Skip to main content

Eurasianet

Main Menu

  • Regions
  • Topics
  • Media
  • About
  • Search
  • Newsletter
  • русский
  • Support us
X

Caucasus

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia

Central Asia

Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Conflict Zones

Abkhazia
Nagorno Karabakh
South Ossetia

Eastern Europe

Belarus
Moldova
Russia
The Baltics
Ukraine

Eurasian Fringe

Afghanistan
China
EU
Iran
Mongolia
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
X

Environment

Economy

Politics

Kazakhstan's Bloody January 2022
Kyrgyzstan 2020 unrest

Security

Society

American diplomats in Central Asia
Arts and Culture
Coronavirus
Student spotlight
X

Visual Stories

Podcast
Video

Blogs

Tamada Tales
The Bug Pit

Podcasts

EurasiaChat
Expert Opinions
The Central Asianist
X
You can search using keywords to narrow down the list.
Armenia, Caucasus

Armenia: Hint of Territorial Concessions to Azerbaijan Sparks Controversy

The widespread outrage underscores the disconnect between hardened public perceptions of the conflict and diplomatic proposals that have long been the subject of negotiations in the effort to resolve it.

Emil Sanamyan Sep 19, 2017

Armenia's foreign minister suggested the country could hand over certain territories around the disputed Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan as part of a hypothetical peace deal, sparking controversy among Armenians.

The widespread outrage underscores the disconnect between hardened public perceptions of the conflict and diplomatic proposals that have long been the subject of negotiations in the effort to resolve it.

Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian made the remarks on September 18 at the “Armenia-Diaspora” conference in Yerevan. During the question and answer session he was asked about Armenian territorial withdrawals outlined in what is known as the “Madrid Principles” worked out by international negotiators.

“As far as the return of territories, we are talking about those territories that [if returned] would not threaten the security of Karabakh, nor the [conflict’s] resolution,” Nalbandian was quoted as saying. “I cannot add any other details, or negotiations might fail.”

The question was most likely spurred by the outgoing interim United States negotiator for Karabakh Richard Hoagland’s comments on the Madrid Principles made last month.

“There can be no settlement without respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, and the recognition that its sovereignty over these territories must be restored,” Hoagland said.

That statement was widely criticized in Armenian American media as excessively pro-Azerbaijani.

The Madrid Principles are not final but broadly call for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from five former Azerbaijani districts south and east of Nagorno Karabakh and special modalities for two other districts sandwiched between Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, linked with the determination of Nagorno Karabakh’s status and workings of other security arrangements.

Most Karabakh watchers will be hard-pressed to remember when in recent years have negotiations not failed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The last vague document the two sides agreed to was in November 2008, at a time when both countries were still in a particularly intimidated state after Russia's military rout of Georgia. The focus in talks since then has been on preventing an escalation in violence rather than on any actual peace agreement.

Nalbandian’s deputy Shavarsh Kocharian rushed in to express ‘surprise’ by the brouhaha. Nalbandian wasn’t giving anything away, Kocharian assured, insisting that if anything Nalbandian had “added two conditions” to what has been a long-standing provision in the negotiations.

Some in Azerbaijan, meanwhile, crowed over the statement. “Perhaps, Yerevan has finally realized that it is necessary to move towards peace and this is the only chance to avoid a war which Armenia has obviously lost,” wrote commentator Elmira Tariverdiyeva.

Nalbandian’s comments and the subsequent reaction recalled a controversy around Armenia’s previous foreign minister, Vartan Oskanian, in 2001. Oskanian was lambasted then for calling the former Azerbaijani districts around Nagorno Karabakh “occupied.” Incidentally, Kocharian – then an opposition member of parliament – was one of those who criticized Oskanian at the time.

In 2001, as now, Armenian press accounts saw the comments as evidence of a scheming government testing the waters for a possible “sell-out” of Armenian territory. As a result, no Armenian politician has used the term “occupied territories” since.

Sign up for Eurasianet's free weekly newsletter. Support Eurasianet: Help keep our journalism open to all, and influenced by none.

Related

Armenia embarks on healthcare reform with costs unclear
Major hydropower project caught up in Georgia's "foreign agent" turmoil
Azerbaijan launches multi-day tours of Shusha

Popular

Why Kazakhs are growing less satisfied with life, and Kyrgyz more
Armenia embarks on healthcare reform with costs unclear
Arshaluis Mgdesyan
Major hydropower project caught up in Georgia's "foreign agent" turmoil
Nini Gabritchidze

Eurasianet

  • About
  • Team
  • Contribute
  • Republishing
  • Privacy Policy
  • Corrections
  • Contact
Eurasianet © 2023