Reactions to OSCE Negotiations‏

RFE/RL Report
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Governing Party Rules Out Sarkisian Resignation Over Karabakh
Armenia -- Eduard Sharmazanov, a spokesman for the ruling Republican
Party of Armenia (HHK)
Ruben Meloyan

Armenia's ruling party has ruled out its leader Serzh Sarkisian's
resignation as the republic's president and insisted that the latest
developments in the internationally mediated peace talks with
Azerbaijan only opened up new prospects of de-jure independence

for unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh. (?)

Edward Sharmazanov, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Armenia
(HHK), on Tuesday welcomed the latest statement by the leaders of the
United States, Russia and France on Nagorno-Karabakh that comes after
Serzh Sarkisian's year-long negotiations with his Azerbaijani
counterpart Ilham Aliev to find a solution to the longstanding dispute.

In their joint statement issued at the G8 Summit in Italy last
Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama and his Russian and French
counterparts Dmitry Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy, as leaders of the
nations that spearhead the international efforts on the Karabakh
conflict resolution, affirmed their commitment `to support the
leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan as they finalize the Basic
Principles for settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.'

They urged the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan `to resolve the
few differences remaining between them and finalize their agreement
on these Basic Principles, which will outline a comprehensive
settlement.'

United States expectations of progress in the upcoming Armenia-
Azerbaijan summit were also voiced by First Deputy Secretary of State
James Steinberg who visited Baku and Yerevan last weekend and met the
Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders ahead of their next round of talks
scheduled in Russian capital Moscow on July 17.

The HHK spokesman declined to comment on whether a framework
agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh might be signed during the Friday
meeting of the two South Caucasus leaders.

Yet, Sharmazanov excluded a situation in which Sarkisian would have
to step down as president over domestic opposition in the issue of
the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement - something that happened when
Armenia's first president and Sarkisian's current vocal opponent
Levon Ter-Petrosian had to resign in February 1998.

`There can be no resignation of the president,' Sharmazanov
emphasized. `Unlike many people Serzh Sarkisian is a politician and
statement with a high sense of responsibility and together with his
team he will complete what he has pledged to the people. Besides,
there are no reasons for his resignation. On the contrary,
Sarkisian's popularity is growing.'

Earlier on Monday, Armenia's main opposition called for Sarkisian's
resignation predicting a close denouement in the ongoing peace talks
that it said would not be a pro-Armenian one. The opposition Armenian
National Congress (HAK) led by Ter-Petrosian has accused the current
head of state of bowing to external pressures and readily agreeing to
significant concessions over Karabakh and in relations with Turkey
because of `lacking legitimacy domestically'.

Leader of the opposition Heritage party's parliamentary faction Armen
Martirosian said that by positively responding to the troika's
statement the Armenian authorities have to make steps towards
realizing `dangerous' Madrid principles.

`He [Sarkisian] faces a choice - either to sign [the document] and
get a Nobel [Peace] Prize along with the Armenian people's scorn or
not to sign it and get appreciation of the people for this step,'
said Martirosian.


Dashnak Party Seeks FM's Resignation
Armenia -- Giro Manoyan, a senior member of the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation, holds a news conference on 26Jun2009.
14.07.2009
Ruben Meloyan

A hardline Armenian party has unveiled its intention to seek the
resignation of Armenia's foreign minister over what it views as
President Serzh Sarkisian's failed policy in the Nagorno-Karabakh
settlement process. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(Dashnaktsutyun), however, said it would not present the resignation
demand for Sarkisian.

Dashnaktsutyun has been in intensive discussions since the end of a
pan-Armenian gathering held in Karabakh capital Stepanakert last
weekend to address concerns in the Armenian society over the current
state of the Karabakh negotiations.

In its final resolution, the Dashnaktsutyun-hosted conference urged
Armenia not to sign the framework agreement proposed by international
mediators based on principles that imply an indefinitely delayed
status for Karabakh. It also called on official Yerevan to pave the
way for Stepanakert's return to the negotiations as a full party.

After a plenary meeting in Yerevan, Dashnaktsutyun said it will stage
a protest in front of the Foreign Ministry building on Thursday
demanding the resignation of Edward Nalbandian.

The action will be held on the eve of President Serzh Sarkisian's
trip to Russian capital Moscow where he is due to hold another round
of talks over the longstanding dispute with his Azerbaijani
counterpart Ilham Aliev.

`Our problem is that if a leadership change implies the coming of
several figures of the [Armenian National] Congress to power, then we
have no guarantee that these forces will not conduct an even more
conciliatory policy than the current ones,' Dashnaktsutyun's senior
member and chief foreign policy spokesman Giro Manoyan said to RFE/RL
explaining reasons why his party is not presenting the demand for
President Sarkisian's resignation.

At the same time, Manoyan warned that if applied, a document on the
Karabakh settlement based on the updated Madrid principles would only
lead to a new war.

Yet, he said, Armenia still can redress the situation by changing its
stance and can achieve `a fairer and more acceptable ultimate deal by
engaging Karabakh in the negotiating format.'

`If anyone is to change the foreign minister, it must be the
president. If he does so, it will mean he is changing his policy,'
said Manoyan, without elaborating on Dashnaktsutyun's further action
if Sarkisian ignores its demand.

ArmeniaNow

What’s New in Peace Talk?:

“Updated” settlement on the table to Armenia

and Azerbaijan. But has anything changed?
By Analysis by Aris Ghazinyan
Published: 14 July, 2009

A new version of proposals on the Karabakh issue settlement by the

Co-chairs of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s

(OSCE) Minsk Group will be submitted to the presidents of Armenia and

Azerbaijan during their forthcoming meeting in Moscow (July 17).

