Independent state of NKR is enough to conceive irreversibility of process
A statement issued by the office of Armenia's second President Robert Kocharian reads that the format of negotiations with participation of NKR representatives has stopped existing a year prior to Robert Kocharian's election to the post of Armenia's President, and meetings of Armenia's and Azerbaijan's Presidents and negotiations between them have been regularly organized since 1990, in parallel with the Minsk process: Levon Ter-Petrossyan was negotiating with Ayaz Mutalibov, Abulfaz Elchibey and Heydar Aliyev.
According to head of the office Victor Soghomonian, the meetings were accompanied by active contacts between presidential representatives Zhirayr Liparityan and Vafa Guluzade (11 meetings took place from 1995 to 1996). "The practice of conducting negotiations between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents for the conflict resolution continued also after the election of Robert Kocharian with a significant difference in the context of this issue that, on demand of RA new President, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs started mandatory visiting NKR (except for rare occasions) and negotiating with official representatives of Stepanakert. By the way, the most significant document, adopted with NKR's participation, is the May 10, 1994agreement on ceasefire, which was signed by NKR's Defense Minister. This signature was a compulsory condition for Karabakh's consent to the ceasefire. I would like to repeat: these are facts of well known history. Prior to speaking about the negotiations process, "Kocharian's mistakes" and their "brilliant" correction, one should familiarize him/herself with the matter. First of all this refers to party functionaries. Now, let me say a couple of words concerning the NKR's involvement in the settlement process. First, one should conceive what the process of settlement is. 1. It is the activity of OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, their visits to regions, meetings and discussions of settlement issues with the Presidents of Armenia, NKR and Azerbaijan, reconciliation of positions, drafting of suggestions, etc. In other words, these are efforts aimed at developing mutually acceptable decisions within the context with all three actual parties to the conflict. 2. It is a format of meetings of the RA and AR Presidents, as well as of Foreign Affairs Ministers, on President's assignments. By the way, it would have been strange, if mediators did not try to use international forums for organization of such meetings, when Presidents are physically present there. 3. It is OSCE mission on monitoring the cease-fire regime. It works in close cooperation with the Armenian, Karabakh and Azerbaijani authorities. Thus, in permanent regime the actual process of settlement takes place in three planes: two negotiation processes and efforts aimed at preservation of the cease-fire regime through monitoring. NKR is directly involved in mediatory efforts of OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs and in actions of Special Representative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office. NKR is not directly involved in the format of meetings of the RA and AR Presidents. And it is a well-known fact. Robert Kocharian, having a status of NKR's first President, even categorically rejected the possibility of NKR's replacement in the format of Presidents' meetings. It was always noted that nothing can be considered to be finally agreed without Karabakh's consent and that the final document must be signed also by a representative of NKR. Actually, a technique of indirect negotiations, which is famous in the international practice, is applied.
Thus, NKR is involved in the negotiation process, but in an abridged scope. Definitely, one should aspire towards Stepanakert's full and direct participation in all three processes and it is evident that the three Presidents of Armenia were trying to achieve it.
The format of direct negotiations between NKR and Azerbaijan would be ideal, and it would better reflect the conflict's nature and contain a great potential of effectiveness. It is natural that Azerbaijan is focusing on negotiations with Armenia to substantiate its approach of the [NKR issue] settlement within the framework of the territorial integrity principle, allegedly, these are Armenia's territorial claims, and we talk to it. In negotiations with NKR, they are afraid of enhancing the perception of the self-determination principle in the international community's views about the conflict's essence. Probably, it had some importance in the very beginning of the conflict. I believe that currently Azerbaijan mechanically overestimates the importance of negotiation format within the context of international principles' selective application. Today, everything is clear for everyone. As one could say, the train has gone. The fact of NKR's successful functioning as an independent state (although unrecognized) for already 19 years is enough to conceive the irreversibility of the process. It is more pragmatic to negotiate within the result-oriented formats," the statement noted.
According to head of the office Victor Soghomonian, the meetings were accompanied by active contacts between presidential representatives Zhirayr Liparityan and Vafa Guluzade (11 meetings took place from 1995 to 1996). "The practice of conducting negotiations between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents for the conflict resolution continued also after the election of Robert Kocharian with a significant difference in the context of this issue that, on demand of RA new President, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs started mandatory visiting NKR (except for rare occasions) and negotiating with official representatives of Stepanakert. By the way, the most significant document, adopted with NKR's participation, is the May 10, 1994agreement on ceasefire, which was signed by NKR's Defense Minister. This signature was a compulsory condition for Karabakh's consent to the ceasefire. I would like to repeat: these are facts of well known history. Prior to speaking about the negotiations process, "Kocharian's mistakes" and their "brilliant" correction, one should familiarize him/herself with the matter. First of all this refers to party functionaries. Now, let me say a couple of words concerning the NKR's involvement in the settlement process. First, one should conceive what the process of settlement is. 1. It is the activity of OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, their visits to regions, meetings and discussions of settlement issues with the Presidents of Armenia, NKR and Azerbaijan, reconciliation of positions, drafting of suggestions, etc. In other words, these are efforts aimed at developing mutually acceptable decisions within the context with all three actual parties to the conflict. 2. It is a format of meetings of the RA and AR Presidents, as well as of Foreign Affairs Ministers, on President's assignments. By the way, it would have been strange, if mediators did not try to use international forums for organization of such meetings, when Presidents are physically present there. 3. It is OSCE mission on monitoring the cease-fire regime. It works in close cooperation with the Armenian, Karabakh and Azerbaijani authorities. Thus, in permanent regime the actual process of settlement takes place in three planes: two negotiation processes and efforts aimed at preservation of the cease-fire regime through monitoring. NKR is directly involved in mediatory efforts of OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs and in actions of Special Representative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office. NKR is not directly involved in the format of meetings of the RA and AR Presidents. And it is a well-known fact. Robert Kocharian, having a status of NKR's first President, even categorically rejected the possibility of NKR's replacement in the format of Presidents' meetings. It was always noted that nothing can be considered to be finally agreed without Karabakh's consent and that the final document must be signed also by a representative of NKR. Actually, a technique of indirect negotiations, which is famous in the international practice, is applied.
Thus, NKR is involved in the negotiation process, but in an abridged scope. Definitely, one should aspire towards Stepanakert's full and direct participation in all three processes and it is evident that the three Presidents of Armenia were trying to achieve it.
The format of direct negotiations between NKR and Azerbaijan would be ideal, and it would better reflect the conflict's nature and contain a great potential of effectiveness. It is natural that Azerbaijan is focusing on negotiations with Armenia to substantiate its approach of the [NKR issue] settlement within the framework of the territorial integrity principle, allegedly, these are Armenia's territorial claims, and we talk to it. In negotiations with NKR, they are afraid of enhancing the perception of the self-determination principle in the international community's views about the conflict's essence. Probably, it had some importance in the very beginning of the conflict. I believe that currently Azerbaijan mechanically overestimates the importance of negotiation format within the context of international principles' selective application. Today, everything is clear for everyone. As one could say, the train has gone. The fact of NKR's successful functioning as an independent state (although unrecognized) for already 19 years is enough to conceive the irreversibility of the process. It is more pragmatic to negotiate within the result-oriented formats," the statement noted.
