforts, and I am sure they will do everything possible not to allow any steps which harm the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process.

Regarding the statements coming from Turkey, there is nothing new in them. Strangely it is not Armenia, but Turkey, the successor of the Ottoman Empire which committed the genocide, putting preconditions for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. Sounds strange. However, I would like to say that recently it has been not less strange to try to find any logic in Turkey’s diplomacy, its rhetoric not only with regard to this issue, but also on other issues, as well. Of course, with such logic they would not be able to improve relations not only with Armenia but also with other states.

Interfax. Mister Minister, do you agree with the opinion, the claim, that membership in the Eurasian Economic Union determines one-sided orientation and hinders the development of relations with other states?

Edward Nalbandian. When we joined the EAEU, we stressed that we are interested in continuing our engagement and cooperation also within other structures and with other states, at the same time taking into consideration our commitments in the EAEU. One should not view that as an obstacle.

The decision to join the Eurasian Economic Union was based on the consideration of its advantages.

I would tell the skeptics that the year of 2015 was quite indicative from the point of developing relations with non-EAEU states and institutions.

In 2015 President of Armenia paid a state visit to China, during which dozens of agreements with that country were signed, and Joint Declaration of two Presidents was adopted.

In 2015 the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement was signed with the United States. On January 2015 the agreement on visa facilitation with the US entered into force. In 2015 the US made its largest investment in Armenia.

With the European Union, as I have already mentioned, and you are well aware that together with Federica Mogherini we have launched negotiations on drafting a new legal framework. Relations with a range of European states were enhanced, expanded.

We have also deepened the ties with the states in other regions. The Foreign Minister of Iran stated that Armenia’s membership in the EAEU opens new opportunities and perspectives in the development of the Armenian-Iranian relations.

This list can be continued. But even what is mentioned clearly demonstrates that the skepticism in this regard has no substantiation. We consider that there is no alternative to the development of cooperation and partnership with all the interested parties. We would continue undertaking steps in this direction.

Armenia. Mister Minister, last month most of the sanctions on Iran were lifted. With this regard what are the perspectives for the Armenian-Iranian relations? And a second question. Iran expressed readiness to become a mediator in the negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement and bring its input in peace efforts. What is Armenia’s stance on that proposal?

Edward Nalbandian: Agreements on Iran nuclear program may be considered as one of the most important achievements of 2015 in the international relations.

It became possible due to the political will, and why not, the flexible diplomacy and constructive approaches of the six negotiating countries, the EU, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other hand.

Indeed, the agreement on the issue of utmost importance to our good neighbour Iran could not but delight us. It creates new big opportunities for the development, expansion and strengthening of trade and economic cooperation. Also the lifting of sanctions, and as you know, most of those sanctions were lifted, creates new opportunities for the implementation of projects, which were temporarily halted because of the sanctions on Iran.

When I say “our good neighbour” it is not just a phrase. Iran is a country where Armenia, our cultural heritage are highly respected, a country where our historic monuments, churches are restored and inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, a country which shows deep esteem towards the Armenian community. Our community always felt safe in the neighbouring country. And we in Armenia reciprocate this attitude.

I think both Armenia and Iran are interested in doing their utmost for enhancing, strengthening our friendship, our relations. Our Presidents discussed that very topic during the recent phone conversation. I think, we share a great potential, which we are able to explore through joint efforts.

As for Iran’s proposal to mediate the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement I would like to say that it has not been possible to achieve a progress in the settlement process not because the mediators or their proposals are not good enough, but because the lack of political will in Azerbaijan.

However, I am confident, that Iran is sincerely interested in the speedy settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and we appreciate the balanced and constructive position that Iran has demonstrated on that issue.

A-TV. Last year the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide was widely commemorated. As you have already mentioned in your remarks, events were organized throughout the world. It would be interesting know if the commemoration events will continue in the same scope and frequency this year as well, or this wide commemoration was just related to the 100th anniversary?

Edward Nalbandian. I think, there is no need to once again recall all the high-level statements, all the international resolutions adopted on Armenia’s initiative and thousands of events held across the globe. One thing is clear, the commemoration of the Centennial, that we have all witnessed and the memories are vivid and fresh, was sound and resonated worldwide. 50 years ago, during the commemoration of the 50th anniversary, the Armenian genocide was one of the darkest pages of humanity’s past and was not much raised beyond the Armenian circles.

Today we may say with confidence that the Armenian Genocide has gained an international recognition due to those joint, collective efforts that the Armenian people exerted throughout the years. And the consistent work did not halt either before the centennial or during the centennial, or after the centennial. With this regard, it includes recognition, condemnation, and prevention of new genocides and crimes against humanity. The efforts in this direction will continue not only by our nation but in synergy with the international community. Several major events have already been planned for this April, and I am confident that this efforts will continue in the upcoming years as well.

Yerkir Media: My question refers to the developments in the Middle East which threaten the whole region. Do we sense a direct threat?

