- After the last round of talks in Key West the mediators stated about their intention to start consultations with the leadership of Iran. Your nomination as a co-chairman followed it. Can we assume that the fact that until recent you were the Ambassador of France to Iran played a decisive role in your nomination?

- I am not sure I have been appointed co-chairman because of my diplomatic service in Iran. I believe the fact that I am familiar with Central Europe and Russia and I speak Russian played some part in it. At the same time, it’s apparent that the 2,5 years I spent in Iran allow me to understand better the interest of that country in its direct neighbor. The co-chairs are going to inform the leadership of Iran about the peace process so that it got assured that no “plot” is being woven against Teheran. We realize that the settlement of Karabakh conflict must not harm anybody. I think Iran is the number-one interested in the establishment of stability in the region, taking into account the number of crisis zones around that country.

- Lately, the mediators do not conceal their concern about the fact that the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders, according to them, are more ready for compromises than their people. Do the presidents have to prepare their people for compromises themselves or will the mediators help them?

- We don’t live in dictatorial countries. Of course it would be much easier if only the heads of both states could make decisions. But a lasting peace is impossible without public support. Certainly, it is necessary to prepare the public opinion of both countries for peace, realizing that the chosen path may sometimes require vulnerable compromises. But the benefits of the settlement will be so significant that they will ease the pain.

- And what will the mediators do if the political forces and peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan do not accept the agreement the presidents will come to?

- That’s the domestic affair of each of the countries. Mediators do not impose decisions but help to find new ideas. I know total conformity of opinions is impossible, but at the same time both sides are willing to achieve peace.

- Can we say the issue of Karabakh’s future status is the most complicated at the talks?

- A peace agreement is an ensemble of difficult interrelated elements. It’s like a house of cards. When you touch a card, the whole construction starts to move. Today we are at a very delicate stage of negotiations. If to compare it with the construction of a house, we are now doing the interior finishing works, which always last more than the others do.

- After the meeting with the mediators, NKR Foreign Minister said the co-chairmen came to understand that it was useless to speak about Karabakh’s subordination to Azerbaijan. Has Naira Melkumian interpreted you correctly?

- The very reason of our visit to Nagorno Karabakh was to listen to different viewpoints. We have seen how much those people are attached to their land. You understand things better on the spot. However, these are very delicate issues. They are as much delicate for Azerbaijan as well.

- Judging from the last statements of the mediators, the Geneva meeting planned in June will be postponed. The implied point of the statements is that it must be thoroughly prepared for. Who is to get prepared at this stage – the presidents, or the co-chairmen working over new ideas and proposals?

- I wouldn’t say the mediators are out of work. We are in regular contact with each other. No need to draw wrong conclusions from the fact that the Geneva meeting will not be held soon. For the achievement of a final result the meeting must be thoroughly prepared for.

- There are some reports that the Russian side was the initiator to postpone the meeting.

- It is not true. There is a perfect mutual understanding between the three Co-chairs and I am saying this not for diplomatic reasons. In some way I am a “novice” in this process and when I started my work I was impressed by the level of interactions between the mediators. If you follow our statements and find contradictions there, frankly, I will be very surprised.

Why not, the Karabakh settlement may become an example of cooperation in other spheres as well. At the same time, I can assure you, the possible disagreements of the Co-chairs in other issues will not affect the Karabakh peace process.

- Despite the confidentiality of negotiations, there leaked out some information that a variant is being considered, according to which Azerbaijan will be given a communication corridor to get connected with Nakhichevan via the territory of Armenia. Many political forces in Yerevan think that in case of implementation of this plan Armenia will loose a part of its sovereignty.

- There are many speculations over this subject and there is much fictitious in it as well. We realize the importance of these issues for both sides and I think the grounds for worry are exaggerated.

- We hear the word “compromise” quite often. How would you classify this concept? May it happen so that what is named a compromise in Armenia it may be considered natural in Azerbaijan, or vice versa?

- Every time when the matter is about the conclusion of peace, each of the sides thinks the rival gets more. The whole difficulty of the process lies in the very search for a balance point. It is very important because unstable peace may give birth to revanchist moods any time.

- Is the providing of the above mentioned communication corridor to Azerbaijan considered a compromise on the part of Armenia?

- You will be able to form an impression about it when the documents are published. Until then, figuratively speaking, you taste the dish and say, “It’s not tasty!” But the true art is to prepare a perfect sauce. And so, the sauce is not ready yet.

- Do you feel any difference in the moods of Kocharian and Aliev?

- Both the sides are resolute to settle the conflict. Those are two men with extremely developed sense of personal responsibility. As a new man in the settlement process, I was very impressed by that. It is natural that each of them has his nature and individuality. But both the presidents are capable people and big patriots.

- Some political forces in Armenia are sure that a “geopolitical remake” of the region is taking place under the guise of the settlement of the conflict.

- Any “remake” is out of the question. A topic of discussion is the integration in the region. In the times of globalization, an unsociable country is doomed. By the way, in this context the existence of dynamic Diaspora provides a chance to Armenia. But it will work out only if the country doesn’t remain an “isolated camp”.

- The regional integration is hampered by the blockade of Armenia by Turkey and the open biased position of the latter in the Karabakh peace process.

- Turkey is a regional great state with developing democracy. Of course, it would have been easier if the relations between Ankara and Yerevan were normalized. I am sure Turkey will find its benefit from the peace settlement, and this will promote the improvement of its ties with Armenia.

- Your American colleague Carey Cavanaugh reminded recently that many world leaders have given their lives for peace. Is such a pessimistic scenario possible in case of the Karabakh conflict?

- I am not that pessimistic. Yes, there have been lost chances, but there is no need to draw final conclusions from it. It is really difficult for the leaders of the countries to make that decision. We can say it’s their duty to act with extreme circumspection. Let’s just hope there will be no displays of extremism from the both sides.

Much depends from the moods in public opinion. One shouldn’t be a pessimist or a simple-minded optimist. The thing is just not to lose the chance.