"Azerbaijani, Armenian presidents' Munich meeting was positive"

How do you assess the last Munich Meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents, as well as the Athens negotiations?

The Munich meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents became the sixth one held between the presidents of two countries in 2009. It testifies the intensification of the negotiation process. In general, the Azerbaijani president has presented a concrete and principled position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict since early 2009. He drew attention of major countries such as the USA, Russia and other countries to the importance and urgency of solving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It is the important process.

As it is known, some processes have occurred in the region. The President has presented a specific position during the numerous meetings and contacts with the heads of leading countries since early 2009. As a result, this negotiation process has become more intense. On the other hand, the process of opening the Armenian-Turkish border played a role of a special catalyst in the positive sense.

If the international community and the great powers pay such attention to the Caucasus and make efforts to restore security in the region, solving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is the issue of top priority. The rest issues are secondary.

The Azerbaijani President has recently made important statements on the nature and course of the conflict resolution. These statements alarmed the Armenian leadership, but on the other side drew attention of the big countries towards the conflict, and played an important role in intensifying the negotiating process.

From this point of view, comments concerning the entire process were given at the last presidential meeting in Munich and at the recent OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Athens. The fact is that a positive dynamics is observed at the talks.

There were other different statements too. Even Foreign Minister of France Bernard Kouchner said under the present circumstances a framework agreement might be signed. This is a very optimistic statement. I approach such statements a little carefully, as I always observe hypocritical, insidious position of Armenian leaders, have seen in the negotiations held within 10-15 years, know that they are not principled in their positions, express a certain position in one meeting and backtrack on their position in another meeting.

In addition, I want to mention two factors that assume great importance. First: Azerbaijani President makes all his efforts, takes all steps for the solution to the conflict. The main fact attracting attention is that since the beginning of the year, important statements have been made by the U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and President Nicolas Sarkozy. They witnessed that the issue of opening the Turkish-Armenian border, which is solved with the help of the great powers, stumbles over the Karabakh problem.

Turkish Prime Minister once again mentioned the relationship between the normalization of relations with Armenia and the Karabakh issue. The Athens summit summed up all these processes and determined the final position. The continuation of positive dynamics in the negotiation process for full settlement of the conflict was particularly noted.

Co-Chairmen say that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of the basic principles within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Has this moment been negotiated?

In the negotiation process one of the important points is to persuade the Armenian leadership of this issue, and the co-chairmen and the great powers, who recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, agree with this. The broad autonomy to Nagorno-Karabakh must be provided within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities living together in Nagorno-Karabakh can themselves formulate its status. At certain stages, the Armenians agree with this, but later again change their opinion, because Armenia does not have a stable government that would rely on the strength of the people.The history has shown that attempts have been made in Armenia to resolve the conflict, but they failed.

The year comes to an end, are some progress expected in resolving the conflict next year?

I think that this positive dynamics must continue. For already 10-15 years, the co-chairmen have been working to resolve this conflict and they themselves well see that their efforts yield no results, but it is impossible to withstand this for a long time, there must be results. The co-chairmen understand that this can not continue for long. Over the years, we have not been closer to solving the conflict. At the same time, the states they represent understand that as states being interested in the region, they should make greater efforts to restore security here.  

This conflict can never be considered as a secondary issue. This is the number one problem in the region. The solution to this conflict is important both for Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as for big powers such as Russia, USA, etc. The failure to resolve the conflict causes more harms to the strategic interests of these states. The positive dynamics must continue in 2010, and it is important for Azerbaijan and for the region as a whole, including big countries. It is impossible to think that this problem is only of two countries.

Yerevan once again raises the question of involvement of the Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiation process. What do you think about this?

From time to time, the leadership of Armenia takes a position of political speculation. Any statement by the head of state or the foreign minister is responsible. Many states support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan, but not always they follow their words and do not take the necessary steps, otherwise the problem would be solved long ago. Using it, Armenia always has a reserve position. It has already happened in the negotiation process. The question of involvement of the Armenian community in the negotiation process is one of the reserve options of Armenia, which they sometimes use. Until now, the co-chairmen and the OSCE have repeatedly stated that in this conflict there are two sides - Armenia and Azerbaijan. And the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities can be involved in the negotiation process closer to the final. Azerbaijan also follows this opinion and stands on its position.

Does international community put pressure on Azerbaijan?

A: No-one pressures on Azerbaijan. This comes from the fact that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev showed the world that he is the president of an independent state and obtained his mandate from the people, and it is clearly seen in our current position. The position of the West with regards to Azerbaijan formed not yesterday.