Abraham Gasparyan: wrote in his telegram channel
The working document on the normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations is abstract and does not presuppose long-term solutions for peace and regional stability.
1- This junta of wasted diplomats, security, and military-political resources of the country is lying and manipulating. The 5 points published by Azerbaijan, on which the Baku envoy was discussing with the majority of the Armenian backpack assembly until late last night, are only a positive part of the process that has started. It is not ruled out that this group of young people waving their fingers in delusion, by force of custom, has a secret agreement with the Azerbaijani sister government not to publish the full list of concessions until the critical moment arrives. This is not the principle of secrecy of the negotiation process, but a conspiratorial deal, which contradicts all legal and moral norms, the RA Constitution, and political-security imperatives. Each of the 5 points presented carries serious security risks, bypassing the Artsakh settlement issue and reducing the possibility of de-escalation of the conflict.
2- The response of the Armenian Foreign Ministry is not adequate, it is not targeted, it has nothing to do with the normalization of Yerevan-Baku relations. Diplomatic relations between the countries are regulated by the Geneva Conventions and other well-known conventions. If Baku bypasses the issue of Artsakh in its 5 points, presents it in the context of mutual recognition of territorial integrity and sovereignty, and official Yerjan opposes the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, BUT does not speak about the Artsakh conflict, then joins Baku’s suffering, forget the issue and say There is no Artsakh issue, there is no conflict because Armenia has renounced any territorial claims.
3- If the RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs quotes the Helsinki Final Act,
then why is there no hint in the answer about the status of Artsakh or Yerevan, the negotiating approaches, and principles? Is Armenia the guarantor of Artsakh’s security or not? Is the right of nations to self-determination a principle of settlement for Armenia or not?
In the second of the 5 points presented by Baku, this issue seems to be settled smoothly, opening a wide range of voluntary comments.
Formally, this working paper has an acceptable and axiomatic package of terminology of international law, but, in fact, it is not in the national-state interests of Armenia, Artsakh and the Armenian people.
4- In the last 15 months, I have spoken and analyzed the risks of Baku’s proposal on demarcation and delimitation on an almost weekly basis. I suggested avoiding the trap during the hearings in the National Assembly last November, stating that the Genesis Armenia Brain Center / Foundation is ready to participate in the process with its professional resources, not to allow Baku to be guided by the maps of the 70s (at worst, 20 30s or 80s). HG. To open your mouth with a loving smile, to speak in the language of a fingertip, to lie rudely, to roll under the feet of a Turk, to sell the security keys of the country for 30 cents, but to sound like a cool diplomat, you will not answer, but you will be destroyed more brutally than Carthage.