Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to Petros Ghazaryan on October 10. The full transcript of the interview is presented below.
Petros Ghazaryan - Good evening dear viewers. We continue to follow the highlights. Today we will talk with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. Good evening Mr. Pashinyan, thank you for agreeing to the interview. We had agreed that we will talk about external political challenges, but today a member of your team, Tigran Avinyan, was elected mayor of Yerevan. My question is the following: the government did not win, but the opposition lost, they could not come up with a single candidate, and mathematically they had won by one vote. What conclusions do you draw?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - First of all, let's start with who won and who would have won in any case. Democracy won, the voter won, the voter who went to the polling station and also the voter who didn't go to the polling station, because that was his choice, and the revolution won. Why do I say this? First, because we all understand and understood the political significance and importance of the Yerevan Council of Elders elections, and in these elections, by the way, the distribution of votes could change significantly in the political sense.
I had specifically asked to be informed about it, if 50-150 votes were distributed in a different way as a result of counting the votes of the elections, the situation could have changed politically. And the fact that the results of these elections were largely determined by 50-150 votes, showed our unwavering commitment to the values of the popular, non-violent, velvet revolution of 2018, to democracy, the rule of law and unquestionable respect for the will of the people. This is the first.
In other words, we have already irrefutably proved twice what we said in the public squares that we will cut off our hands, but we will not falsify a single vote. And I think that there will be no need to prove this anymore, in the sense that it is clear to everyone that any government at any level in the Republic of Armenia can be formed only and only through the free expression of will of the people.
Next, the political consequence of the election results is that the forces that acted as the bearer and defender of the values of the revolution of 2018, acted on that platform, those forces gathered more than 60 percent of votes. Another thing is who among them is truly committed to those values and who is manipulating those values. Now, I think, at least with the results of the elections, we have seen who, first of all, base their political activity on the values of the revolution.
I also want to express my words of appreciation to the "Republic" Party, which, I believe, won a very significant number of votes thanks to its consistent policy, including its commitment to the values of revolution and democracy. As a matter of fact, we will jointly carry out the management the capital city of Yerevan, which I think is not bad. And I also want to express my committment to all the programs and promises that the "Civil Contract" party had during the pre-election period.
Of course, we also have to find comparable points in the pre-election program of the "Republic" Party and our program, because if there are conflicting points, we will have to make a decision about it later, but I don't think there will be conflicting points. And it is a good opportunity for Tigran Avinyan, a member of the board of the "Civil Contract" party, the newly elected Mayor of Yerevan, to show the ability to consolidate, including the comparable provisions in the pre-election programs of the opposition forces.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, you spoke about the victory of democracy, it is very good that we have reached the point where the winner is determined this way and that with 150 votes. But look, both the opposition and the government depended on Dog and Dog’s party. if he came, there would be a quorum, Avinyan would be elected, if he didn't come, there would be new elections.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - If you want to say whether the election voting results give us food for thought, yes, they give food for thought. They give reason to think, to analyze, to draw conclusions, and this will definitely happen, but at least at this stage, I do not want to make the voter's decision a subject of discussion in any way.
Yes, we must analyze the voter's decision, yes, we must draw conclusions from the voter's decision, yes, we must understand the voter's decision. But from the point of view of making a political decision on electoral arithmetic, at least now that the first session of the Yerevan Council of Elders took place today, I do not want to discuss it because I do not want it to turn out that we are questioning the voter's decision in any way. But are there difficult issues for us to face there, we as a ruling political force and party? Yes, there are, and we will do it.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, from the beginning, you said that some formulas were put in place, that 150 votes could be moved here and there. So were you offered to shift over 150 votes?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - No, I am not talking about that. There was a vote and the results of the elections were counted, and we saw from the results of the elections that if 50-150 votes were distributed differently, the situation you mentioned would not have happened. In other words, if we and our potential coalition partner, for example, the "Republic" Party had got 50 more votes, we would have 33 votes instead of 32. This is what the situation was like. Or if any of the other forces got 150 votes less, we would have a completely different situation. In other words, the situation you mentioned, the dependence on the third force, would not have happened.
I am saying this to show our most important political commitment that the vote of the citizen will be decisive, it could be even so that the situation could depend on a single vote, and that one vote would be inviolable, no matter how much it would complicate the political situation. During our administration, no one will touch that vote to change the political situation one way or the other.
As for the proposal, I'm sorry, first of all, it is usually the government that made or makes such proposals and not the other way around, and naturally, these issues are not even debatable for us. The results of the elections also showed that the noise raised during the pre-election period that this government is going to falsify, is going to usurp, use administrative resources, abuse, etc., the elections showed our absolute loyalty to the values that we had adopted when assuming power in the Republic of Armenia.
Petros Ghazaryan - What did Granada give us, Mr. Prime Minister? The opposition says that it gave nothing, Aliyev did not go, we went and signed unilaterally and there were demands that we did not make. The authorities say this was almost a victory. What did Granada give us?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I think it would be correct to use fewer adverbs in this situation and to focus on nuances and content, because, unfortunately, there are no absolute ideal situations and there will never be.
