War Has Always Been Azerbaijan's Goal: Prime Minister's Interview with ARD

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to the German ARD television channel. The interview is presented below.

- Mr. Pashinyan, thank you for the opportunity to interview. When you achieved a peaceful transition of power through a democratic protest movement in 2018, did you think that a war would break out two years later?

- In fact, when I was still a member of parliament, back in 2016 or maybe 2017, I predicted that a war was inevitable. Why? Because war has always been Azerbaijan's goal. Why has war been a goal for Azerbaijan? Because it has not been ready for a compromise solution regarding the Karabakh issue. Compromise means that you have to make certain concessions from your maximalist position.

The fact that Azerbaijan has been unwilling and has never been ready for compromise is vividly illustrated by the 2011 Kazan Process. When, essentially, a document was on the table in which the Armenian side agreed to hand over five Azerbaijani regions in exchange for Nagorno-Karabakh receiving an interim status that would later be defined through a referendum or plebiscite. This was a significant concession from the Armenian side because it contained many uncertainties regarding the security of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, the Armenian side made that step, and the document was negotiated and ready. At the last moment, Azerbaijan refused to sign the document.

And this is not just an isolated episode, but rather a methodology. Because what, as a result of the efforts of the compromise logic, begins to become acceptable for Armenia and Karabakh, at the same moment begins to become unacceptable for Azerbaijan, and it continues to harden its stance. This has always been Azerbaijan's formula, and Azerbaijan has always been prepared to resolve the Karabakh issue through military means.

But in July 2020, a provocation occurred on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. As a result of that provocation, Azerbaijan realized that its armed forces were unable to resolve the Karabakh issue. Therefore, it was forced to resort to mercenaries and terrorists for help.

And what happened? Starting in August, under the guise of military exercises, mercenaries and terrorists, a large amount of Turkish military equipment, specialists, and soldiers were transported from territories in Syria controlled by Turkey to Azerbaijan, which jointly launched an attack against Nagorno-Karabakh.

- Unlike Armenia's previous two leaders, Sargsyan and Kocharyan, you do not hail from Karabakh. How would you comment on your statement that 'Karabakh is Armenia and that's it,’ which was perceived by Azerbaijan as a provocation?

- This is related to the history of the Karabakh issue. Unfortunately, at some point, the international community lost information regarding the substance of the Karabakh issue. Meanwhile, when the Karabakh issue arose, it was viewed in Europe and around the world as a manifestation of the democratization of the Soviet Union, which resulted in the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Karabakh issue arose in 1988, during the process of Gorbachev's perestroika and democratization in the Soviet Union. The Armenians of Karabakh, who have always been more than 80 percent of the population of the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region, decided to take advantage of the opportunities provided by democratization to restore their violated rights. Moreover, through entirely peaceful political means.

What rights are we talking about? In the 1920s, during the formation of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh, which had an Armenian population of more than 80 percent, was incorporated not into Soviet Armenia but into Soviet Azerbaijan. In 1988, the Supreme Council of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region adopted a decision to reunite with Soviet Armenia, which was its legitimate right. The Supreme Council of Armenia also adopted a similar decision. In response to such absolutely peaceful political decisions without weapons, the Soviet Union and Azerbaijan responded with violence, first in Sumgait, then in Baku, organizing massacres of Armenians.

And is Nagorno-Karabakh part of Armenia? Armenia means a country where Armenians live, an Armenian land. Those who have been in Nagorno-Karabakh will see Armenian churches dating back to the 5th century and later. The first Armenian school was in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the population of Nagorno-Karabakh has always been over 80 percent Armenian. If this is a provocation, then this is the whole problem. The fact that Armenians live in Nagorno-Karabakh has always been viewed by Azerbaijan as a 'provocation,’ resorting to aggressive actions, shelling civilian settlements. They fight against this 'provocation.' In general I must tell you that it is possible that the very existence of Armenians is considered 'provocation' by some countries, including Turkey, where the Armenian Genocide took place in 1915 under the Ottoman Empire and vast territories were ethnically cleansed through genocide. My assessment is that Turkey has returned to the South Caucasus 100 years later to continue that operation.

But this is not just a purely anti-Armenian emotional activity taken in isolation but, in my conviction, a manifestation of Turkish expansionist, imperial policy, because the Armenians of the South Caucasus are the last obstacle for Turkey to continue that expansion northward, eastward, and southeastward. I view this in the context of the policy Turkey is conducting in the Mediterranean, in Syria, in Iraq, regarding its relations with Greece and Cyprus. And in the context of the manifestations we see in Europe encouraged by Turkey.

