Are Negotiations Possible Between Artsakh and Azerbaijan? Sergey Ghazaryan Provides Insights

“The Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict has never been considered an internal affair of Azerbaijan,” states Sergey Ghazaryan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Artsakh, in an interview with the Artsakhpress news agency.

How do you comment on the Azerbaijani President’s April 18 statement that Armenians living in Karabakh must either accept Azerbaijani citizenship or look for a place to live elsewhere?

This is not the first time the Azerbaijani President has made statements that reveal Azerbaijan’s real intentions to ethnically cleanse Artsakh and expel its indigenous people from their historical homeland. The ongoing blockade of Artsakh by Azerbaijan’s authoritarian leadership for over four months is just one of the tools for implementing these criminal plans. Through coercion, force, and threats, Azerbaijan is essentially trying to compel the people of Artsakh to accept its illegal demands, which, among other things, contradict mandatory norms of international law. The fact that Azerbaijani leadership no longer even hides its criminal intentions indicates a lack of sufficient international response and engagement toward ending the blockade of Artsakh and halting Azerbaijan’s genocidal ambitions.

In fact, the Azerbaijani authorities, operating in an atmosphere of absolute impunity and lawlessness, are further expanding both the scale and geography of the crimes committed against the people of Artsakh and Armenia. In this regard, I would like to emphasize that states, both individually and collectively, are obliged to take effective and decisive measures to prevent the gravest crimes, first and foremost genocide and crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing and illegal deportation.

At the same time, the direct responsibility for preventing such crimes lies with the UN Security Council, a body that not only has the corresponding mandate but is also equipped with the necessary tools to halt Azerbaijan’s criminal intentions against Artsakh and its people.

In this context, it is regrettable that despite the commitment to preventing serious crimes, some representatives of international organizations and states are exerting political efforts that indirectly promote Azerbaijan's illegitimate stance and encourage its genocidal policies. We believe that such an approach from international players involved in the processes of resolving the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict and the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is not only unacceptable and counterproductive but also fraught with unpredictable consequences for the entire region.

How do you comment on the Azerbaijani President’s assertion that Karabakh is Azerbaijan’s internal affair?

The Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict has never been viewed as an internal matter of Azerbaijan, not during the existence of the USSR nor in the subsequent period of the formation of independent states on former Soviet territory. This is evidenced by the fact that post-independence of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), Armenia, and Azerbaijan, the international community established a special mechanism for resolving the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict – the Minsk Process. The decision to create an international format to determine the final political status of Artsakh indicates that the international community has not recognized Artsakh as part of independent Azerbaijan. In turn, Azerbaijan’s agreement to participate in the Minsk Process also recognizes the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is not an internal affair of Azerbaijan.

Moreover, the Armenian side has consistently emphasized that the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict is primarily a matter of human rights and freedoms, and foremost the right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination. In this regard, in accordance with international obligations undertaken, including by the state of Azerbaijan, issues of human rights and freedoms are of direct and legitimate interest to all states and do not fall exclusively within the purview of any state’s internal affairs. There are numerous examples in the world where certain countries and international organizations have intervened directly in conflict situations to prevent genocide, mass killings, and violations of human rights. In the modern world, under circumstances where all human rights and freedoms, including the collective rights of peoples, are grossly violated, only the intervention of the international community and the free realization of the right of nations to self-determination can ensure a peaceful and civilized resolution of such situations without the use of force, violence, forced displacement, and ethnic cleansing.

In the context of the ongoing blockade, the mass violations of the individual and collective rights of the people of Artsakh, and other aggressive actions, the official Baku’s desire to present the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict as its internal affair is a blatant attempt by the Azerbaijani leadership to gain a free hand from the international community to continue the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh's territory and the expulsion of its indigenous people from their ancestral lands.

We find Aliyev's ultimatum statements and threats of unleashing a new war absolutely unacceptable. The people and authorities of Artsakh are committed to their chosen path of freedom and independence, and no difficulty or threat created by Azerbaijan can divert us from this path.

Are negotiations possible between Artsakh and Azerbaijan?

The Republic of Artsakh has been and continues to be committed to the peaceful resolution of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict. We believe that lasting peace in the region can and must be achieved through negotiations and based on mutually acceptable approaches. Using unilateral coercive measures can, of course, freeze the issue, but this will be of a temporary nature, evidenced by the 70-year existence of Artsakh within the Azerbaijan SSR.

The political issues regarding the resolution of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict must be discussed in an agreed upon and internationally recognized negotiation format on the basis of equality of the parties and with the presence of strong international guarantees for the implementation of their undertaken commitments. Regarding the resolution of urgent technical and humanitarian issues, contacts between the parties began after the establishment of the ceasefire regime under the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020. On April 11, the authorities of the Republic of Artsakh sent a proposal to the Azerbaijani side through the Russian peacekeeping mission for a meeting with the mediation of the command of the Russian peacekeeping forces to discuss urgent humanitarian issues. However, there has been no response from Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is trying to politicize these contacts in an attempt to exclude the necessity of an international mechanism for conflict resolution. By rejecting the international mechanism for dialogue with official Stepanakert, Azerbaijan is trying to avoid implementing potential agreements. The involvement of the international community in the dialogue between Artsakh and Azerbaijan is the only way to guarantee a comprehensive resolution to the conflict.

How do you view the Azerbaijani side's claim that according to the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, the borders between the union republics are considered state borders, and therefore, Karabakh is recognized as an integral part of Azerbaijan?

First, it should be noted that the Alma-Ata Declaration has never been viewed as a political and legal basis for the resolution of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict or for determining the status of Artsakh. This is evidenced by the fact that even before the adoption of the declaration, negotiations for resolving the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict were already underway for several months within the framework of the Zheleznovodsk process, mediated by Russia and Kazakhstan. After the signing of the respective declaration, the resolution process continued with the mediation of Russia, the CIS, and the OSCE/OSCE. Within the framework of the negotiation process, international mediators developed fundamental principles and elements for resolution, according to which the status of Artsakh should be determined through the mandatory legal expression of its population’s will. Thus, the right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination was recognized, and a mechanism was proposed for its implementation.

All parties involved in the conflict and international mediators did not use the Alma-Ata Declaration as a guiding document while developing the basic principles for resolution. Moreover, the Alma-Ata Declaration, like any international document, should be guided by the goals and principles of the UN Charter, as well as other universal norms of international law. Therefore, the Alma-Ata Declaration contains the same principles and norms as the UN Charter, including the right to self-determination. In this regard, we find it necessary to emphasize that in cases of massive serious violations of human rights and discriminatory policies, the right to secession based on the principle of self-determination takes precedence over the principle of territorial integrity of states. This resolution is specifically described in the declaration of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states, as well as enshrined in the judicial practice of various countries.