Petros Ghazaryan - Why did you go if Aliyev was not going to go?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - It will be clear from the answer to your first question. What did Granada give us? Granada gave us two very important statements. The first was the quadripartite statement: President Macron, Chancellor Scholz, European Council President Charles Michel and myself. And secondly, our bilateral statement with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.
And, in fact, what was recorded by this was a very important point that there is a consensus in the European Union regarding the deepening of relations with Armenia. This is what it means, because the two pillars of the European Union, the European Council and the European Commission, recorded this fact.
Next, in both statements, the pillars of peace in our region were recorded from the point of view of the European Union and ours. One of those pillars is the mutual recognition of the territorial integrity of Armenia and Azerbaijan, emphasizing the size of the territories, which we have talked about many times, and secondly, that the border delimitation process should take place based on the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991 and also according to the maps of the last period of the Soviet Union transferred to the parties.
And third, that the unblocking of communications in the region must take place under the full protection of the sovereignty of countries, jurisdiction, equality and reciprocity. And also the fact that it was recorded and condemned the use of force by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh, the forced displacement of the Nagorno-Karabakh people was recorded, the readiness of the European Union and also the United States to support Armenia in this process of managing the humanitarian situation, it was recorded that the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh should have the right to return to Nagorno-Karabakh without preconditions, and their right must be protected.
And it was recorded that the European Union is ready to deepen the relations with Armenia as much as, in fact, Armenia would like or as much as it corresponds to Armenia's needs. These are advantages. Now what is the flaw or disadvantage? The disadvantage is that the statement, particularly the first statement, is four-sided and not five-sided. In other words, if from the beginning it was planned that it should be five-sided, but the absence of Azerbaijan's signature under that document is, of course, one of the shortcomings. Because if, for example, Azerbaijan's signature was under that paper, I would say now that the probability that we will sign a peace agreement by the end of the year is higher than 70 percent.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, what security problems do we have? We have seen, and you have emphasized a lot, that the Azerbaijani troops are on our borders, they have occupied heights in Jermuk and are keeping our lands under direct target. Did this declaration, which was signed in Granada, neutralize this danger? On the basis of this, will we see the withdrawal of Azerbaijani troops from the Armenian lands that it captured from the Republic of Armenia? Next, why didn't we raise the issue of the prisoners, both of 2020 and of the leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh recently arrested by Azerbaijan? There are questions about why we don’t take those steps?
Look, Aliyev didn't go, in fact, he talked about the sanctions, about his concerns, and Macron announced that at this stage the sanctions will not be effective against Azerbaijan. Why don't we say our captives, heights, etc.?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Actually, in that statement, there is a reference to the issue of prisoners and there was a call to all parties to release all prisoners. We have always expressed readiness to go to such solutions. By the way, the quadripartite statement also addressed the issue of missing persons or persons whose whereabouts are considered unknown.
As for the rest of your question. those three principles I mentioned also address the issues you mentioned. Because when we base the delimitation on concrete maps, border violations are recorded, and this means that in the process of delimitation, those border violations must be eliminated. Now the problem is that under this wording there is no signature of Azerbaijan, but on the other hand, at least in the Western circles, an official understanding has already been formed that this should be the basis for a future peaceful settlement. I mean, in fact, in those lines, when I talked about the three pillars, those three pillars record all the questions you raised, and of course there is a reference to the issue of the captives.
Petros Ghazaryan - Aliyev said in a telephone conversation with Charles Michel that he demands the liberation of their enclaves. He claims 8 villages. To what extent does this demand fit into this negotiation logic?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Before answering the question directly, I would like us to have a general idea of the context. And why didn't Azerbaijan come and sign, or what are the hypotheses? Azerbaijan's public explanation is that they have a problem with France's position, they do not consider it an impartial observer. This is one view.
The second interpretation, which, by the way, will be an opportunity to check in the near future, is that Azerbaijan is still trying to prevent peace from becoming reality. And for that they can make attempts, or there is such an interpretation, for example, there are a number of topics that they will and can use for further tensions and escalations. This is the reason why we should not show an emotional approach to any issue and we should take stock of all the problems or issues raised by Azerbaijan and adopt clear positions that are understandable to the world, our public, and everyone, which derive from the interests of Armenia and the interests of Armenia's security. Now look, Azerbaijan is raising the issue of 8 villages. First of all, we say that we also have a problem related to 8 villages, because in the same Tavush region, for example, we have territories occupied by Azerbaijan in Berkaber village, Aygehovit village, Vazashen village, Paravakar village, and other areas as well.