This information released by the mediators who were visiting the region

has had a sensational effect.

The diplomats themselves were eager to demonstrate the effectiveness

of their work which has been raising certain doubts lately. And finally, they

managed to come up with something new and propose it to the negotiating

parties. At least the mediators themselves want to believe that.

There is nothing fundamentally new in the “updated version”. The only

principal issue – Nagorno-Karabakh’s status – has not undergone any

changes and couldn’t have done so in the current layout.

The “current layout” implies a more moderate position of Armenia’s

current president on all foreign policy issues. And if even during the

presidency of “hard-line” Robert Kocharyan Nagorno-Karabakh was

foreseen as a part of Azerbaijan, there are no grounds to think that this

major principle might be broken by a more moderate position of Serzh

Sargsyan.

At the same time, his counterpart’s position has not undergone any

fundamental changes, but for the fact that Ilham Aliyev’s rhetoric has

become more radical.

Then, what does the term “updated version” for settlement imply?

The only thing it does imply is the proposed new timeline for holding

the suggested referendum on adoption of the status for Nagorno

Karabakh, as well as for defining the actual roll of voters.

Armenia’s aim is to have only those citizens take part in the voting

who were living in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh when the war

broke out and during the war, because the main subject of the

negotiations is Nagorno-Karabakh’s status.

By this Yerevan is demonstrating an actual concession, since by that

it is withdrawing from those districts of historic Karabakh – Getabek,

Aghdam, Zangelan, Kubatlin, Lachin – that had been vacated and

systematically populated with Azeris and Kurds.

Azerbaijan insists on participation in the referendum of all

representatives of the population who were forced into migration from

all the districts currently controlled by NKR Defense troops. During the

war the total number of Azeris living in these five districts was more

than 500,000 people.

The only news, then, in the “updated version” can be in reference to

these issues.

However, this news cannot be qualified as principal, since by the date

of possible voting (given if the sides approve this new proposal)

Nagorno-Karabakh, one way or another, will remain recognized by the

larger international community as a part of Azerbaijan and it will be

Baku (with the assistance of the OSCE Minsk Group and, maybe,

even Yerevan) to prepare and hold the voting.

Last week, the presidents of the co-chairing countries – the United

States, Russia and France, adopted a trilateral statement in the

Italian town of L’Aquila (the venue for G8 summit), saying in part:

“We urge the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve the

few differences remaining between them and finalize their agreement

on these Basic Principles, which will outline a comprehensive settlement.”

In this connection, President Aliyev has made a statement that he is

ready to grant Nagorno-Karabakh broad autonomy, naturally within

Azerbaijan.

Such a statement has been voiced more than once by his father,

to which Armenia’s second president Robert Kocharyan used to answer

every time:

“Nagorno-Karabakh once had that broad autonomy within Azerbaijan

and we know what happened. The Armenian region of Nakhijevan used

to have such autonomy as well, today there isn’t a single Armenian left there”.

The mediators, nonetheless, liked the Azeri president’s statement.

“Ilham Aliyev’s statements create a favorable basis for developing the

“framework agreement,” stated OSCE Minsk Group’s US co-chair Matthew

Bryza in Baku on July 9.

Along with that, he stated that the new document holds points with which the

Armenian side also agrees. “We have drawn up a ‘framework agreement’,

some points Armenia does not agree with, however there are also those it

does agree with,” said Bryza.

However, there is no ground to believe that the ‘framework agreement’ will

be signed during the presidents’ forthcoming meeting in Moscow. The

co-chairs themselves made such a statement in Baku on July 10: “No

agreement on the Karabakh issue settlement will be signed at the forthcoming

meeting.”

They even recommended to wait for official statements from the Armenian

and Azeri presidents. In any case, neither the ‘framework agreement’ drawn

up by the co-chairs, nor the “updated version” of the settlement defines

Nagorno-Karabakh’s status, but only point out the time and place of holding

the referendum.


Press Reviews
14.07.2009
Tigran Avetisian

Armenian newspapers continue to analyze the latest joint statement
issued by the leaders of the nations that lead international
mediatory efforts in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process as well as
its impact on the further negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The `Aravot' editor writes that he was surprised to see such passions
in Armenia and Azerbaijan over the publication of yet another version
of the resolution.

`If the matter concerned maps and territories, it would be possible
to speak in this manner... But Karabakh is not a territory. It is first
of all people. These people have elected their authorities - call
them whatever you want, even a separatist regime. And now even if the
cleverest men of the world gather around a map with the best
intentions, it will be impossible to solve the problem without these
people and the authorities elected by them.'

`Iravunk de-facto' writes on the same subject: `The only new thing
about all this is the statement of the [OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairing
states' leaders at the G8 Summit, which only means that the status
quo continues.'

`Hayots Ashkhar' suggests that while it seems that the statement by
the Minsk Group co-heading nations' leaders and the publication of
the Madrid principles are coordinated political dictates that block
the opportunity for either side to avoid them, `a thorough analysis
of the internal checks leads to the conclusion that the de-coding of
the Madrid principles is only the visible tip of the complex and
multifaceted Russo-American relations.'

`Chorrord Ishkhanutyun' suggests that `this is not the case when one
can pretend that nothing has happened.

`Whether they want it or not, the Armenian authorities must express
their official standpoint,' writes the paper. `The panic within the
government is obvious. Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian even
welcomes the statement issues by the three presidents. Moreover, he
thanks them for this statement. Meanwhile, his deputy Shavarsh
Kocharian says that this statement bears the stamp of Azerbaijani
propaganda... This only reveals that Armenia lacks foreign policy as
such.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~