What Has Been Discussed in the Nagorno-Karabakh Negotiations: Babayan Provides Details

Samvel Babayan, the chairman of the United Homeland party, made a post on his Facebook page stating, "The people of Nagorno-Karabakh have confirmed their will to live freely and independently through the Declaration on the Independence of the NKR in 1991, the results of the 1991 referendum, and the Declaration on the State Independence of the NKR in 1992. The Republic of Armenia, in turn, committed to supporting the rights of the NKR and its population through the decision of the Supreme Council in 1992 and considers any international or domestic document unacceptable if it states that the NKR is part of Azerbaijan.

If we consider the issues of territory and status in the context of the negotiations to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, we get the following picture: According to the 'Package' proposal (1997), seven regions are returned to Azerbaijan, the control of the Lachin corridor is entrusted to the OSCE, and Nagorno-Karabakh is granted an autonomous status within Azerbaijan's framework, with citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh receiving Azerbaijani passports annotated with 'Nagorno-Karabakh'.

According to the 'Phased' proposal (1997), seven (five + two) regions are returned to Azerbaijan, while the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin region is left to the future. According to the 'Common State' proposal (1998), Nagorno-Karabakh is a territorial and state unit of the republic and forms a common state with Azerbaijan, with the connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia ensured through the Lachin corridor.

According to the 'Meghri' proposal (1999), the former territory of the NKAO, the regions of Shushi and Lachin are transferred to Armenia, while the Meghri region goes to Azerbaijan. The 'Key West' proposal (2001) also operated within the logic of territorial exchanges and corridor arrangements.

According to the 'Madrid Principles' (2007), adjacent territories of Nagorno-Karabakh are returned to Azerbaijan, and the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh is to be determined through a plebiscite, with the connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia secured through the Lachin corridor. The 'Kazani Principles' (2011) repeat the Madrid Principles with certain amendments. The same principles are the foundation of another package proposal regarding the first phase of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and further steps (2016), according to which seven regions around the former NKAO are returned to Azerbaijan, provided that a corridor connecting Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh is maintained, and the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh will be determined by a popular referendum.

By the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020, Azerbaijan regained not only the adjacent seven regions of the former NKAO but also a significant part of the territory of the NKAO itself, while the control of the Lachin corridor was reserved for Russia, and there is no mention of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh at all.

This is not a disclosure of the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation process but rather an aggregation of key theses from disclosed documents over the years, demonstrating that from 'non-negotiable' to conducting negotiations from 'one's own point' has resulted in ongoing military aggression, toothless peacekeeping, disgraceful peace propaganda, and amidst this background, continued human, territorial, and material losses, humanitarian disaster, forced integration imposed by Baku, and so on.

And this is not a sad episode of the Armenian people's history, but a political barter of glorious victories, diplomatic erosion of military achievements, and ultimately, a distortion of the fate of a whole people. Just don't say that the authorities of Artsakh are incompetent and didn’t know what Armenia was negotiating.

When the Armenian Prime Minister, who is the official negotiator from the Armenian side, proposed to clarify the provisions that lead to misinterpretations of the Madrid Principles at a joint meeting of the Security Councils of the Republic of Artsakh and the Republic of Armenia (See: Prime Minister N. Pashinyan's speech at the joint session of the Security Councils of Armenia and Artsakh on March 12, 2019, https://goo.su/vzCKm), didn’t that imply that both countries' military-political leadership was not only informed but also in agreement?

If the seven regions were part of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Artsakh according to its 2006 and 2017 constitutions, how did Armenia negotiate the return of those same regions with Artsakh's knowledge? Isn’t it true that only the people have the right to change the borders of Artsakh through a referendum? Isn't there democracy in Artsakh? Or haven’t you propagated and accepted the last article of Artsakh’s Constitution?

Or have you also given up the management of the self-defense of the Artsakh people for the sake of power? Without opening numerous brackets, I declare with full responsibility that the authorities of Artsakh and Armenia, connected by thousands of ties and constituting each other, are military-political criminals who are even prepared to hand over Artsakh to avoid deserved punishment. That is why even now, without a clear vision to lead the country out of this dire situation, they rush to become part of the government, to inherit power. These people, if they have even an ounce of consciousness, should see that power and authority are responsibilities and burdens, not places for looting. But lo and behold, the opposite is true.

And if after all of this there are people who continue to claim that I represent some individual, circle, or power, and have an intention to surrender Artsakh or integrate it, then there’s nothing left but to ask directly: who is handing over Artsakh—those familiar faces whom you inherited what you have today from, or I, who left you the Republic of Artsakh with 2,600 to 12,700 square kilometers along with a well-organized, combat-ready army…"