Arif Yunusov: "There is a split in the Armenian society, but not on the Karabakh issue"

-How would you comment on the announcement of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan, who said that the discussed document on the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict envisions plebiscite on the definition of Nagorno Karabakh status?

-The definition of the most important and painful issue-the status of Nagorno Karabakh-by way of a referendum, is really a basis of the current stage of talks, best known as a Prague process.

This announcement was not a surprise or a sensation. The due information was spread in early June of 2005, when Azerbaijan and Armenian medias declared the details of a new plan, the called "phased-packeted".

Its essence is the following: Armenians shall return five occupied regions around Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijani citizens shall return there under protection of the peacekeeping forces; all communications and borders shall open between Armenia and Azerbaijan. as well as between Armenia and Turkey;after it within 10-15 years, a referendum to define the status of this area:whether to be annexed to Armenia, become an independent state or remain a part of Azerbaijan- shall be held in Nagorno Karanakh.

AS the idea of a referendum was negatively assessed in Azerbaijan, a month later, in August of 2005, deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov, confirming the fact of conduction of a referendum in the framework of the conflict resolution, at a press conference in Baku, tried to soften the reaction, saying that it is not known what will be there in 15-20 years.

Whoever has stated it, including the Minsk Group co-chairs. Let's recall their joint statement of June 22 of 2006, in which everything was repeated, including the idea of referendum. Thus, I would repeat that there is nothing new and sensational about the announcement of Nalbandyan. He just repeated the facts that are well known to all of us. The co-chairs have replaced the term "referendum", which bothers most people in Azerbaijan, with "plebiscite", but the essence of the case has not changed in the result. This is just a word tightrope walking.

-At the same time, the leader of Democratic Party of Armenia Aram Sarkissyan states that holding a plebiscite on the status of Nagorno Karabakh is the most unlucky variant for Armenia and conduction of a plebiscite is an anti-Armenian step, affecting Armenia and that thus, in fact, the Armenian side recognizes incompetence of the creation of "Nagorno Karabakh Republic". Why are there so many differences between the Armenian politicians in this issue?

-Armenian politicians, especially those close to the ruling powers, can be divided into to groups on the issues of the Nagorno Karabakh status: radicals, which propose that the referendum on the status of Nagorno Karabakh was already held in 1991 and resulted in declaration of its independence by Armenians and therefore, considering that there is no need for a new referendum. But most Armenian politicians, especially among the ruling elite consider that referendum can be held if only by this means it is possible to gain independence of Nagorno Karabakh. It is important that Azerbaijan agree with the results of referendum.

No one in Nagorno Karabakh has officially agreed for the resolution of the problem in the framework of the Mardid principles-this announcement was made by head of Democracy fraction, "chairman of the parliamentary commission on external relations" of "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" Vagram Atanesyan.

At the same time, active spokesman for Armenian Foreign Minister Tigran Balayan said recently tyhat Madrid document is a basis for talks on the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. How can you explain the polarization in this issue?

-I have already answered this question. To certain extend, this is an element of a political game or a maneuver. It means, that Armenian authorities can reject their commitments, referring to the actions of radicals, anytime, in case situation, favorable for them, establishes. There are numerous political forces in the Armenian society, which speak against the return of 7 regions, occupied along with former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Moreover, they even reject the term "occupied", preferring to say "released".

But the main role in the adoption of the decision is played not by these powers but by those who are ready for a referendum with outcomes predicted in advance, which is favorable for Armenians. But they are not sure that Azerbaijan will gradually agree and sign the document on the need to hold a referendum (or a plebiscite) to define the status of Nagorno Karabakh. Thus, it is worthy to speak of the strong polarization on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh among Armenian politicians, especially, taking into account that the ruling forces in Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is the same clan and they define today the political weather for Armenians.

-Thus, it can not be said that there is a split in the Armenian society?

-The split in the Armenian society does exist, but it does not refer to the Karabakh issue. In this issue unity is dominating with small private and insignificant differences.But the split refers to other issues, especially in the social life, after the events of March 1 of 2008 and it has not been overcome yet and will further play a significant role, considering the painful reaction of Armenians to the death of their compatriots.

-How can Azerbaijan use the current unstable situation in Armenia?

-Former Minister Vardan Oskanyan said not by accident that the March 1 events affected the image of Armenia. Previously they stated that unlike Azerbaijan Armenia is better represented and listed as a more democratic state in all the documents of international organizations, especially human rights organizations. This was their advantage in the negotiation process and during propaganda. Now they lack it.

And Azerbaijan in the light of the upcoming presidential elections will have a chance to change the situation in its favor. For this purpose, it should consider the mistakes of powers in Georgia and Armenia and hold democratic process, settle the issue of political prisoners, release reporters and on the whole change the situation in the country.

This will immediately influence the attitude of the leading world states and international organizations to Azerbaijan and, certainly, to Karabakh.

/Day.Az/