I do not like writing an article “hot on the trail”, the topic should “boil” vaporizing the emotions as much as possible. But after what Nikol Pashinyan said in the National Assembly on May 25 I can not restrain myself.
On May 22 the meeting of the President of the European Council Charles Michel with the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan took place in Brussels after which Charles Michel came up with an extensive statement.
On May 25, answering the questions of the MPs in the National Assembly, Nikol Pashinyan outdid himself in indulging in wishful thinking.
He said that a very serious discussion took place in Brussels as a result of which the differences in the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been registered:
“Azerbaijan considers the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolved, Armenia considers that it has not been resolved. In the possible context of the peace talks, Azerbaijan presented its five principles, and we presented our observations and the agenda and said that talks should be held on that basis. The principles we have proposed contain the security of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, the rights and the clarification of the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh. As there was no agreement between the parties on the formulations as a result of the discussions, the president of the European Council decided to make a statement that would reflect as many elements as possible from the positions of both parties. How well it turned out, how accurate it is, is a matter of another discussion.”
That is, Nikol Pashinyan is trying to convince us that one of the leaders of the EU tried to collect a “puzzle” from the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan, taking “a little” from each. In the past 4 years Nikol Pashinyan not once has proved his unique perception of diplomacy and international relations, but this time he outdid himself.
I’ll bring few quotes from Charles Mishel’s statement:
“They agreed on (emphasized by me-A.T.) the principles governing transit between western Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, and between different parts of Armenia via Azerbaijan, as well as international transport through communications infrastructure of both countries. Notably they agreed on principles of border administration, security, land fees but also customs in the context of international transport.”
“They agreed on (emphasized by me-A.T.) principles of border administration, security, land fees but also customs in the context of international transport.”
“The leaders agreed to (emphasized by me-A.T.) advance discussions on the future peace treaty governing inter-state relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”
At least in three points the President of the European Council clearly and unequivocally speaks about achieved agreements and makes no mention of disagreements in any point of his statement.
Let me make an effort and try to believe Pashinyan’s words. But what does it mean “How well it turned out, how accurate it is, is a matter of another discussion.”?
Any person with basic understanding of diplomacy, can state that such statements are being agreed on with the parties before being published. There can be no other way. The alternative is possible only in the case Pashinyan and members of his team did not want to get familiarized with the text of Michel’s statement in advance. If the head of the state says “how well it turned out, how accurate it is, is a matter of another discussion” about a document crucial for the future of Armenia and Artsakh, unfortunately, we can not rule out it either.
This article is not about whether Charles Michel’s statement is “good” or “bad”. It is about the fact that the state is being governed by a self-taught prime minister who thinks he can “incriminate” Charles Michel to save his own face and take us for idiots.
Ara Tadevosyan is Director of Mediamax.