The resolution presented at the UN General Assembly by Azerbaijan was
passed. How do you assess what happened and how will it change things?

The actual passage of the resolution, I assess negatively. It was
unnecessary, ill-timed, mean-spirited, both as a process and a product. But
I'm satisfied with the number of countries that did not support it. I assess
their decisions positively. This is a non-binding, or consultative
pronouncement by the General Assembly, I don't think it will have an affect
on the process, unless Azerbaijan is engaged not just in deception but
self-deception.
If they expect to use this for anything other than their domestic purposes,
if they have convinced themselves  that the international community truly
supports the one-sided desires they had enumerated in the text of this
resolution, then this will cause serious problems in the negotations. One
thing must be clear for Azerbaijan - that no amount of resolutions will make
Nagorno Karabakh deviate from its path of self-determination.

Then, how do you know if they are serious about the negotiations?

Fortunately, we will have an opportunity soon to find out. There is a
possibility that Armenia's President-Elect will meet with the Azerbaijani
President in Bucharest, in the framework of the NATO-EAPC Summit. We've
stated our readiness to participate, I  know the co-chairs will make such a
proposal, and I know the Azeris have also hinted that they are ready to
continue the dialogue at the highest levels. During that first meeting this
issue can be clarified. President-Elect Sargsyan can ask President Aliyev
point blank - if you truly believe in the content of this resolution and if
that will be your guideline, then there's nothing to talk about and let's
not waste our time. But if you're still committed to the negotiating
document on the table today, then let's get serious and go the short
distance that's left.  Indeed, the UN resolution text and the content of the
negotiating document are incompatible; most of the international community
recognized this which is why they did not support it.

But still 39 countries voted in favor.

They did not vote in favor of the content of the resolution, they voted in
favor of the sponsor - Azerbaijan. Those who voted 'yes' were either members
of GUAM or of the Organization of Islamic Conference. I think if UN General
Assembly resolutions were actually binding, then many of those who abstained
would have in fact voted against the resolution.

However, I don't want to deal in conjectures. This is the time to understand
that there is no other option but negotiations. Show me one example in
history when a conflict has been resolved by the passage or acceptance of a
document by an international organization or by third countries. There hasn't
happened and it's not going to happen now, certainly not in the case of
Nagorno Karabakh. In 1948, the UN General Assembly resolution to partition
Palestine didn't solve anything. More recently, the Security Council
resolution on Kosovo also didn't manage to bring the sides together in a
meaningful way. I remember in Lisbon when the OSCE Chairman-in-Office made a
statement about Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan's joy knew no limits. It took
years for Azerbaijan to understand that that document had no value.

There is only one document that can resolve this conflict: that is the one
that will be signed by Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia. Let me say
again that  the document on the table now, given to the parties at the
highest levels in Madrid and deposited at the OSCE Secretariat, should be
the guiding principle for a real sustainable resolution of the conflict.

On the day the resolution was being voted on, you were in Europe. This was
your first trip since the elections and the post-election disaster. What
reactions did you receive? What was Europe's message?

This was a forum where the policy makers of the US, Europe and beyond were
all present. Not only did I meet a lot of people, ironically, I was a
keynote speaker in a session on Europe's path to the Caucasus, where the
primary focus was of course on democracy. This had been scheduled months
before the election, and although I would have said the same things whether
the post-election events had taken place or not, the situation was more
sensitive and the stakes were higher. Indeed, Armenia has taken a beating
because of the riots and the deaths. No one was interested in asking or
knowing who did what. They looked at this as an Armenian mess, an Armenian
tragedy, an Armenian problem and judged us all together. It's not the
government that's damaged, it's not the opposition that's discredited, it's
Armenia that is dishonored.

My task there was to accept their criticism, listen to their disappointment,
share their frustration and try to explain that this was not a permanent
setback, but a temporary aberration from the path to which we're commited. I
hope I'm not wrong. My judgment - and their assessment - will be tested by
what happens in the coming weeks and months. What was clear was that despite
all this, there's a lot of good will towards Armenia, a lot of hope pinned
on Armenia, and a sincere desire to see us come through this in a meaninful
way, not just superficially moving forward with business as usual.

How do we do that? What's the way out?

This conference was in Brussels, and most of the people I met with were from
Europe, and the EU leadership.  They repeated the points they had made last
week - that they expected the state of emergency lifted, they expected
dialogue, they wanted the issue of detentions addressed, and they expected a
return to unrestricted media. It was clear that there is a great deal of
overlap between their requirements and the desires of the government and the
statements of the opposition.

What the EU wants is what the Armenian people want. In my view, all of those
basic expectations can be met, they are and must be doable considering that
the people's faith and trust, the integrity of our society and the future of
our city and country are at stake.

We too want the state of emergency lifted, and as the President has said
there have been no infractions, and the State of Emergency will be lifted as
scheduled.

The matter of detentions is very critical and very important. Of course we
do not want to become a country of political prisoners. Those who have
political association and have acted criminally must be punished. But
artificial criminal charges should not be used to isolate political figures.

The opposition cannot continue to act to risk everything. They did that on
the afternoon and evening of March 1.  If what they want are political,
economic and social changes, they can use the strength of their support base
to insist on those changes. We have a president-elect who has said he
understands the depth of the frustration and dissatisfaction and is
committed to bringing change.

The political changes, the healing and the building are going to take a very
very long time. They will be made more difficult by the rumors, the
distrust, the fear, the readiness to believe the worst. Perhaps we can set
aside the opposition's sense of entitlement and the government's
self-assuredness, and actually conduct an independent, transparent
investigation over what happened on March 1, even as we engage in real
dialogue about what's to come.