I refuse to discuss the corridor issue at all: Mher Grigoryan on recent events

Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan and his counterpart Mustafaev held their most recent meeting on border demarcation and security issues on August 30 in Moscow. They agreed to hold the next meeting in November, in Brussels. However, the new war unleashed by Azerbaijan on September 13 has effectively disrupted the communications and work of trilateral working groups, complicating plans.

In an interview with Hraparak.am yesterday, Mher Grigoryan stated that substantive issues were not discussed during the meeting; only organizational matters regarding their future work and communications were addressed. There is currently no agreement regarding the trilateral meeting as well.

Below is the interview with the media outlet:

“- Azerbaijan has essentially reneged on the agreements reached, conducting demarcation on its own terms, advancing its troops by force, and claiming any area they occupy as its border. Can we understand it this way?

- I would prefer not to provide joint assessments at this moment; let’s observe how events unfold, and then perhaps we will have an official position to present.

- In any case, we currently note that the enemy has invaded our sovereign territory; is that correct?

- Yes, that is correct.

- Then, if not by force, is it possible through diplomatic means to push the enemy out of our sovereign territory during these working meetings?

- We must do everything to make that happen, and apparently, intensive work is underway in that direction.

- But it seems that Russian mediation has not been beneficial in this matter. What do your contacts with your colleagues show; is Russia willing to help us?

- I do not want to make such assessments, but I believe that the reactions of the Russian side, including in the UN Security Council, indicate that they are also dealing with this issue.

- However, our response to the Russian representative's speech in the UN Security Council was not very positive; at a Cabinet meeting, the Foreign Minister hinted that there was a country whose expectations had not been met. Was he referring to Russia?

- I do not want to comment on that, as it is still too early to discuss officially. Processes are ongoing; we will see how they conclude, and based on that, we will provide assessments.

- Have these military operations disrupted plans for further working communications?

- At this moment, the peace agenda is not closed, and I wouldn’t make such an assessment; let’s see how events will develop. In any case, our wish and goal is to resolve all issues through civilized, diplomatic, and political dialogue.

- Is there any document prepared for Prime Minister Pashinyan to sign, as he hinted in the National Assembly?

- No.

- Then what did his statement mean? Why did he say he might sign a document for which he would be called a “traitor” and heavily criticized?

- I believe that his remarks were clear and detailed, and they do not require interpretation.

- Unfortunately, it is not clear; new questions arise after each of his statements, and those statements are always a source of contention. That is why we are asking: what was he preparing to sign?

- I think the theses circulating now are fictional.

- Is Azerbaijan imposing a document for us to sign?

- I do not thoroughly understand the question, honestly speaking. It is very difficult to answer that.

- I mean, based on the communication you have with Azerbaijanis, officially, what do they say to us? Do they impose the signing of a document known as the “peace treaty,” and what terms do they expect to sign it under?

- I assure you that in official communications and, in general, after communications, all information is published. No other issues or provisions are discussed because it is simply impossible. Agreements that should be reached or not reached cannot be discussed in a non-public domain. It is a primitive attitude toward issues when it is claimed that there are agreements and issues discussed confidentially. How is it possible to achieve agreements on unblocking or border security in a confidential manner? It is simply impossible.

-However, a lot is unclear from public information as well; we do not understand what the enemy wants and what we want.

- If much of the public information is unclear, it means that no deeper agreements or more detailed conditions exist during negotiations or communications; that is all.

- One more question regarding the corridor: Do you have a clear understanding that Azerbaijan demands a corridor from us, whether it be through Syunik, Vayots Dzor, or any other area?

- I categorically ask you again, as I have spoken about this many times: I refuse to discuss the corridor issue at all. There will be no such thing, and I will not discuss it anymore.

- I am not asking you to discuss it; rather, Azerbaijan is making this demand, which we see publicly.

- It is of no significance to me; there will be no corridor, and that’s final.

- What if Azerbaijan is currently taking it by force, because from what we understand, the fighting in recent days is for the corridor?

- On what basis are you insisting on this?

- Then what is it? If they don’t want a corridor, why are they attacking in those directions? If they don’t want a corridor, what does Azerbaijan want from us? Why has this war started again?

- I believe the issues are complex and comprehensive, and I will summarize my answer that way.

- Perhaps we do not want to face reality: the enemy wants a corridor that we are not giving.

- And what?

- I want to understand how we envision the solution, especially since our representative at the UN also stated that Azerbaijan is preparing for war again, this time in the direction of Yeraskh and Nakhichevan. Do you have such information?

- I do not have such information.

- In any case, we, even at the cost of life, will keep the road that could become a corridor for them. Am I understanding correctly?

- I repeat once again: I will neither comment on nor discuss the corridor issue at all because it will not happen. I have probably stated this since the very first day of the establishment of the working group. The Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and official Yerevan have repeatedly said the same. And I cannot understand why you are bringing this topic back and making it a subject of discussion. I truly cannot understand.

- Because the enemy demands a corridor from us.

- Very well, if you say the enemy demands it, they can demand everything; so what, should we put that requirement into circulation and discuss it? I refuse to accept that approach; there will be no such thing.

- What about a road with specific checkpoints?

- We do not oppose economic and communication unblocking and will continue to discuss these issues, but that can have no relation or impact on any extraterritorial or sovereignty circumstances. It simply cannot.