We proposed a solution to that issue back in 2021 and said let's decide what the delimitation map is, and pull back the troops simultaneously from the border line according to that map. These are very important nuances. I understand that we are speaking quickly, but sometimes our public does not read and understand the nuances accurately. That is, suppose we take 1975 or 1975-1978 maps. In addition, I want to draw your attention to a fact that, in fact, during the entire period of the Soviet Union, when we have records about the territories, the territory of the Republic of Armenia is always estimated to 29,800 square kilometers. Why am I saying this? I say this with the consideration that there is a lot of discussion that the map of this year, the map of that year... yes, there are certain differences in those maps, but there is no difference in the general perimeter, because if this one area in this map belongs the Republic of Armenia, the other territory does not belong to the Republic of Armenia, in the next map the territory that did not belong to Armenia, now it belongs to Armenia. That is, the estimate of the total area does not change from it. And so we say, let's address the issues, because we understand, and experience shows us that any unresolved issue or any issue that is not on the rails of resolution will become an occasion for military escalation at "x" moment.
In other words, we address that topic in this way, because I want you to know very clearly what we are talking about during the negotiations. We say, very well, if for example one of the parties has to return some territory to the other, it concerns both sides, because yes, you mentioned that we have a problem in Jermuk, in other places, etc., let's assume that the troops are now standing on this line, and in order for any issue to be resolved in that regard, they must withdraw from this line, is that right? Now they have to retreat, on which line should they stand, that is, in both cases, to which point should the troops retreat from point A? Suppose the map says this point. How do we determine that this point is here and not 5 km ahead or 2 km back? How will we determine the position of the parties? It’s determined by map. That is, if there is a map, there is a point, it means there is a border, if there is a border at this point, the border cannot be only at that point, it means there is a border all along. Therefore, we must adjust according to the borders set by the Declaration of Alma-Ata. Was I able to explain the point, because the nuances are very complex.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, two questions. For example, I often do not understand why we measure mutual recognition of territorial integrity in square meters, because there are many countries that have recognized each other's territorial integrity, but they have problems, because recognizing territorial integrity means that you are not going to resolve these controversial issues by force.
We have had delimitation problems with Georgia for years, Azerbaijan has had delimitation problems with Russia, but this does not mean that they do not mutually recognize territorial integrity of one another.
Secondly, why don’t we rely on the document given by the OSCE Secretariat in December, 2017, where it is proposed to adopt principles before delimitation and demarcation, and when you read these principles, they are adopted for the delimitation of post-Soviet countries, the most important point is that delimitation and demarcation cannot contribute to new escalations, conflicts, generating new risks. This is what we want. Why don't we rely on that document, given that Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia are all OSCE member states?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - First of all, I would like to say that the OSCE document you mentioned has been on the table of our officials dealing with delimitation issues since the cease-fire was established in 2020. It was on their table even before that, because we had and have a delimitation process with Georgia. That is, it is a document which is, so to speak, a practical manual about the delimitation process, but the problem is that the actual process has not started yet, and we are in the stage of claifying the principles you mentioned.
And the idea of the territory can also be one of those principles, because no exact principle is written there, it says it’s necessary to clarify the principles. The Declaration of Alma-Ata is a principle, it is also a principle that based on the Declaration of Alma-Ata, our administrative borders have turned into state borders. And we say: let's accept this principle, and the OSCE document, which by the way was created based on the positive experience of the delimitation process between Lithuania and Belarus, let's take it and work.
Petros Ghazaryan – It’s on our table today?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes. It was always on our table, because we worked with Georgia on the same principle. Thank God, with Georgia in a fraternal atmosphere with small steps, but we are moving forward and will continue to move forward.
The question you raised is very important and perhaps today I should speak more openly and directly about these topics than usual. By the way, I touched on that issue in 2022 in my speech from the UN podium, because when Azerbaijan says that it recognizes the territorial integrity of Armenia, we want to understand what they mean by the Republic of Armenia, because some people conclude from their speech that by saying the territorial integrity of Armenia, they do not have in mind the 29,800 square kilometers of Armenia, but only a part of the territory of Armenia. And this is essential and important for us to emphasize this.
Moreover, I want to make a very important point that this principle was agreed by me and the President of Azerbaijan on May 14, 2023 in Brussels in the presence of the president of the European Council Charles Michel, but the problem remains that until today, the president of Azerbaijan has not made any public statement about recognizing the territorial integrity of Armenia's 29,800 square kilometers.
By the way, I want to touch on one more criticism, maybe I shouldn’t do it for external reasons, but it is very important that our society understands all the processes with nuances. Look, we are told that Armenia has unilaterally recognized Azerbaijan's territorial integrity of 86,600 square kilometers. There is no question of one-sided recognition here, because it’s about an agreement, and the numbers 86,600 and 29,800 are indivisible. That is, to recognize the 29,800, one needs to recognize the 86,600, and to recognize the 86,600, one needs to recognize the 29,800.