Edward Nalbandian: Probably Armenia is one of the first countries which alarmed about the threat posed by terrorists and terrorist groups to everyone, and not just in the Middle East.

Years ago, when we were raising the issue in the international fora condemning the attacks on Kessab, the blowing up of the Saint Martyrs Armenian Church in Deir el-Zor, we were highlighting atrocities committed not only against the Armenians, but also towards other minorities, and not only towards the Christians, but also towards religious minorities - the Yezidis and others. The reaction of some countries, putting it mildly, was ambiguous.

Years ago, during the OSCE Ministerial Council, as you know the Ministerial Council takes place at the end of each year, within the framework of which numerous documents, decisions are adopted… In one of such documents, which refers to the fight against terrorism, Armenia suggested to include a clear definition naming Daesh, the al-Nusra Front, other terrorist groups and the foreign fighters. By the way, there was no need to reinvent the wheel, we proposed to use the definitions of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Just imagine, that some countries, I mean the same countries which today are widely referred to as supporters, funders of the terrorists… Imagine that those same countries tried to impede and rejected the inclusion of those definitions in the relevant decisions.

Security of the Armenian communities in the Middle East, preservation of our cultural heritage and, in general, the survival of the Armenians and Christians stands high on the agenda of our diplomacy. Today the minorities, and firstly the Christians face a serious threat and are among the most vulnerable ones in the Middle East. Imagine, that only a century ago they made up 20 percent of the whole population in the region, and today their number has decreased 7 to 8 times. There is a threat that in general no Christians will remain in the region, which has been the cradle of Christianity, and not only of Christianity.

The Middle East has always been widely known by its cultural, religious diversity, and the Armenians have been one of the components of that mosaic. The tolerance and coexistence have been cultivated in many countries of the Middle East. Let us not forget that numerous Arab countries sheltered our compatriots, the survivors of Genocide. And what is happening today? Hatred, xenophobia, intolerance not only towards different religions, but also towards different segments of the same religion. And it serves as a breeding ground for terrorism and radicalization.

It is not exclusively through use of force that terrorism could be restrained or eradicated. With this in mind Armenia has been initiating and participating in conferences, events, discussions in different international platforms, be that in New York, Geneva or Paris on the protection of the rights of minorities in the Middle East and fight against terrorism.

Armenia cannot ignore what is happening in our close neighbourhood. We made our contribution, our input in the efforts of the international community to continue joint struggle against this evil.

Public TV: Minister Nalbandian, with your permission I would like to return to the topic of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution. During the last year only one meeting was held, which is an obvious decrease of dynamics. Very briefly, what does it indicate?

Answer: Instead of the promotion of the negotiation process on the conflict resolution the international community, the mediators, Armenia, unfortunately, are obliged to waste a lot of efforts to bring Azerbaijan to senses, precluding it to further escalate the situation and undermine the efforts of the international community towards the settlement of the issue.

That is one of the main reasons. During the last year a number of statements were made.

Our public opinion, our media keep saying that those statements are not targeted, they are very general. However, even those generic statements revealed whom they were addressed to. It is another thing that Azerbaijan pretends that this has nothing to do with it.

The Co-Chairs were obliged to directly urge Azerbaijan to reaffirm its commitment to the exclusively peaceful settlement of the conflict through negotiations. Relevant statement was issued last year in January, in September in New York, in December in Belgrade. So, what happened? Did Azerbaijan reaffirm? Indeed, it did not. The Co-Chairs called to respect the trilateral agreements on ceasefire regime signed in May of 1994 and the consolidation of ceasefire regime signed on February of 1995. What did Azerbaijan do? Has it respected them? Absolutely not.

The Co-Chairs strongly condemned the use of heavy weaponry. Which side is using that weaponry? As you know, when they mention about the establishment of mechanism to investigate the ceasefire violations... However, in case of the use of heavy weaponry, it is more than obvious which side used it. There is no need to conduct an in-depth investigation in order to clarify who used heavy weaponry. The Co-Chairs also know who is responsible. Did Azerbaijan understand that criticism? Indeed, it did not.

The Co-Chairs urged to halt the criticism towards themselves. Did Azerbaijan heed? Indeed, it did not. It continues to criticise them on the highest level.

The Co-Chairmanship is the format which enjoys the mandate of the all OSCE member-states. The OSCE is an institution where decision-making is based on the principle of consensus. Thus, all the participating states, including Azerbaijan, provided that mandate. On the one side Azerbaijan provided the mandate, on the other side it keeps hindering their work.

The Co-chairs mediated a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan within the margins of the UN General Assembly and called upon them to agree on the creation of an investigation mechanism. The Co-Chairs had to publicly announce that Armenia has agreed to the proposal, and they urged Azerbaijan to do the same. And what happened? Azerbaijan rejected it.

As a result of Bern meeting some expected that Azerbaijan could positively respond to the creation of mechanism. What did happen? In a couple of days after the meeting Azerbaijan reaffirmed its rejection.

