Mediamax’s interview with the head of the second Armenian President’s Office

- On May 7, 2014, U.S. Embassy in Yerevan published the speech of the OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-Chair James Warlick in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in which the diplomat dwelled on the Nagorno Karabakh settlement. How would you comment on the speech?

- Omitting the major part of the speech which communicates the Co-Chair’s personal views on the conflict and geopolitical situation on the whole, I should note that the 6 elements declared in the speech which according to Warlick reflect the “main elements of the “confirmed” compromise and “make part of the U.S. policy toward OSCE Minsk Group operation and NK settlement”, evoke serious worries.

The voiced elements - if they currently underlie the negotiation process - are an unacceptable step backward for the Armenian side as compared to the famous Madrid Principles. First of all, it’s a vague formulation on determination of the NKR’s future status without mention to plebiscite which cannot be realized in practice, as well as the formula on Lachin corridor status. At the same time, for the Armenian side, the value of the Madrid document was first of all in recognizing Nagorno Karabakh’s right of self-determination through the expression of the people’s will and identity of the Lachin coridor status to the NK status. The issues essential for the Armenian side are for some reason obscured in Warlick’s  speech, and vice versa, the more sensitive ones are highly stressed. On the whole, the formulation is developed in a way as to allow the parties to interpret them in their own way. The Co-Chairs made such attempts formerly as well. But this approach can’t prove successful.

- There have recently been many opinions that James Warlick haven’t stated anything new and rather, he’s repeated the postulates endorsed in Madrid Principles in the first place.

- Instead of a reply, I would suggest you publishing the same provisions of the Madrid Document which touch upon the issues I mentioned above - the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh’s right of self-determination through a referendum and the status of the Lachin corridor. Their comparison with the relevant “Warlick’s elements” vividly demonstrates the significant difference between them.

******

Madrid Document (29 November 2007)

Status of NK

The final legal status of NK will be determined through a plebiscite allowing the free and genuine expression of the will of population of NK. The modalities and timing of this plebiscite will be agreed by the parties through future negotiations as described in (9). The population of NK is understood as the population of all ethnicities living in NK in 1988, in the same ethnic proportions as before the outbreak of the conflict. The formulation of the question or questions to be asked in the plebiscite should not be limited, and could cover the full range of status options.

Lachin

A corridor of an agreed width will link NK to Armenia. Until the determination of the final legal status of NK, this corridor will be maintained by the NK interim authorities under the conditions of the status quo prevailing when the Peace Agreement enters into force. After the determination of the final legal status of NK, the functioning of the corridor will be regulated taking into account NK’s final status.

James Warlick’s statement

Status of NK

In light of Nagorno-Karabakh’s complex history, the sides should commit to determining its final legal status through a mutually agreed and legally binding expression of will in the future.  This is not optional.  Interim status will be temporary.

Lachin

The occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh should be returned to Azerbaijani control.  There can be no settlement without respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, and the recognition that its sovereignty over these territories must be restored.

There should be a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh.  It must be wide enough to provide secure passage, but it cannot encompass the whole of Lachin district.