#CivilNetCheck: At the June 27 online press conference, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan again referred to the history of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, and made controversial and baseless allegations again.
CivilNet fact-checking team #CivilNetCheck has already referred to Pashinyan’s manipulative statements that do not correspond to reality. The width of the Lachin corridor was indicated During the press conference, Pashinyan again insisted that the width of the Lachin corridor was not mentioned in the negotiation documents. “There are representatives of the former government, they say that the Lachin corridor should have been so wide, so many kilometers wide.
“There is no such thing in any negotiation document,” Pashinyan said. In reality, however, the width of the corridor was mentioned in at least two documents, 1997 phased և 2001 Key West documents. See, Pashinyan’s statement is wrong, and groundless, the width of the Lachin corridor was mentioned It is noteworthy that Pashinyan mentioned during the press conference that the previous negotiation documents can be found on the Internet. “You can just look for it from several sources,” he said. Place of referendum համ Proportion of participants At the press conference, the Prime Minister referred to the Madrid Principles, and insisted that the referendum on the status of Karabakh envisaged by them should have been held in an uncertain place, in time, with participants.
“When in the international community, in fact, you state that the status of Karabakh must be determined in the future, by agreement of the parties, without restrictions, in a referendum to be held in an indefinite place, indefinitely, with indefinite participants, you, the Armenian side, accept that December 1991 “The referendum held on October 10 [in Nagorno Karabakh] will not decide anything,” Pashinyan said. This assertion was made by Pashinyan earlier, it was referred to by CivilNetCheck. See: Pashinyan’s statement about the referendum in Nagorno Karabakh has nothing to do with reality Not only the Madrid but also the Kazan documents state that the referendum (plebiscite) on the final status of Nagorno Karabakh should be held among the population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the same national (ethnic) proportion as it was before the beginning of the 1988 Karabakh conflict. Before the beginning of the conflict, Armenians made up the vast majority of the NKAO population – 76-77%. 162,181 people lived in the NKAO at that time, including 123,076 Armenians and 37,264 Azeris. The benchmark of the Istanbul document Speaking about the benchmark of the Armenian side in the talks, Pashinyan said that the benchmark has been lowered many times before, pointing to the Istanbul document signed by former President Robert Kocharian at the 1999 OSCE summit in Istanbul. “When Nagorno Karabakh was left out of the negotiation process in 1998, what was it, if not lowering the bar? “When Armenia adopted the Security Charter in Europe at the OSCE Istanbul Summit in 1999, which did not directly address the principles of security, what was it, if not lowering the bar,” the Prime Minister said. Pashinyan had previously claimed that the Security Charter registered the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within Azerbaijan and accused Robert Kocharyan of being a Turkish agent in order to vote for it. In reality, however, the passage to which Pashinyan referred refers to fundamental human rights, the protection of the rights of minorities in the existing states, and there is no separate word in the declaration on the Karabakh conflict. See in the footsteps of Kocharyan և Pashinyan’s statements. What was envisaged in the Istanbul document? Moreover, in the other part of the Istanbul document, the “Istanbul Summit Declaration”, which Pashinyan does not mention, the paragraph on the Karabakh conflict, unlike other conflicts in the post-Soviet space, does not mention the principle of territorial integrity.