I want to ask and urge to the critics of this issue, to those who may not have read all the nuances to be a little more careful, because look, when we say that the Republic of Armenia has an area of 29,800 square kilometers, some of our oppositionists say no, the Republic of Armenia does not have an area of 29,800 square kilometers. Their optimistic assumption or patriotic aspiration is that the Republic of Armenia is more than 29,800 square kilometers. But our opponents also say no, the Republic of Armenia is not 29,800 square kilometers. They, in their turn, consider that maybe it is 5000 square kilometers, but no one delves into these nuances and in most cases the details.
On the contrary, our opponents use the style of our opposition to justify it. Look, they also say in Armenia that Armenia is not 29,800 square kilometers. If they read the further text of our oppositionists, where it is said that the Republic of Armenia is not 29,800 square kilometers, but more, they evaluate it as the fermentation of revanchist forces and demonstrate it as aggressive policy of Armenia, and they justify their aggressiveness towards Armenia with this as well. So we have to be very careful about these concepts.
I didn't manage to address the issue of enclaves. Now, you see, addressing the topic of enclaves is inevitable for a simple reason, because 29,800 square kilometers also includes Artsvashen. No authority or representative of the Republic of Armenia has the right to reject the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia. And this is where the question arises. But there is also an important nuance here: whoever talks about enclaves should put a map on the table, because some type of map should justify the existence of that enclave. This is a very important nuance. If a map is put on the table or when a map is put on the table, there cannot be a map for a particular section, that means the entire map should be put forward.
But on the other hand, I want to say that this is not a simple, primitive issue, because let's assume that when we or Azerbaijan accept the issue of enclaves, or both we and Azerbaijan, many questions will arise. There is a question of delimitation of the borders of these enclaves, there is a question of access to these enclaves, there is a question of protecting these borders, there is a question of the presence and absence of armed forces in these areas, the rules of passage. What does enclave mean? It means that you have to pass through someone else's territory, how will you pass through someone else's territory, what are the legal nuances of that issue and so on?
And there are several ways to solve these problems. One option, for example, is that we settle all these issues, and in the background of peace, the issue is resolved. This is an option. The second option is that seeing that the first option is so complicated, it is agreed that the enclaves across the border remain within the territories of the countries by which they are enclosed. But this, in turn, should be the subject of treaties and further ratification. But also in this context, we must take into account the legal aspects of these processes, understand where they are justified, what is justified, what is not justified, what is provable, what is unprovable. Why am I saying this? Strategically, what is our task?
Our task in terms of security today is to prevent any issue from becoming a pretext for further escalation on the grounds that Armenia refuses to discuss, does not discuss, avoids discussion, avoids solutions. This is the most important issue. What is our task? Not to allow escalation, and in order not to allow escalation, we should not think about delaying the issues, obfuscating the issues, making the issues unclear. On the contrary, we must go for real solutions, but those solutions must naturally be grounded and transparent to exclude conspiracy theories among our public.
Is there any unanswered question about this issue, because I know this is a very delicate question, a very sensitive question? If there is some nuance that I might have missed, including my status and lack of daily communication...
Petros Ghazaryan - No. Clearly, the process is complicated and long. Is there already an agreement in terms of Brussels?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - A very important thing. See, now what is our idea of what is to come? Basically, it is a very important point that in the Granada quadrilateral statement, and also the bilateral statement, in the context of regional peace, the main three pillars that we have already agreed with Azerbaijan were recorded. And those agreements are expressed in Charles Michel’s statements of May 14 and July 15 of 2023. These are public documents.
The whole point of Granada is that these principles are already discussed and accepted in a tripartite and wider format. Very well, this is how Granada turned out. Now we have the opportunity to mutually evaluate the sincerity of the parties. If we meet in Brussels in the near future, for which both Azerbaijan and we have expressed initial public readiness, and we go there to affirm those three principles, it will also mean that the parties sincerely want to go to peace, and there is a 70 percent probability that the peace treaty will be signed within 1-3 months. If not, then we'll have a lot to think about.
Petros Ghazaryan - Erdoğan announced that Armenia should be rational, realistic, constructive, open the "Zangezur Corridor" and in that case Turkey, you know what influence it has in that process with Azerbaijan, will start improving relations step by step. In other words, they explain to us what they want before Brussels.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Very good, but I think that the statement of the president of Turkey should also be divided into details. No matter how much time it takes, it is very important that we understand a few things. As far as I have read, it is about the following, he is talking about the promise of Armenia, am I remembering correctly?
Petros Ghazaryan - Yes.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Let's note that the Republic of Armenia has not made any promises to anyone within the framework of the wording used by Turkey and Azerbaijan. There is a nuance here, because it is very important how the wording is perceived, because we in the Republic of Armenia, as well as the public, widely perceives this wording as a certain territorial claim against Armenia and a demand for an extraterritorial corridor.
So we have not made any promises to anyone with such wording. I know that sometimes, when there is a conversation between the representatives of Armenia and, for example, Turkey, at various levels, it is said that the wording of corridor they use is not acceptable for us. And they ask how it can be not acceptable, given that you accepted the tripartite declaration. We say there is no such wording in the tripartite declaration. They say how it is not written? We say it is a public document, please have a look, if it is written, please show us.
