Interview with Robert Avetisyan, NKR Representative in the USA
This interview was conducted by the New Eurasia Center with Mr. Robert Avetisyan,
Representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the USA.
Washington, D.C., 29 Oct 2009
Tell me a bit about your representation. (...) The Karabakhi government has appointed you (...),
but [could you please tell me about] the relation to the Armenian government and also to the
Armenians in America and all the associations here?
R.A: Yes, as you rightly mentioned I am appointed by special decree of the Karabakhi president, Mr
Bako Sahakyan, and as I said earlier we are here since 1997 and this office has been opened by the
initiative of the Armenian community here. So this indicates the level of cooperation between us
and, as you can imagine, being unrecognized in the United States or anywhere in the world, it
would be very difficult to implement a full-scale diplomatic activity. So in this respect we rely again
on the assistance of Armenian communities in different countries, including the United States. In
our daily job we are cooperating very closely with the major Armenian American organizations and
we can say that our cooperation is quite fruitful and we can see the results every year.
What about the relation to the government in Yerevan? It is quite often obvious that there is a lack
of trust in the American or international Armenian community toward the government in Yerevan.
Do you see that as a potential conflict?
R.A: I wouldn't say that there is a lack of confidence from the Armenian diaspora in the authorities
in Yerevan. We know about the problems, but they exist within the community, within society, so
there is nothing extraordinary. A big part of the Armenian community rejects or opposes the
Armenian-Turkish rapproachment, because the Armenian diaspora is a direct result of the Armenian
genocide. So that is an issue of very, very serious significance for them. But there is no such thing as
a distrust in the government (...) and it doesn't affect in any way the activities of the NKR
representation or, as far as I know, of the Armenian Embassy of the United States.
So you are also cooperating with the Embassy?
R.A: Well, you know, we do cooperate and we do consult with them, but there are many things we
can do by ourselves. So for many issues we do not have to rely on outer support.
Jumping on to the big issue these days, the protocols between Armenia and Turkey. What is your
opinion on the protocols as they stand now?
R.A: Our opinion is that it would be very good to see this process going on. Our opinion is that
Turkey could be a much more positive player in the region than it was until the signing of the
protocols. And the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is not in any way linked to this
process is very much satisfactory. We are sure that interlinking these two processes could
jeopardize both.
So in general you are positive to the protocols as they stand?
R.A: Yes. As far as there is nothing to do with Karabakh and there are no preconditions - by the way,
as you know this position is supported by the United States, France, all the mediators to the
Karabakh conflict and all the major players of the international arena. As long as there are no
preconditions, as long as the societies are really open to getting closer to each other to overcome
all the difficulties we had throughout all these centuries, of course we should be only in favor of
that. But again, we have to be realistic in this process and keep our word, not change our position
in the course of the process.
What is your opinion the Minsk process [the OSCE initiative for solving the Karabakh conflict and for
maintaining the ceasefire, chaired by the US, Russia and France]?
R.A: Our opinion is that the Minsk process is the only format which is possible now, the most
appropriate for the negotiation process now. We are in the Minsk process already for 17 years and
we know that the major achievement of this process is there is still relative peace in the region.
There are no active hostilities, which is a very big plus for this mediation effort. In all the stages of
the negotiation process the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and of Nagorno-Karabakh have been
expressing their satisfaction with the activitiy of the Minsk Group.
There has been criticism that all actors are not present in the process, for example the Karabakhi
government, but also the Azerbaijani refugees from Karabakh.
R.A: Well, the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities have always been a part of this process. We didn't sit
at the table when the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan were speaking, but as you have noticed,
every time the co-chairs visit the region they try to find time to consult with the NKR president and
the NKR authorities in general. So we don't feel that we are deprived of the participation in the
negotiation process, we just say that the full format should be restored, in the sense that we should
be there when the presidents speak. If one is trying to discuss the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh it is
quite natural that representatives of the authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh should be there. Without
that no tangible results can be reached and this idea was supported by all the OSCE co-chairs.
So doesn't that mean that the current discussions between presidents Sargsian and Aliev make
[results] impossible? Doesn't it mean that whatever conslusions they reach are not going to be
accepted by the NKR government?
R.A: If they are not consulting with the NKR government, if the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities are
not part of the discussion it will be impossible to impose anything on Karabakh. (...)
That is the position of the Armenian goverernment as well. Any decision on Nagorno-Karabakh
should be taken with participation of Nagorno-Karabakh itself, because throughout history when
Armenia and Azerbaijan were very close to reaching an agreement it was rejected by the Karabakhi
side.
In June, I think it was, Matthew Bryza [the American Minsk Group co-chair until earlier this year]
was in Armenia to give a speech on what they had achieved so far in the discussions. At least there
were some details on what the final process should look like, the handing over of occupied
territories outside Karabakh, the return of refugees, etc. What do you think of this possibility?
R.A: It is one of the ideas and one of the discussions that has been taking place throughout the
years. Of course Mr Bryza is very well aware of the situation and when he says something it should
be taken into account, but those territories which are considered by many people in Azerbaijan and
outside Azerbaijan as occupied territories, they now form the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh
republic. In the summer of 2006 we adopted our constitution, which clearly fixes the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh as all the territories under control. So there is no such thing as occupied
territories. There is the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic and any change of the territory
must be due to a nation-wide referendum.
That has, as far as we know, not been on the table in the discussions between the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia has not recognized Karabakh, probably partly because they don't
want to define the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh. How do you see a way out of that? Is there
something you could negotiate on in this? Because I guess what you are hinting at is some kind of
package solution where the areas under Armenian Karbakhi control constitute a state? Is that your
position and how do you see a possibility to reach an agreement with Azerbaijan?
R.A: So, the possibilities of reaching an agreement. First we have to deal with the reasons of the
conflict, not only the present situation. The reasons were clear and straight: The discrimination of
Nagorno-Karabakh under 70 years of Soviet existence in Soviet Azerbaijan. Karabakh had never been
a part of Azerbaijan, of independent Azerbaijan. The independence of Nagorno-Karabakh has been
proclaimed in full compliance within acting legislation, which was the Soviet constitution,
corresponding to all the international norms. After that we had several referenda, which reiterated
the decision of Nagorno-Karabakh's population. So what is the solution here? The solution is only
one. Azerbaijan should take into account the reality and abandon its unrealistic position that it can
take Karabakh back or conquer it; they have tried to do it once, but we all know the result. And all
those territories outside the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region, they are the result of
the Azerbaijani incursion of 1991 and 1994. We didn't start the war - and by the way there are now
territories which are occupied by Azerbaijan, noone is speaking about them - the northern part of
Karabakh, the Shahumian region, part of Martakert region and part of Martuni region - noone is
speaking about them. Many people speak about the return of refugees and so on. Noone is speaking
about Armenian refugees. So, you know, the only way out of this is a balanced approach with a
solution of reciprocal problems, of bilateral problems, and only as a package. If we try to do it step
by step it could lead to a very unpredictable situation.
When you talk about the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh at the time of the breakup of the Soviet
Union it was not recognized as a Union republic, but only as an autonomous oblast.
R.A: There is a law of 1990 which said that if a Soviet republic decides to withdraw from the Soviet
Union all the autonomous political, administrative entities within that republic have the right to
decide their own legal administrative status.
New Eurasia Center
A forum for cooperation, development and research in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
