Political scientist Stepan Grigoryan welcomes the Yerevan meeting of the foreign ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member-states and the foreign ministers’ bilateral meetings.
In an interview with Tert.am, Mr Grigoryan also mentioned meetings with the Kazakh and Tajik foreign ministers, who had not had such high-level contacts before. He commends the foreign ministers’ joint statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
“The statement made within the CSTO rules out a military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They are based on the Helsinki Act and on the right to self-determination. I think it is only natural. And their following the results of the Vienna meeting is most important as well,” Mr Grigoryan said.
The meeting also discussed investigative mechanisms on the Line of Contact.
“The Lavrov-Nalbandian meeting is of special importance for us. The topics of backstage talks can hardly be guessed, but an official announcement was made,” the expert said.
As regards talks about a phased settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and territorial concessions to Azerbaijan, Mr Grigoryan said:
“Logic suggests that Azerbaijan discussed a phased settlement of the conflict and withdrawal of troops if they are observing the ceasefire agreement. Whether or not it poses a threat is difficult to say. So it is unclear how serious it is. Rumors are no criteria for me. The criterion for me is that Azerbaijan has observed the ceasefire lately. It means that a phased settlement and issues related to return of territories have been discussed.”
Asked if Azerbaijan’s desires are more considered in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, Mr Grigoryan said:
“Yes, Azerbaijan’s desire are more considered in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process because Azerbaijan is pursuing a more active and aggressive policy. By unleashing the four-day war they proved their readiness to destabilize the region, turning it into a center of destabilization. This is the reason for universal concern and talks about a need to end the status quo. Otherwise, a decision in favor of investigative mechanisms would be in our favor as they will clearly identify the conflicting party breaking the ceasefire.”