There is also a very important nuance here for us to understand. The word “corridor” is generally used in the world as a common term for communication channels. For example, I recently said in the National Assembly that the name of the North-South project is officially the North-South Road Corridor. In the tripartite statement, it has a slightly different logic, because in the tripartite statement of November 9, 2020, there is the Lachin Corridor, which, according to the logic of the statement, contains some content of extraterritoriality, or is control by a third power. And besides, the Lachin Corridor is not just a road, the Lachin Corridor is a 5 kilometer wide strip of territory under the control of a third party.
I mean, the tension about this topic is also related to this. What are we saying? We say that the Republic of Armenia is ready and interested in opening regional communications. In other words, are we ready to open our roads to Azerbaijan and Turkey? Yes, we are ready, and as it has been recorded, this should happen on the basis of Armenia's sovereignty and jurisdiction, on the basis of the principle of equality and reciprocity. This means that, for example, no third power should have control over any territory of the Republic of Armenia. When crossing the borders of the Republic of Armenia, the border guard services and customs services of the Republic of Armenia must act based on the jurisdiction of the Republic of Armenia and known principles. For example, we are told that in the tripartite declaration it is written that security should be provided by the Russian Federation, I say that there is nothing like that in the tripartite declaration. It is a public document, let's read it, on the contrary, it is stated that security is guaranteed by Armenia.
Petros Ghazaryan - One remark, see, one of the high-ranking officials of Azerbaijan said: well, we don't want a corridor, but what security guarantees can Armenia give us? And after that, a senior Russian diplomat announced that, well, the word "Zangezur Corridor" is annoying, let's say Meghri Road.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - There is no problem. Look, in the case of the railway, we say Horadiz-Meghri-Ordubad-Sadarak-Yeraskh railway, there is no problem. In the case of the railway, the issue of passing through Meghri is unobjectionable, because we have not had a railway anywhere else, at least in that section. We have another railway Ijevan-Hrazdan-Kazakh.
Petros Ghazaryan - Which is economically more beneficial for us?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, but there is a very big problem there. You know that there has been a very large landslide in the area of Haghartsin village for more than 20 years, and according to the preliminary estimates to eliminate the landslide, 500 million dollars or more money is needed, and it is still a question whether it will be active in the future or not. But on the other hand, we have no problem with restoring the Meghri railway, absolutely no problem. On the contrary, we are interested because it means the lifting of the blockade of Armenia, and it by and large means peace.
Therefore, with regard to the road, whether a road can pass through the same section or not, we say our and not only our, but also international experts say, you know, there are very big geographical complications there, that in fact, it is not feasible for both road and railway to pass through the same place, but this is a technical issue. We say what’s the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that still ambiguities remain.
First of all, that wording actually refers to our territory, and why do they talk about our territory that way? This causes a problem. We say that Armenia and not only Armenia, but we too should have the opportunity to use the road, and on the same principle with full respect for jurisdiction, sovereignty and the principle of reciprocity and equality. And we're honest, we're not pretending. I know that an attempt is made to make speculations about these topics, but what I said, I am 100 percent convinced and confident, it is in the interests of Armenia. Yes, it is in the interests of Azerbaijan as well, it is also in the interests of Turkey, but it is also in the interests of Armenia.
I can say something else which I want our public to know about. They tell us: well, you’re talking about passports, customs, this, that, they say that they only need to travel 47 kilometers on this section of the railway, can you imagine, in order to travel 47 kilometers of territory, we create so many difficulties: phytosanitary control, passport control, customs control and so on, and it seems that we want to make it impossible to use this road.
For this case, we bring and we can bring the example of us and Georgia, because, for example, there is no problem, no question regarding the use of roads between us and Georgia in terms of sovereignty, jurisdiction, reciprocity and equality. But on the other hand, we mutually worked and are working so that our citizens cross the border as easily as possible, because in the case of Georgia, at least there are simple facts that we want more tourists from Georgia to come to Armenia, for example, Georgia wants more tourists from Armenia. And we try to simplify the procedures.
It is clear that this same discourse is not being conducted in the case of Turkey and Azerbaijan, but we hope that in the long term the day will come when the same discourse can be used in the case of Azerbaijan and in the case of Turkey. We say that we raise these issues not to make the use of roads impossible, but on the contrary. And in general, I talked about us and Georgia, but in the 21st century, many countries are doing everything so that people, goods, and cargo can pass through quickly, because today the most important issue is speed. What is the issue of competition between different transport routes today? Cost and speed. And the shorter the distance, the lower the cost. On this basis, yes, this could become a serious nodal point for peace in the region. This is our understanding, and if these ambiguities are eliminated, then there is no problem. Yes, not everything is simple, but we are ready to move forward and reach solutions.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, is there a risk of a new escalation at the borders of Armenia or not? Does Azerbaijan keep military forces concentrated or not?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - If you are talking about today, I can say, for example, that every day I receive reports of violations of the ceasefire, and during the entire previous day, just one bullet was fired at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. In other words, this is essentially a very low, almost zero level of escalation. At the moment, we do not have any accumulation of troops on the border, neither by us nor by Azerbaijan. There is currently no tension at any border. But on the other hand, in the modern world, the movement of troops can happen within hours, days.
