Of course, the main topics were the campaign on the Lachin road and the Russian peacekeepers. In response to inadequate questions, the Armenian Prime Minister gave equally inadequate answers. For example, he said the following: Azerbaijan did not sign the mandate of the Russian peacekeepers, but the defense ministers of Armenia and Russia did. Moreover, according to Pashinyan, Baku’s signature is not needed for the mandate to come into effect in the territory of Azerbaijan.
We asked the Chairman of the Board of the Center of Analysis of International Relations Farid Shafiyev what Pashinyan means and what he hopes to achieve.
According to him, Pashinyan made a completely ignorant statement.
“Speaking of the mandate, we should reveal some details as to why it was not signed. There were certain aspects that Russia and Azerbaijan were unable to agree on. In particular, the provision regarding the activities and control on the Lachin road, some points regarding international organizations, and so on. All of Azerbaijan’s proposals were in line with international law, but the Russian side rejected them. That is why the mandate was not signed,” Shafiyev said.
There was another provision that was unacceptable to us, the expert pointed out. Russia argued that the mandate of the Russian peacekeeping contingent should be signed by the three countries, since the Trilateral Statement of November 10 had been signed by Armenia as well. Baku insisted that the peacekeepers were carrying out a mission in the territory of Azerbaijan and that their mandate was related only to our country.
“If we consider Pashinyan’s statement from the perspective of Russia’s logic, Pashinyan contradicts it. If we take the logic of international law as the basis, Karabakh region and Lachin are internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan, so Armenia and Russia can sign anything, but it will have no legal force,” Farid Shafiyev stressed.
Leyla Tariverdiyeva
Translated from Day.az
