“Whoever we talked to, they talk about it. We want to understand what is being talked about with Azerbaijan, there are problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan that have been going on since the 1990s, there is a refugee issue, etc. In statements made by Baku, they sometimes say that these refugees must return, etc. Is this perceived as a territorial demand, the issue of the return of these people, etc. What is your perspective, your point of view on this issue, when Azerbaijan also raises the issue of the return of refugees?” a Turkish journalist asked Nikol Pashinyan.
“There is a very important addition to your question. Azerbaijan actually raises an issue that it calls “western Azerbaijan”. And Azerbaijan calls “western Azerbaijan” approximately 60-70% of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia and invites us to discuss the issue of “western Azerbaijan”, while calling 60-70% of the territory of the Republic of Armenia “western Azerbaijan”. We say that there is no “western Azerbaijan” in Armenia. If we want to look for western Azerbaijan, or see western Azerbaijan, then western Azerbaijan is the Kazakh, Aghstafa, Getabey, Kelbajar, Lachin, Zangelan, Kubatlu regions of Azerbaijan, if I forgot to name some of the regions, it does not mean a deliberate omission, but I mean, we can look at the map and say where western Azerbaijan is. Here is western Azerbaijan. There is no western Azerbaijan on this side of this line. In case of great desire, Nakhchivan can also be considered western Azerbaijan in geographical terms.
I mean, they are trying to place this under the logic of humanitarian issues, calling on us to discuss some issue, but I say again, they call 60% of the sovereign territory of our country “western Azerbaijan”. And therefore, such an issue is not something to be discussed by us, it cannot be discussed by any country.
And in general, if we are talking about the topic of refugees, I have already mentioned, we even have a document about the return of refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions. In Armenia and the Diaspora, there are refugees from Nakhichevan, Baku, Sumgait, the adjacent regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ganja, etc. Our perception is that these are simply territorial claims against Armenia, and therefore we cannot discuss this issue.
The so-called “Zangezur corridor” is also unacceptable for us for this very reason, because it contains a territorial claim against the Republic of Armenia. If we are talking about transport communication and economic communication, we are open and say yes, we are ready, as I have already said, to unblock regional, transport and economic ties under the conditions of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, jurisdiction and reciprocity of the countries. And understanding that there are complications, we even say that we are ready for certain simplifications so that this becomes a reality, and we have made a specific proposal for the restoration of the railway connection and are waiting for Azerbaijan’s response. Moreover, we are not publishing the essence of this proposal for the simple reason to rule out a violation of diplomatic ethics, since it would mean revealing the essence of a working document, but in our assessment we have resolved this issue and expect a similar solution for ourselves.
Today I say that we have proposed a solution that will solve the issue of railway freight transportation from western Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through the territory of Armenia. All that remains is for Azerbaijan to agree to this solution. Moreover, since 2022, if I am not mistaken, the Government has been circulating a draft Government decision on the opening of three checkpoints on the border with Azerbaijan. In other words, the draft is about opening checkpoints at specific border points so that Azerbaijani vehicles, cargo, and citizens can travel through the territory of the Republic of Armenia, including to Nakhichevan. And this is how we see the issue.
Azerbaijan contradicts itself. In what way? Azerbaijan contradicts itself by the fact that they officially call 2021 and the following period a post-conflict period. But they speak the language of conflict every day. In other words, these two narratives of Azerbaijan do not match each other. Every day the language of conflict, every day aggressive rhetoric, every day force, if not every day, very often, very often the threat of force and the use of force, and the narrative of “western Azerbaijan” that calls into question the very existence of Armenia, let’s be honest, the very existence of the state of Armenia. And in parallel, an invitation to discuss, sorry, in my opinion, that is at least strange.
By the way, and it is perhaps within the framework of that peace formula that on the one hand I say that starting from this line, western Azerbaijan is here, but there is no “western Azerbaijan” on this side of this line, but I understand that this conversation would be incomplete if I did not say that western Armenia is also here. This is essentially two sentences, but this is our perception of peace and our idea, because if these formulas do not exist, moreover, I say again, there may be all sorts of different perceptions of history, historical events, etc., but if we want to build peace, it is impossible to build anything on a flowing region.
By the way, there is something very important. Let us not forget that the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan already have the first mutually ratified international document, which is the regulations of the delimitation commissions of our countries, which was signed by the commissions of our countries and ratified according to the domestic procedures of our countries, where it is recorded that the basis, the basic principle of delimitation is the Alma-Ata Declaration. The Alma-Ata Declaration, which was signed in 1991, makes two references in the context of our issue, the first is that the Soviet Union ceases to exist, and the administrative borders of the countries of the Soviet Union become state borders. And therefore, this narrative already contradicts the de jure document existing between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it directly contradicts it. We are committed to that agreement and are consistently and patiently moving towards peace,” Pashinyan answered.
