Karabakh Says, Any Return to Past Unacceptable

The Foreign Ministry of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic


STEPANAKERT—The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Foreign Ministry on Thursday issued a statement in response to an official US position paper that was made public Wednesday by the OSCE Minsk Group’s US Co-chairman James Warlick.

“We consider it necessary to note that the position of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic on the prospects of resolving the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict remains unchanged,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic said in the statement.

“Any return to the past is out of question. The fate of Nagorno Karabakh has been determined by its people through a free and legitimate expression of will in the 1991 referendum on independence. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s independence and security are absolute values that are not subject to any bargaining,” added the statement.

“We believe that the joint efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group should focus on the development of such settlement mechanisms that stem from current realities and provide conditions for the peaceful coexistence of two independent states – the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan – emerged as a result of the collapse of the USSR and the war unleashed by Azerbaijan,” the Foreign Ministry said.

In his remarks, delivered Wednesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Warlick put forth six points, which he said was the US position on how best to resolve the conflict.
“In no particular order,” Warlick said, “these elements are:
First, 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.
Second, the area within the boundaries of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region that is not controlled by Baku should be granted an interim status that, at a minimum, provides guarantees for security and self-governance.
Third, 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.
Fourth, 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.
Fifth, an enduring settlement will have to recognize the right of all IDPs and refugees to return to their former places of residence.
Sixth and finally, a settlement must include international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation. There is no scenario in which peace can be assured without a well-designed peacekeeping operation that enjoys the confidence of all sides.”
To clarify the issue of the so-called “occupied territories,” US Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern said that “the status of Nagorno Karabakh and its adjacent territories should be differentiated.”

Heffern told the Yerevan-based Mediamax news agency, Heffern said the Warlick statement was an attempt to provide renewed impetus to the negotiation process. According to him, the statement aims to call on the conflict parties and societies to differentiate the status of Nagorno Karabakh and its adjacent territories.

“We feel that both capitals and people view those territories as whole Nagorno Karabakh whereas those are different territories, and there should be different outcomes depending on it,” Heffern told Mediamax.

Meanwhile in Baku, Azerbaijan’s foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov on Thursday said that in order for peace to prevail Armenians, first and foremost, must withdraw from the so-called “occupied territories.”

“Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is not a subject of negotiations,” said Mammadyarov, adding that Baku has agreed to “start working on a peace treaty to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.”

Authors

Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

13 Comments

  1. Mihran said:

    The US can never be trusted in solving any problem in the world,they will just make it worse as the principles of human rights, democracy,and justice does not come into play any more just corporate interests, in this case oil,gas,and pipelines.

    The world is littered with examples of US foreign policy failures,Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria,Palestine,Cyprus,Egypt,Balkans,Ukraine,not to mention a list of regime changes all over the world by the US in order to suit US interests.

    The US uses soft power coupled with illegal sanctions,media information blockage,putting pressure on countries to follow their line or else, and directing most of the main media channels to pursue the US narrative.

    Sadly,this is what you get from the US these days,its not the US as we knew it.

  2. Vindicated Man said:

    They must use the Arbitral Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award. Those borders are the de jure ones. I don’t understand all of this noise about the “occupied territories”. Its all Artsakh’s land, how can it be “occupied”? Azerbaijan is a formation that was created artificially by Nuri Pasha, and then cloned by Bolsheviks.

  3. dvo said:

    Apres Artsakh jan duxet texna es cloner@ ov exan vor etqan mer aryun tapats hoghi vra petqa tanq Aziknerin.
    Menqel moratselenq ha vor mer sax patmakan hogere iants dzerna.

    Anywhere without Syunik and Artsakh. Without this strong geographic spine of Armenian our holistic homeland can not exist.

    Garegin Nzhdeh

  4. Verdascian said:

    More of the same kefte with different ingredients. American peace plans, normalization, acceptance, redrawing of lines,etc,etc,are tantamount to war schemes under the diplomatic guise of peace making. Politicians have a job to do, Warlick is just doing his job and keeping his job at the same time. It is patently clear the one sided and biased tilt of this peace kefte, like the others before, in favor of Azeri and to the detriment of Armenia. As a matter of real politics the recognition of Artsakh is a pre condition to any future discussions regarding border lines and international relations with Azeris. If Azeris and the so called international community ( American policy) refrain from granting recognition to Artsakh they are condemning the no peace no war situation to perpetuity.

  5. Areg said:

    Enough of playing around with words and promises. These are Artsakh lands and no one will give the Azeri Turks any land. Let us talk about Nakhijevan first and nothing else. The answer is VOCH and final.
    I do not trust James Warlick nor Hefern and their security guarantees. The Artsakh army is able to secure the Artsakh land and no thanks to any offers from anybody.
    Long live free and independent Artsakh. Long live the heroic people of Artsakh. Long live the Artsakh army.
    .Warlick can pack up and go home. Warlick can go elsewhere and mess around all he wants but not in Artsakh.

    • Hbaghoomian said:

      *** well said., Artsakh lands & independence are absolutely not negotiable.,., period.!!!,

    • George said:

      Why free and independent Artsakh? Why not a unified Artsakh with Armenia? A single entity for the Armenian state.

  6. GeorgeMardig said:

    The West is entertaining Amenians with Artzakh so that they will not concentrate on Woodrow Wilson’s treaty

  7. Tony said:

    In my view, because of some of the staff in the State Department are anti Christian, we cant’s expect any better than this. The State department goes on with the wishes of the NATO ally Turkey.

  8. gamavor said:

    We don’t trade with our freedom. They can shove the “six elements” whre the sun is not shining.

  9. Mabuballah said:

    Heffern and Warlick can talk about “occupied” land(s), allright. They come from one. (Ask any American Indian.) Further, their “security guarantees” can be expected to do the Artsakh Armenians fully as much good as the UN peacekeeping zones in Western Slavonia and the Krajina did for the Serbs in 1995,

    What I cannot understand is, why does Armenia spend its treasure and risk its blood to do NATO’s dirty work in Kosovo?

*

Top