During the Parliament-Government question-answer session, deputy of the ‘Civil Contract’ faction Arman Yeghoyan asked a question about the statement of the President of the European Council after the Pashinyan-Michel-Aliyev trilateral meeting in Brussels. Yeghoyan quoted Michel as saying that “it is necessary to address the rights and security of the ethnic Armenian population of Karabakh.”
“These words were interpreted differently in the Armenian media, speculating that this means that Artsakh's (Nagorno-Karabakh’s) right to self-determination is excluded from the agenda, that the EU does not consider the possibility of a separate status for Artsakh, or that it is a step back from the OSCE MG agenda,” Yeghoyan said.
Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan detailed the discussion.
“At least two of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries welcomed and supported those talks and discussions. The country co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group has reaffirmed the principles set for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I would like to remind you that in our bilateral statement with the President of the Russian Federation, which is the Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the importance of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the use of the potential of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs in this regard were noted.
A very serious discussion on the Karabakh issue took place in Brussels, as a result of which the differences between the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan were registered. They are expressed publicly. Azerbaijan considers that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem is solved, Armenia considers that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem is not solved.
In the possible context of the peace agreements, you know that Azerbaijan has presented its five principles, we have presented our observations, and the agenda in this regard, and we have said that negotiations should be held on that basis. The principles proposed by us enshrine the security and rights of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the clarification of the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
As no agreement was reached between the parties as a result of the discussions, the President of the European Council decided to make comments on his behalf, that, in his opinion, would reflect as many elements as possible from the positions of both sides. Whether it turned out to be accurate or not is another matter for discussion, another thing is that we have expressed our positions, and there is no change in them, we will continue to go that way consistently,” Pashinyan said.
Yeghoyan quoted another speculation that the issue of enclaves had been discussed.
“This question arose when the message said, “Communication between Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan, and communication between Armenia and Armenia.
A question arose as to what kind of communication between Armenia and Armenia it is. The Secretary of the Security Council commented that it was, for example, about the railway communication between Yeraskh and Meghri, which can also create a de jure opportunity for automobile communication. Of course, we have a road from Meghri to all parts of Armenia, but the railway is only about that.
As for your question, I would like to say that such an issue was not discussed in Brussels, but we should know that Azerbaijan raises [the issue] with a hint or in different direct formats, and our position there is transparent and public. We have said that in all these processes we must delve into the legal grounds. We have said that so far we have not registered with our studies that there are de jure Azerbaijani enclaves in the territory of Armenia, on the contrary, we have registered that Artsvashen is de jure the territory of Armenia. No one is going to do anything behind the people, especially behind the people of Artsakh. If we have a concrete proposal for concrete solutions, the public will be properly informed about it,” Pashinyan said.
