1998 regime change wasn’t for saving Karabakh, but for seizing power – Pashinyan

YEREVAN, APRIL 14, ARMENPRESS. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan spoke about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement issue in parliament today, and commented on former President Serzh Sargsyan’s statements.

“Yesterday I presented here the chain of developments that happened in 1998 - 2018. And it is no coincidence that Serzh Sargsyan commented only on one episode, saying that he’s never negotiated over a phased resolution of the Karabakh issue,” Pashinyan said.

Pashinyan then quoted Sargsyan’s statement who said: “I’ve numerously publicly spoken about the difference between a phased and package resolution, and comprehensively explained that a package option cannot be realized in one day or one hour, and that it definitely must be resolved in phases.”

PM Pashinyan then asked why Serzh Sargsyan commented only on this episode.

“Because the explanation of this one episode solves a fundamental issue, that the regime change in 1998 wasn’t about saving Karabakh from something, but for seizing power. This is why he only commented on this episode because the explanation of this episode without details underscores that the history of 20 years had an entirely different context. It is no coincidence at all that after the 2020 war Serzh Sargsyan, reflecting on 2018, was saying that back then after having served as President for two terms he wanted to become Prime Minister for the Karabakh issue. The Karabakh issue was the legitimacy for everything. But the same Serzh Sargsyan is forgetting, he announced from this rostrum that he was staying for the Karabakh issue. How was he going to solve the Karabakh issue when on April 17 in 2018 he had said that the negotiations were stalled, don’t inspire optimism, and that Azerbaijan’s expectations from the negotiations process are unrealistic and unacceptable for us. Was he going to accept Azerbaijan’s unrealistic demands?” Pashinyan said.

He then again quoted another remark by Sargsyan, where the former president said that one shouldn’t hope that Azerbaijan won’t attempt to solve the Karabakh issue militarily.

“And this is the answer to the question who is actually the author of the war situation. Was it our government or wasn’t it our government? The war could’ve been prevented as a result of implementing the unrealistic and unacceptable demands which Serzh Sargsyan mentioned,” he said.

Speaking about the phased or package logic, Pashinyan said: “As early as in 1997 it was planned to divide the issue into parts, first the Karabakh issue, then the peace treaty. It is the same by the 2016 package, and the 2018 package. It is very clearly written in this package that the preliminary principles get agreed upon and then the negotiations between the governments begin, with participation of representatives of Nagorno Karabakh. By ‘representatives of Nagorno Karabakh’ it would consider the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh and the Azerbaijanis of Nagorno Karabakh. And this is where, by this proposal, the Azerbaijanis of Nagorno Karabakh would sit around the negotiations table and there wouldn’t be any resolution until that issue got solved, until the issue of Shushi got solved, which was on the table since 1996. Would Serzh Sargsyan surrender Shushi? He wouldn’t, a war would start, and not only Shushi, was he going to surrender a part of Karabakh? Besides the territories, I am not speaking about territories.”

Speaking about the statements on Lachin corridor, Pashinyan said that no negotiations document mentions anything about the width of the corridor, that issue should’ve been discussed later on.

“And another phase was added on top of this phased one, the current status of NK was to be determined at a Security Council session. They are saying that we surrendered Karabakh, or that we are surrendering it or want to surrender it. If we wanted to surrender Karabakh and had advanced the negotiations logic left by Serzh Sargsyan we would have surrendered Karabakh by doing so, because even if a referendum were to take place it should had taken place in timeframes agreed by the sides. Azerbaijan was very clearly saying that in the next 50 years there won’t be a referendum, it was saying let Azerbaijanis return to Karabakh, live side by side for 50 years, settle the Azerbaijani settlements, and then in 50 or 100 years they’ll see.”