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

A: 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.

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

A: 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.

Q: But still 39 countries voted in favor.

A: 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.

Q: 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?

A: 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.

Q: How do we do that? What’s the way out?

A: 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.