We can get out of here, after this interview, and it turns out that something happened, or might happen. But what I am saying is that if we can address these issues, war becomes pointless. If we fail to address these issues, the likelihood will certainly rise.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, it also depends on our abilities.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Which abilities?
Petros Ghazaryan - Increasing our security capabilities. Now Russia does not give us our weapons, we transferred the money, but it also needs weapons, it is almost in a diplomatic war with us, France announces about the increase of military capabilities with Armenia, there was talk of some kind of agreement, about weapons, but it is unknown when it will take place. What stage are we at here?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - No, I would not want this conversation to be linked to weapons, because developing the army, developing the capabilities of the armed forces is the sovereign right of any state.
Petros Ghazaryan - But Azerbaijan links it, we see.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Why does Azerbaijan link? There is nothing illogical or illegitimate in what we say.
Petros Ghazaryan - But Azerbaijan thinks that it can get more by force, why to come and sit down for negotiations?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - That is the main problem. Now that's what we have, on the other hand, Azerbaijan declares that it sincerely wants peace. We also declare that we sincerely want peace.
Petros Ghazaryan - They announced for 30 years, but we see the result.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I say this because security in the modern world does not consist of one component. Yes, with the reforms and development of the army, armed forces, and we talked a lot about that, we said a lot, but we also didn't say a lot, we don't say it and we won't say it, because it's a field where beyond a line, publicity just, sorry, it's nonsense.
But in the modern world, we see in various places, even in those places where it seems that there is no problem of modernity of weapons, army, combat capabilities, we wake up one day and see that these countries are facing a very big problem. That's why when we say security, it’s not right to understand only weapons. The weapon is a very important component, but the most important component of security is that the weapon is able to create a situation where there is no need to use the weapon, because once the weapon is used, no one knows who will be the allies of your adversaries. You may have 100 times more weapons, ammunition, army, etc. than your capabilities, but such countries of the world start attacking you that nothing helps. In other words, I mean, we should see everything in the chain, including the international community. Now the same Granada statement, you asked a question if it neutralizes.
Petros Ghazaryan - The military threat.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - No. It does not neutralize. But there is a component on that chain of components of neutralization, not the heaviest component, but not the lightest one, because, look, why, for example, that wording of corridor is often used? They want to create an international perception, and also many partners do not delve into the nuances. We are often asked what is the problem, so why hasn't the issue been resolved? When we say there is such a problem, they say we understand. Many may say what does international perception have to do with it? I agree that international perception is not a guarantee in itself, but international perception is some weight on the security components.
Petros Ghazaryan - Since we are talking about security guarantors, the Russian peacekeepers were in Artsakh also with our mutual consent, now they are still making statements on a daily basis that they are carrying out their duties, somehow trying to help the Armenians. First, according to us, should they stay or not, and secondly, should they leave, is it possible for them to come to Armenia and stay in Armenia?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - The issue of their staying in Nagorno Karabakh does not depend only on us, or it does not depend on us, because we also know that the Russian Federation is in certain discussions with Azerbaijan on this topic. I cannot give a very direct and concrete answer to this question, regarding staying in Nagorno Karabakh, but I honestly did not understand the second part of your question.
Petros Ghazaryan - If they leave, is it possible for them to come to Armenia?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Why should they come to Armenia?
Petros Ghazaryan - To stay.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I'm sorry, I don't see any logic in that, because they are the peacekeeping troops of the Russian Federation in Nagorno-Karabakh. If they leave Nagorno Karabakh, then they have to go to Russia, another question is whether they will go to Russia through Azerbaijan or Armenia?
Petros Ghazaryan - Is it a question of principle through where they will go?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I don't think it is a matter of principle, but there is no legal basis and justification for their stay in Armenia and there cannot be.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, we saw that they did not fulfill their security obligations towards us, Russia did not do it, then we saw the activities of the peacekeepers, which were also, to put it mildly, not done, and now a natural question arises from here: What will be the fate of the border guards and the 102 military base of the Russian Federation. Has such a problem been set or not, because tomorrow Armenia may be attacked and it turns out that Russia will declare again that the borders are not demarcated.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, I was just talking about the legal grounds of the peacekeeping troops of the Russian Federation in Nagorno-Karabakh in response to your question, whether they may stay in Armenia or not in the event that they leave Nagorno-Karabakh, and I said that there is no legal basis for them to remain in Armenia. But on the other hand, I don't understand your question about the border guard troops and the 102nd military base, because the grounds for their presence here are very clear, those grounds continue to exist, and neither the Russian Federation nor we raise any questions about those grounds. Why does that question arise?