- When you were in opposition, you expressed against Armenia's membership in the Eurasian Union. Already during the 2018 protests, you sought to establish contact with Moscow. How would you comment on your stance as pro-European or pro-Russian?

- Yes, I voted against Armenia joining the Eurasian Economic Union, but in my parliamentary activity, there was an instance when I also voted against the process of Armenia withdrawing from the Eurasian Economic Union. And during the revolution, together with our people, we decided that there would be no geopolitical shifts after the revolution. This is the result of our collective decision. And it is very important to note that sharp turns in foreign policy can be very dangerous. And yes, today we are a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. Last year Armenia presided; I personally chaired Armenia’s presidency in the Eurasian Economic Union. And the presidency in the Eurasian Economic Union turned out to be quite effective. We signed several new agreements. But we are also cooperating with the European Union, and our democratic agenda has not changed at all.

- You are in regular contact with the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. What specific support are you expecting from Russia?

- The support that we expect from Russia, we receive and have no reservations regarding the quality of Russia's security and alliance obligations towards Armenia. But, on the other hand, we understand that Russia is first and foremost a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which has certain neutrality obligations regarding the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. And which also has good relations with Azerbaijan. This is, of course, not a straightforward situation, but we are satisfied with the quality of Russia's fulfillment of its commitments towards Armenia.

- What is your attitude towards the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh?

- This is one of the important questions. I said that the deployment of Russian peacekeepers is acceptable to us. And here the question is not so much and not only political but also practical because, firstly, Russia is present in the region. That is, peacekeepers imply operational response, and Russia is present in the region, Russia knows the region. I can even speak about language, communication problems, in which, let’s say, yes, there are thoughts that peacekeepers can come from various countries; however, starting from language communication and knowing the nuances of the region and mentality. We continue to believe that the activities of Russian peacekeepers could be the most effective in this regard.

- Azerbaijan, on the contrary, has proposed deploying Turkish peacekeepers. Would you agree with that?

- But, you know, Turkey, as I already mentioned, is a country that brings terrorists and mercenaries into the region. And it is hard to imagine any peaceful, let alone peacekeeping processes involving a country that plays that role.

- How would you comment on the bombing of Ganja and Barda and the use of cluster munitions?

- First, I want to talk about a certain fact: when explosions occur in Azerbaijani cities, the Azerbaijani government takes the diplomats accredited there, as well as journalists, and shows them the site of the incident. But no diplomatic representative has been to Stepanakert, Martakert, Martuni, Askeran. I’m talking about cities in Karabakh, not even mentioning villages, and has not seen what is happening there. International journalists also have very difficult access to those areas; however, today those cities are in a half-ruined state.

Regarding Azerbaijani cities, I want to say that first and foremost, continuous bombing of the cities of Nagorno-Karabakh has not received any international response, none. No one even attempted to stop that, while the Defense Army of Nagorno-Karabakh, also having legitimate military targets in certain settlements or neighborhoods, has dealt retaliatory strikes.

- But why was Barda bombed with cluster munitions? 'Human Rights Watch' discovered some evidence.

- Did no civilians die in Stepanakert?

- I would like to ask you about Ganja and Barda.

- So we just need an explanation as to why civilians are dying. If the explanation regarding civilian casualties in Stepanakert satisfied you, then that same explanation stands for every city in the world where civilian casualties occur. If the explanation regarding Stepanakert satisfies you, then, for example, it doesn’t satisfy me.

- Civilians are victims on both sides. Shouldn’t this be stopped?

- Who is disputing that? No one is disputing that. At least not in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. But let’s look at the statistics; let’s examine the chronology.

- The last time you met with Azerbaijani President Aliyev was in Munich during the Security Conference. What are your conditions for serious negotiations with Azerbaijan?

- It is normal to talk about negotiations in wartime, but it is unrealistic. Essentially, the conditions for negotiation have been discussed and agreed upon in the Moscow declaration of October 10, which was further reaffirmed. The Moscow declaration was adopted with the mediation of the Russian President. It was then reaffirmed later by the Presidents of France and the United States, and it clearly states the roadmap which has essentially been agreed upon. I mean, if there are agreed points, what is the sense in each party putting forth conditions, because ultimately it has been mutually accepted. That is, there is no need to put forward conditions anymore. The conditions are formulated there, and we have considered those conditions acceptable.

- In your opinion, is the OSCE Minsk Group still the right format for finding a solution?

