The alternative to Armenia-Azerbaijan border delimitation is not to have delimitation; they do not sign. The second president of Armenia, leader of the opposition “Armenia” Bloc Robert Kocharyan stated about this during his year-end press conference Monday.
“When they say, the alternative to delimitation is simply not to go to that process because you are in a very weak state. You have a thousand opportunities to substantiate: you do not have diplomatic relations, you do not have any bilateral relations, delimitation moves ahead nowhere without diplomatic relations. After all, when a person wears clothes, first he wears underwear, then some things, finally he wears a coat; that is, the opposite does not happen,” said Kocharyan.
To a reporter’s remark that not signing a border delimitation agreement means not having a specified border with Azerbaijan, and to the question of whether in that case, Azerbaijan may carry out any encroachment on the borders of Armenia, the second president responded as follows: “I do not consider it right to simplify the situation in this case because we do not say there is no border. Not going to delimitation at this moment is not to say we have no borders at all, but it bears the following consequences in it: The confirmed delimitation means that you recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, which will enable Azerbaijan to tell us and Russia once and for all that ‘You have recognized my territorial integrity,’ we will say, ‘Yes,’ ‘If you have recognized, then I put a customs point in the Lachin corridor.’ What will you say? You will say, ‘It is not envisaged by the November 9  document. Yes, I will wait for 3.5 years, when the issue of continuity of the mandate of the [Russian] peacekeeping troops [in the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict zone] must be discussed, then during the ‘dry’ negotiations I will say to Russia, there is no need anymore, the issue is settled, there is no problem, the peacekeepers can go.’ After 1-2 months of negotiations, you take a step back and say, ‘On only one condition: my [military] post must be here.’ They will put up that post, which will stand quietly for a few months, will watch, as it happened in [Armenia’s] Kapan [city].
We do not even control huge areas today, the danger of delimitation is to make this scenario possible. You should always put yourself in the opponent’s shoes, you should ask what you will do to solve this problem, at the same time say what argument you have against it; there is none. These [Armenian] authorities want to do that so that after that they can say, ‘What do I have to do with it? The Karabakh issue has nothing to do with me anymore and I ‘threw’ it in the ‘pockets’ of the Russians.’ I am somewhat informed that such questions are happening now, they say, ‘Let them negotiate with the Russians. What does it have to do with us?”’
According to the second president, Karabakh was strong in the past, and Armenia was the guarantor of its security.
“Then speaking in place of Karabakh is one question, today not speaking for Karabakh is a completely different thing. It is simply not possible to manipulate the society in this way. Then, the voice of Karabakh should have been heard more, today the voice of Armenia should be heard more,” Kocharyan added.