"After the Karabakh war, there are talks about some kind of corridor linking Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan in the agreements, Turkey still continues its position and formulation on this corridor, and Turkey calls it the “Zangezur Corridor”. What is your position regarding this corridor? Here, too, we all saw the “Crossroads of Peace” project, is it an alternative to the “Zangezur Corridor” or does it reflect your general regional approach?" one of the Turkish journalists asked.
"You know, first of all, the expression “Zangezur Corridor” is incomprehensible and unacceptable to us, because first of all, the Republic of Armenia has nothing to do with that expression, and the fact that such an expression is used, in the Republic of Armenia it is perceived as a territorial claim against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia. I recently published an article on this topic, the main meaning of which was that we are in favor of opening regional communications, and let me say that first of all we are interested in opening regional communications, because in fact we are the ones who are under blockade. No other country in the region is under blockade. We have 4 borders, two of which are completely closed. And this fact in itself shows how much we need and are interested in opening regional communications.
Paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020 is often referred to, but I want to draw your attention to a very important fact, that in paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, there is no expression of corridor at all. I understand that the word corridor is used differently in other regions and in international discourse, but in the context of the trilateral statement of November 9, there is a nuance, there is the expression of the Lachin corridor, which in this context is specific, that is, it is written and signed, and in paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, the expression of corridor does not exist at all.
And moreover, there is a lot of talk about the fact that in the trilateral statement of November 9, there is a provision that the security of the transportation of passengers and cargo through the territory of Armenia must be ensured by representatives and forces of third countries. There is no such thing at all in the trilateral statement of November 9. Moreover, it is written that the Republic of Armenia guarantees the movement of goods, vehicles, and passengers. How can the Republic of Armenia guarantee security if it itself does not provide security?
But I also want to make the following observation regarding the trilateral statement: the trilateral statement cannot be treated piecemeal. For example, the trilateral statement mentions the exchange and return of prisoners of war, hostages, and other detained persons, but this issue has not been resolved yet. Moreover, it is being exacerbated by the trials taking place in Baku, which, in our assessment, are staged trials where prohibited measures, torture, and according to our information, other prohibited measures, etc. are being used. The trilateral statement mentions Nagorno-Karabakh, but Azerbaijan continuously claims that there is no Nagorno-Karabakh. The trilateral statement talks about the return of refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions, but following the trilateral statement, on the contrary, the number of refugees has increased, and forced displacement has occurred, etc. I mean, it is not a good approach to treat the provisions of the trilateral statement piecemeal. In some places, they say it is no longer in force, in other places, they say it is in force, while attributing to it provisions that do not actually exist. After all, it is a public document.
As for communications: is the Republic of Armenia ready to provide a connection between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan through its own territory? Yes, of course it is ready. And we have made a very specific proposal to Azerbaijan on this topic, which, in our opinion, is not merely a proposal, but a solution to the problem in terms of railway freight transportation. And we are waiting for Azerbaijan’s response.
But I want to draw your attention to the fact that in general, including in the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020, there is no such separate agenda for providing a transport connection between the western regions of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. This agenda is included in the general agenda of opening regional communications. Which means that Armenia and Azerbaijan must mutually open communications for each other, both external and internal, that is, from Armenia to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan, and from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for example, there is no railway connection from the northern regions of Armenia to Meghri, that is, the southern region, and the railway connection passes only through the territory of Azerbaijan, that is, the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan. In other words, this assumes, and therefore we say, that we are certainly ready to provide the railway connection and we expect that a similar connection will be provided for Armenia, in particular, for the railway connection from Yeraskh to Meghri, because due to the mountainous, highly mountainous terrain, there are difficulties in having a railway from south to north of Armenia.
At the same time, in our understanding, this also means the creation of a railway connection from Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia to Turkey and vice versa, and the creation of a road transport connection, including from Azerbaijan to Turkey and vice versa. This, in turn, means that Armenia can be connected to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia via rail and road transport through the territory of Azerbaijan. Of course, in this case, the opening of the Armenia-Turkey railway is also assumed, etc.
We are ready for these solutions. And we do not understand why Azerbaijan does not respond to these solutions and, on the contrary, an attempt is constantly made to use the topic within escalation logic. In other words, the question has a very clear answer: is the Republic of Armenia ready to provide the opportunity for railway freight transportation from western Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia to Nakhchivan? Yes, it is ready. And we also expect that the same opportunity will be created for the railway connection from Armenia to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan. We are also ready to provide road transport communication.
By the way, I emphasized in my last article that if in other conditions, in other cases there would still be a need to make infrastructure investments, but right now, in the event of a political and legal decision, it is possible to provide road transport communication from Turkey through the territory of Armenia to Azerbaijan through the Margara checkpoint, where the infrastructure is ready, the roads are in normal condition, up to the Tegh border point, after which, crossing the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, to Lachin and from there deep into Azerbaijan.
That is, just today, and I have publicly announced this, we are ready to provide such a road connection, which is expressed and is the combination of these perceptions, which we call the “Crossroads of Peace”. Moreover, we have specifically chosen such a name for this project so that none of our neighboring countries will be allergic to this name. And I think that this is a very direct justification of our constructive position and positioning," Pashinyan answered.