Petros Ghazaryan - I said why, because there are many problems.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Yes, it is clear that there are many problems, but it is not the case that all problems are interconnected with each other, or have cause-and-effect relationships.
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, we see what kind of accusations are being made by Russia against us, in expert circles they are directly calling for the overthrow of your Government, on the other hand, we see steps from our side that Russia accepts with great concern. Parallel to this we see, for example, obstacles for our brandy cargoes. We have gas dependence on Russia, we have very serious export growth this year and the lion's share of it is to Russia. When we enter into such a diplomatic struggle, we see that Russia uses the economy and gas as a means of political pressure. For example, the European Union says: Russia betrayed you, but will they open their market for us, so that we can take our growing exports to Europe?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - First of all, where does the assumption come from that Russia is closing, or has closed, or will close its market to us? We are a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and our economic relations are regulated. Look, you say cognac, how many times has this happened in the last 20 years? You see, we have had that situation hundreds of times in the last 20-30 years, and each time we need to be familiar with the nuances in order to draw conclusions. I, for example, tried to understand the issue, what happened and what is happening, and we also received assurances that there is no political context and it is a standard procedure.
Let me first tell you that these procedural issues arose long before the events you mentioned, they have been examined, and are now essentially settled. Our message to our businessmen has always been the following: we must monitor quality and standards very seriously. By the way, perhaps we should be more principled in this regard. This is our policy and will remain our policy, because if our quality standards are at the proper level, our goods will not have any problems, as you called, with the opening and closing of markets, because in the modern world markets are open.
Many of our partner countries are members of the International Monetary Fund, and we also have a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the European Union, we are a member of the Eurasian Economic Union with Russia, when our products meet quality standards and are competitive in the market, all markets are open to them. Who said that today the market of the European Union is closed to us?
Petros Ghazaryan - Mr. Prime Minister, you are right, but in those 20 years we have faced such unprecedented accusations and been in diplomatic confrontation with Russia. They directly accuse us of changing vector and going towards West.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Look, we are not changing any vectors. I will record a fact and reveal a secret to you. First, our relationship with the European Union is now essentially developing on the basis of and within the framework of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement. That contract was signed and ratified before 2018. It entered into force before 2018, when no one used the terminology you mentioned with Russia.
Yes, it was a difficult time in our relations. By the way, there are complications for Russia, for Armenia, for the world, and for the global world order, because the problem is not in our relations with Russia, the problem is in the relations of other great powers. We don't change anything here. We continue to develop our relations with the European Union within the framework of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement. It was signed before us, so we don't change anything. Our relations with Russia, what we have, we have not canceled anything, we have not withdrawn from anywhere.
Petros Ghazaryan - You know, there are two ways to cancel. One is when you take and sign, the other is when you don't go to military exercises, you don't appoint your representative, you reduce your presence in meetings to the level of a deputy minister. These are also messages.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - We have never hidden the problems we have, in connection with the CSTO, the events that took place in 2021. Look, for example, in 2020 we did not present claims related to the CSTO, nor did the Russian Federation, but in 2021, during the events of Sotk-Khoznavar, yes, we raised very specific issues and continue to raise them. And here our assessments have not changed.
But I also want to reveal a secret about the first meeting between the President of the Russian Federation and me. It took place in Sochi in May or early June of 2018, our first conversation was about the following. The President of the Russian Federation told me that he knows that there are many rumors that Russia interferes in the affairs of various countries, constantly undermines their sovereignty, etc., etc. And he reaffirmed that he has unconditional respect for Armenia's sovereignty, independence, sovereignty and freedom to make decisions, and we are, in fact, building our relations based on the agreements reached during that first conversation. We are not changing anything, we have not refused to fulfill any of our obligations, nothing like that has happened. But also on the other hand, in the areas I mentioned, we have seen problems, we see them and we talk about them.
Petros Ghazaryan - In other words, do I understand your model correctly, that we do not change vector and continue to be a country of strategic partnership with Russia, and just as we should respect the fact that Russia has relations and interests with our enemy countries, so Russia should respect our relations with other countries, which may not be to Russia's liking, and these relations are not built against each other?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I wouldn't put it that way, by and large yes, but we agreed on it during our first conversation with the President of the Russian Federation, the very first conversation.
Petros Ghazaryan - Look, but there is a nuance. it is very normal that Russia, for example, has relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey, which we do not like, but it is Russia’s decision. They also don't like that we are with the European Union, we cooperate with the West. But look, if we are strategic partners, those relations, Russia-Turkey and Azerbaijan, Armenia-West, should not be against Russia and Armenia.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - That's right.
Petros Ghazaryan - But it doesn't work like that here, both the perception and the result.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - What are we doing to oppose Russia?