- Yes, of course. We believe that it is the only format where this issue can be discussed and resolved. Which does not mean that the international community should not support the co-chairs of the Minsk Group. Of course, the international community should support, but the discussion format is precisely that.

- What do you think the EU should do? Should the EU send peacekeepers?

- I have already answered questions related to peacekeepers. We must also consider the positions of other countries in the region. We must ensure that peacekeepers really bring stability and not instability or unrest. I think that Russian peacekeepers are the most suitable and correct actors in this process. Regarding the EU, I have said many times in many interviews that the EU can yes, support the process by clearly establishing who was the initiator of this war and by clearly recording the facts of the transfer of mercenaries to the region. By the way, we already have two mercenaries that have been captured by the Defense Army of Karabakh, and they clearly demonstrate in their testimonies what process has occurred. This is a very important substantive aspect.

For example, one of those mercenaries has a fourth-grade education, while the other mercenary is completely illiterate, that is, knows neither how to read nor write. These people have been brought from Turkey-controlled territories in Syria. Essentially, they are bringing people with no educational criteria and instilling certain values in them, suggesting that there are 'enemies' living here. By the way, there is something very interesting here. I want us to all acknowledge that Turkey recruits these people from the territories it controls in Syria, transfers them to its territory, and then transfers them to Azerbaijan, then to the combat zone in Nagorno-Karabakh. They are promised $2,000 per month and, importantly, bonuses for those who cut off the heads of 'infidels'—$100 each. Do you not see any resemblance to any other occurrences happening elsewhere?

This is why I believe that a third world war has started, which is a hybrid war. It is unfolding in all directions. That war is equally directed against Christians, against Muslims, against Jews. I want to clarify why I view it as also directed against Muslims. Because first, a distorted image of Muslims is being created around the world, and second, the illiteracy of those who do not know the letters, and, if I may say so, people with very narrow and local worldviews are being used for narrow political, specific political purposes. And we know who orchestrates that. We see the same phenomenon expressed in Nagorno-Karabakh. We see the same phenomenon expressed in Vienna, Canada, France. And we see the same phenomenon expressed in Russia with slightly different manifestations. During this last month, we have seen several reports about the activities of terrorist groups in the North Caucasus, which were effectively destroyed by Russian law enforcement.

And, by the way, it is also important to note that this further proves that this war is equally directed against Muslims because we see the valuable reactions from several Arab countries to what is happening. We see the very valuable reactions from the Islamic Republic of Iran to what is happening. Because the presence of these people in our region is considered to be the same threat to the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the same threat as it is for many Arab countries.

- Should Iran play a bigger role in this process?

- You know, Iran is our neighboring country with Azerbaijan. Naturally, it is interested and concerned about the process. I have already stated that our position is that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship is the format where the Karabakh issue should be discussed. But that does not mean that the international community should not support the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

- My last question. Your government came to power promising to implement reforms and fight corruption. Is that still possible?

- Now that demand has become even more acute. Am I satisfied with the results we have recorded in the fight against corruption? No, I am not satisfied. But I also know why we have not been sufficiently effective. Because, essentially, the systems and mechanisms that were formed over 20 years in the era of corruption have been built to protect corruption.

And yes, the frameworks that exist—we have constantly seen that they hinder our effective fight against corruption and ensure sufficient pace for the return of looted money. But still, we have determined that we will not go down the path of illegality. We will go down the road of improving and reforming this system and legislation, which obviously prolongs the process. I believe that the public's perception of the fight against corruption has formed because people see questions now that have not been resolved for many years. And their assessment is now unequivocal that they have not been resolved because of corruption. Armenia has no alternative. Yes, we must fight against corruption. We have to build democracy. But the number one issue on our current agenda is aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh. Which, of course, has a national security component. But I am convinced, I have already said, that there is a component of international security here, because this process poses a threat to Russia, poses a threat to the Islamic Republic of Iran, poses a threat to Arab countries, poses a threat to the European Union, poses a threat to the United States. These countries have many contradictions in their relations, but at least in the present situation, the involvement of mercenaries and terrorists, which is supported by Turkey, is receiving the same assessment from everyone. Therefore, this is an issue of the international security agenda.

Today we are, of course, doing and will do everything to avoid harming democracy, but I don’t think that the state of martial law is the best environment for democracy. Therefore, we must do everything to get out of the martial law environment as soon as possible and return to normal life. But unfortunately, this does not only depend on us. In any case, we will do our utmost for that.