Vardan Oskanian Responds to Nikol Pashinyan's Statements from Yesterday

The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Vardan Oskanian, has responded to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's criticism directed at him the day before, stating that "Vardan Oskanian and others left behind a capitulation document." Oskanian provided his reaction to the media regarding this statement.

"I learned about Nikol Pashinyan's statements made in the National Assembly yesterday. In this regard, I can merely reaffirm what I have repeatedly stated: the document presented in 2008 included the most favorable solutions for Armenia, which, if used skillfully, would have led to the internationally recognized realization of Artsakh's self-determination. Even in 2018, Nikol Pashinyan had inherited a diplomatic framework that, if not ignored, starting from zero, and without demonstrating criminal self-confidence, could not only have averted war but also reached acceptable solutions for Armenia based on the provisions available in those documents. In reality, even with the greatest concessions, the solution would have been incomparably better than the situation or even the absence of a choice that the current government's lack of experience and knowledge has led us to.

Today, unfortunately, the same stubborn approach continues. As a result of the authorities' policies, we have been placed in a hopeless dilemma: accept Azerbaijan's maximalist demands, or face war. Debating with stubbornness is pointless. Given the recent diplomatic activity and statements, Azerbaijan's three demands are currently on the table: recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, the corridor issue, and the delimitation question, namely the exclaves. The Armenian side has not been able to expand this exclusively Azerbaijani agenda.

It seems that the diplomatic trade is happening exactly within this triangle, where the Armenian side's approach is to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, in order to compel Azerbaijan to withdraw from the corridor and exclaves. Naturally, implementing this approach would be the shortest path to the final loss of Artsakh.

Although it may already be too late in terms of timing, I still believe that in Prague, Pashinyan should first avoid being pressured into signing deadlines for documents, and then do everything he can to break free from Azerbaijan's dictated and imposed agenda that leads nowhere. This negotiating agenda is so narrow and one-sided that any trade on the matters at hand will undoubtedly be against Armenia's interests.

Armenia must be able to bring its agenda issues to the negotiating table, including the fates of Shushi and Hadrut, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the withdrawal of Azerbaijani troops from Armenian sovereign territory, and the return of prisoners. These issues must be definitively brought to the table in Prague, transforming the negotiating agenda from a triangle into a polygon, which will create broader opportunities for seeking more effective outcomes in the negotiation process.