All these destructive steps of Baku should be curbed in order to create relevant conditions for the advancement of the negotiation process.

There is no other issue in the international arena, with regard to which the United States, Russia and France on the highest level - on the level of Presidents - have issued five joint statements which reflect the opinion of the international community, and which include all the principles and elements that serve as a basis for the settlement of the issue.

You know our position on this issue, you know also Azerbaijan’s position. However, some does not have clear understanding that Azerbaijan is the one that rejects all this.

A Final Declaration was planned to be adopted within the framework of the Riga summit of the Eastern Partnership in May and the declaration had nothing to do with the settlement of conflicts. It was related to the further cooperation between the European Union and the Eastern Partnership countries.

However, the Declaration had only one provision which included a general definition on the settlement of the conflicts, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What was it about? It just made a reference to the five statements issued by the Presidents of the Co-Chair countries - the United States, Russia and France as a basis for the settlement of the issue.

What happened? The Azerbaijani delegation decided to leave the summit hall. There is no other way to put it, but the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan literally fled the room. And everybody was calling to “bring back the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan.”

The Ambassador of Azerbaijan, who stayed in the room, read the beforehand prepared statement that Azerbaijan cannot approve the Declaration which was supposed to be adopted on the basis of consensus. In fact, 28 EU member states and the Eastern Partnership countries, except Azerbaijan, agreed to the whole Declaration, including the provision on Nagorno-Karabakh. The Heads of countries had to interrupt the summit for almost forty minutes. What for? Because Azerbaijan was against any reference to the five statements of the Presidents of Co-Chairing countries.

Only after the phone conversation of Donald Tusk with the leadership of Azerbaijan it was possible to adopt the Declaration, bypassing Azerbaijan’s objection.

Many approached me and said that they imagine how difficult it is to talk with our neighbours. The whole world is saying one thing, they are saying quite the opposite. At the same time, they try to present to their public that the international community is supporting them.

That is why it has not been possible to ensure the dynamism of the high-level meetings, negotiation process. Azerbaijan spares no efforts to impede the efforts of the Co-Chairs, to undermine the format within which the negotiation process is being conducted and where they fail to push their one-sided approaches.

That is the very reason. However, there is no alternative, we will continue our joint efforts with the Co-Chairs aimed at the exclusively peaceful settlement of the issue. In upcomings days a new meeting is scheduled with the Co-Chairs, an agreement has already been achieved. Efforts will continue.

Tert.am: Mister Minister, the negotiations on the new docuement between the European Union and Armenia have been launched. What perspectives does Armenia have in this regard? What are the expectations?

Edward Nalbandian: First, indeed, we launched the negotiations, which was immediately followed by the first round of negotiations. I can say that an agreement has been reached on the schedule of further rounds. New high-level visits are being scheduled both to Yerevan and to Brussels, as a result of which we will be able to reach new agreements on the promotion of our cooperation, our relations in different directions.

One thing is obvious, that Armenia has stated on numerous occasions and remains faithful to the same position that we are ready to continue to move forward with the European Union, to enhance, deepen our cooperation in all the possible directions, areas, formats, as much as the European Union will be ready to move forwards, of course, taking into consideration our commitments within other integration processes.

ArmenPress: Mister Minister, it has been stated on numerous occasions that the Nagorno-Karabakh should return to the negotiation table. Have the mediators raised this issue during the negotiations? And is it possible for this issue to be put straightforwardly amid the destructive policy of Azerbaijan? And another short question. The new building of Foreign Ministry has officially been inaugurated. What do you feel about the moving and when will that take place? I mean, when will you relaunch the activities in the new building?

Edward Nalbandian: As you say, if Azerbaijan continues its destructive approach, will it be possible to involve Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiations. Negotiations with whom? Karabakh should negotiate with Azerbaijan. If Azerbaijan continues its destructive policy, it will be difficult to promote the negotiation process in general.

Recently the Foreign Minister of Russia mentioned about the working papers which the sides have discussed during these years. In all the papers it is clearly mentioned that the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh should participate not only in the final stage of the settlement of the conflict, but also in different stages. It is obvious.

With regard to the moving to new building, indeed, you know that warm feelings, memories, emotions are associated also with this building. It is a very symbolic place - on the Republic Square. However it is not the first building where the Foreign Ministry was located. I think, it is the third building.

The difference is that the new building has been built taking into consideration the functional and also representative features, requirements of the Foreign Ministry. It is a much more comfortable, presentable building. We will move in a few days. And we will feel the same that a family feels moving into a new apartment, new building.

Why I make a comparison with a family, because our diplomats both in the headquarters of the Foreign Ministry and in our Embassies live and work as a family. Often we spend much more time in our workplaces, than with our families.

We move into a new building with quite good feelings. Using this opportunity I would like to once again express gratitude to the leadership, also the architects, constructors, all those who contributed to this new Tamanyan-style building.