I Never Excluded That If Dialogue with the Azerbaijani Elite Fails, I Can Speak Plainly and Honestly with the Azerbaijani People: Prime Minister

It is clear that the content our government has placed at the core of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and regional politics after 2018 is based on a framework of peace. This was stated by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan today, June 17, during a question-and-answer session with the government in the National Assembly.

“I believe this is visible to the international community, while the policy that Azerbaijan has been pursuing for a long time is based on a rhetoric of war. I think the main purpose of this warlike rhetoric is to instill fear in the people of Artsakh, the people of Armenia, and generally in the entire process of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Only under those circumstances could such a warlike policy be effective. However, since the Armenian people, especially regarding the issue of Artsakh, do not have a habit or culture of interpreting things through the prism of fear, and such a thing is generally ruled out, we have stated that it is impossible for the Republic of Armenia to have any negotiation content imposed under the threat of force. Given these circumstances, that warlike logic is ineffective and is caught in a deadlock,” Pashinyan noted.

He added that the Azerbaijani government has the challenge of explaining to its public why they have been pursuing a warlike logic for the past 15 years and have not achieved any results. “To respond to this question hanging in the air, Azerbaijan raises its warlike rhetoric another notch to have a greater impact on its own public, but this only deepens the deadlock,” he emphasized. “My call remains the same as before to the President of Azerbaijan—to adopt a constructive approach and publicly agree with the resolution I proposed, which should be acceptable to the peoples of Armenia, Artsakh, and Azerbaijan.”

The Prime Minister also referred to the possibility of directly addressing the Azerbaijani people, stating: “I have the impression that in terms of discourse, the leadership of Azerbaijan could feel significant discomfort from the fact that, for example, I, in my capacity as Prime Minister, do not shy away from speaking directly to the Azerbaijani people. I believe one of the reasons for the increased levels of this warlike rhetoric is the internal fears that, in the context of modern technologies, this presents a very interesting opportunity to speak directly to the Azerbaijani people. Understanding that the issue of Artsakh for the political elite can be not only a national security issue but also a matter of property and power preservation, the context for the people is much broader. I have never excluded that if I see that dialogue with the ruling elite of Azerbaijan is not successful, it would be possible to speak plainly and honestly with the Azerbaijani people. We must understand that this opportunity is always on our agenda.”