Petros Ghazaryan - For example, they take the Rome Statute as... First about the perception, and secondly, the result. Now you ask about the result, let's start with the perception.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Look, regarding perception, I admit that there is a problem, because look at what happened with the Rome Statute. After September 2020, when we saw that our systems were not working, we began to look for other factors that could contribute to our security. And we saw that we have the already signed Rome Statute, which, by the way, the Russian Federation has also signed. And we also saw that once the Constitutional Court had recognized it as unconstitutional, but considering the fact that the Constitution of Armenia had changed twice after that decision, we decided to appeal to the Constitutional Court again, it was in December 2022.
According to our legislation, the Constitutional Court must make a decision within three months. And the three months for the Constitutional Court ended at a time when the International Criminal Court made a decision against the President of the Russian Federation, it happened on the same days. It seems like an obvious coincidence, doesn't it, but look, if the Hague Court makes a decision, the next day or two days later, the Constitutional Court of Armenia publishes its decision that the Rome Statute corresponds to the Constitution of Armenia.
Now let's look from the side, let's say they actually made a decision there... It is clear here, but the one who knows the process from the bottom, that the Government had made that decision in December 2022, and we did not have any problem from the Russian Federation in this regard, we did not have any signal that this could become a problem. We received a signal at the moment when the train was already moving and that train, inevitably, had to arrive to the destination. And it is obvious that it is in no way related to the relations between Armenia and Russia. Moreover, we proposed to have the same legal regulation with the Russian Federation as we have with the United States of America.
What is the meaning of legal regulation? We have an agreement with the United States that the relationship fixed in those international legal processes does not affect our bilateral relationship. And by the way, the Rome Statute gives that opportunity, it says that you can be a member of the body with that organism, but you can agree with the countries before or after, it doesn't matter, you can agree that your relations are regulated differently. As a partner, I think we are very honest. By the way, I called on that topic back in March, I took the initiative myself, I called the President of the Russian Federation, I said that I understand that the coincidences are sharp at first glance, but this is the process, and it is verifiable.
Petros Ghazaryan – And?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - And my impression was that there is an understanding, and we continued the process.
Petros Ghazaryan - Aliyev also offered in Georgia to go to Tbilisi and negotiate in a bilateral or trilateral format. Moreover, he very promptly said that if Armenia agrees, we are ready to send officials right now to agree on the nuances.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, it becomes a very important factor against the background of what I said at the beginning of our conversation. You see, a meeting was held in Granada and the principles of the regulation of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan were recorded on the platform of the European Union, from our perpective and that of the European Union. Now it is clear that when we meet in Brussels, the conversation should take place within the framework of these principles, which, I will not say, correspond only to the interests of the Republic of Armenia.
The Republic of Armenia has accepted it and, by the way, Azerbaijan has also accepted it, I already said. And now, when we discuss the issue of meeting in Brussels, where, in fact, we have a framework to emphasize, and when Azerbaijan tries to offer another platform, it can be interpreted by us that by moving to another platform, Azerbaijan wants to neutralize the already agreed principles. This is the problem.
What are we saying? We are saying: let's fix the principles, sign under those principles, declare those principles, that is, make clear in what framework we are talking and what will be the result of our conversation - not completely, but 70-80 percent. We can have a place to negotiate with 20 percent, because there are many nuances, we have already discussed these principles, they do not answer all these questions, but when we leave it, we propose other platforms, in fact, it seems that we are proposing to push these principles out, and our fears that there may be a hidden plan behind that process, leading to a process that will end with the use of force, with a new war, with a new escalation, are deepening. We are not against any conversation, but we are against the logic that would take us outside the framework of already established principles.
Petros Ghazaryan - There was also talk about meetings in 3+3 format. Once such a meeting took place, are we ready to continue this process?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, of course we are ready and regarding that meeting, the 3+3 format, when the founding meeting took place, certain principles were agreed upon and an agreement was reached. We are ready to continue working in that format and, by the way, let me say that we also value it. We attach importance to that because we do not want to make an impression that we constantly discuss the regional agenda in faraway places, and we don't discuss it within the region, because we understand, of course, the international community, our partnership with all partners is very important, but we do not want to create an impression in our region that we have, so to speak, an disdainful attitude towards the countries and relations of our region.
No, it's not the case at all, and on the contrary, one of the key points of our foreign policy is that we give importance to regional relations without taking them out of the general context of international relations.
I know that it was also agreed that the next meeting of the 3+3 format will take place in Tehran. And we are ready, of course there is still more to be discussed. First of all, the meetings have taken place at the level of the deputy foreign ministers, at least up to now, now it is also necessary to clarify the perception of the parties, that is, at what level the conversation should be continued, and we are ready.
Petros Ghazaryan - Are we ready?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, we are involved in that format and until now there has been no such case that the discussions in that format were postponed or did not take place because of us. No such thing has happened.
Petros Ghazaryan - Thank you Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for the interview.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Thank you.