Participation of Artsakh was Discussed in Vienna, No Agreement Achieved: PM Pashinyan


Because the Azerbaijani side has recently made statements that are outside the scope of the joint statement, I would like to make several clarifications, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated today in a Facebook live.

The Armenian prime minister underlined that the old and ineffective texts must be forgotten to ensure that the negotiations are effective.

Pashinyan reasserted that he went to the negotiations in Vienna with the agenda of Stepanakert outlined at the joint meeting of the Security Councils on March 12. “I had stated in that meeting that the participation of the representatives of Artsakh in the negotiations is very important to us. This is not a whim and precondition for change of format of negotiations, this is a matter of making the process of negotiations effective,” he said.

According to Pashinyan, when Azerbaijan says that the format is unchanged, it appears that they won the discussion. “This is not correct in the framework of the logic that we agreed upon, not to look for winners and losers. By underlining and putting forth the issue of participation of Karabakh we did not put forth the issue of change of format of talks. The negotiations under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group is not in doubt, the question is what this format means in fact. Nagorno-Karabakh was a party to the talks for a long time, and the participation of Karabakh was at the basis of the talks since the first stage of negotiations,” he said.

Pashinyan said that the participation of Artsakh in the talks was discussed at the meeting with Aliyev in Vienna but there was no agreement.

Does this mean that the issue is out of discussion? No, discussions will continue. We gave another argument: since 1998 Karabakh has been represented in the talks because we say that in 98 it was pushed out, formally this is so but in 1998-2018 it was involved in the negotiations because Armenia was represented by people who were leaders of Karabakh by biography and could be considered as such to some extent.

The people of Karabakh may think that they are represented in these talks. Our argument is that until 1998 and after 1998 Karabakh was present in the process of negotiations and now Karabakh has been left out of the process of negotiations. We have a basis of very serious arguments. I only want to say that this point on the agenda has been established and discussed at full, Pashinyan said.

Speaking about the principles of Madrid, Pashinyan said that clarifications must be received on them. “This issue has been raised during the discussion with the Azerbaijani president and with the participation of co-chairs. These clarifications have not been received because these are very broad issues and cannot be received during one discussion. This means that we must discuss later. We have delegated this to the foreign ministers to discuss.”

Source link

Products You May Like

Articles You May Like

Refinance and get “Credit vacation” on loans secured with real estate at Ardshinbank
Japanese data on cruise ship coronavirus infections backs quarantine strategy
Robots, clocks and computers: How Ancient Greeks got there first
Did Neanderthals bury their dead with flowers? Iraq cave yields new clues
Speed science: The risks of swiftly spreading coronavirus research

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *