The regular session of the RA government took place, chaired by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
Before discussing the agenda of the session, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he referred to the aggressive actions of Azerbaijan on the state border of Armenia on February 13 in the area of Nerkin Hand settlement of Kapan enlarged community of Syunik marz, as a result of which 4 guards were killed on combat duty.
Prime Minister Pashinyan noted in his speech,
“Dear participants of the government session,
Dear people,
On February 13, as a result of the aggressive actions of Azerbaijan, four guards on combat duty at the Armenian state border were killed in the area of the Nerkin Hand settlement of the enlarged Kapan community of the Syunik marz.
Expressing my condolences to the relatives and friends of the victims, I consider it necessary to emphasize that what happened is another manifestation of Azerbaijan’s destructive policy. On February 12, the Azerbaijani media spread information that a soldier of the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan was shot and wounded by the Armenian position guards in the section mentioned above of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. After this statement, the Military Police of Armenia stated that they had started an investigation into the incident, as there is a clear order from the Minister of Defense not to allow ceasefire regime violations and not to give in to provocations. And therefore, if it is found that there is a violation of the order, there will also be legal consequences. Despite this, the following day, Azerbaijan opened massive fire in the direction of the positions mentioned above, as a result of which we had four casualties.
The description of the events shows that Azerbaijan’s intentions remain the same: to pursue a policy of military coercion against the Republic of Armenia. Azerbaijan is not interested in ensuring border stability and security, and the reasons for this are many. For example, as early as 2022, it was agreed that border security issues should also be included in the mandate of commissions on demarcation issues. According to the agreement, the Republic of Armenia established a commission on the boundary of the state border and border security between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, assuming that according to the agreement, the commissions will also work on issues related to border security. Contrary to the agreement, Azerbaijan called the commission created by it the state commission for the demarcation of the state border between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, omitting the security component.
These and several other circumstances give grounds for concluding that Azerbaijan continues to pursue the policy of “give me what I want through negotiation; otherwise, I will take it with war.”
And what does Azerbaijan want? You have certainly noticed that Azerbaijan regularly talks, as it puts it, about the territories of 4 villages, at the same time refusing to accept that the vital territories of 31 non-enclave villages of the Republic of Armenia are under Azerbaijani occupation. So, this 4/31 applies to non-enclave villages.
Our position on this situation is very constructive. For the troops to move back from their current positions, it is necessary to reproduce the Armenia-Azerbaijan border on the map and the ground and to withdraw the two countries’ troops to the borderline. That is, after the reproduction of the border, if it turns out that there are troops ahead of that line, both sides should withdraw. In other words, troops from both sides in front of the borderline will have to retreat to the already demarcated border.
Official Baku is trying to formulate this situation in such a way that the Azerbaijani troops do not retreat from the territories of 31 villages of Armenia in any way. This is not a constructive position. And again, on behalf of Armenia, I reaffirm the readiness of the Republic of Armenia to go to concrete solutions, the principles of which have already been determined.
What principles are we talking about? The agreement publicly recorded in writing on international platforms that Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity based on the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration and the Alma-Ata Declaration should be the political basis of the border delimitation process. This means that we are left with technical work to reproduce on maps and the ground the existing de jure border between the Armenian and Azerbaijani SSRs as of 1991 by highlighting their legal bases and resolving the issue. The issue of the so-called exclave/enclaves should also be addressed on the same principle. The RA government held its regular session, chaired by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.To determine the territory of Artsvashen, it is necessary to draw its border based on legal documents and, as a result of further negotiations, resolve this issue with some resolution.
But Azerbaijan regularly avoids such solutions, trying to follow the path of localization. We agree even to this option and to carry out the demarcation even region by region, reproducing the border in each sector, and then carry out the adjustment of the positioning of the troops according to the reproduced border, and move on to the following industry, and leave the exclave issues to the very last stage.
In other words, there are two options: first, we carry out boundary along the entire border and proceed to its implementation. The second option is to divide the border into pieces and proceed with the demarcation piece by piece. Both options are acceptable to us within the framework of the above principles. But Azerbaijan seems to avoid this option as well. Our analysis shows that there may be one reason for this, which may be, for example, the start of military operations in some parts of the border, the subsequent army escalation of a full-scale war against the Republic of Armenia, with the prospect of turning. This intention is read in all statements and actions from official Baku.
Dear participants of the government session,
Dear people,
It is the policy of the Government of the Republic of Armenia to do everything possible to prevent such developments by engaging in active negotiations while standing firmly in the positions of protection of all legitimate interests of the Republic of Armenia. Those legitimate interests protect Armenia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. I cannot help but notice that several recent statements from official Baku about Armenia’s legislative framework violate our country’s independence and interfere in our country’s internal affairs. Attempts to interpret whether any provision prevents the signing of the peace treaty in the legislation of the Republic of Armenia have nothing to do with reality. As I said, during the peace treaty negotiations, Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed on several articles, and one of them is that the parties cannot refer to their legislation to refuse to fulfill any provision of the peace treaty. Therefore, no provision in the legislation of the Republic of Armenia prevents the implementation of the peace agreement, and this is not only a political but also an expert assessment, the legal nuances of which I do not see the need to delve into, at least now.
Dear participants of the government session,
Dear people,
Azerbaijan continues threatening rhetoric in connection with the reforms of our army and the acquisition of weapons and equipment by the Republic of Armenia. But as I said, on January 28 of this year, on the occasion of Army Day, having a solid and combat-ready army is the legitimate right of every country. No one can deny this. The Republic of Armenia recognizes the territorial integrity of all neighboring countries and has no goals outside its territory. This is our long-term strategy because legitimacy is critical for ensuring Armenia’s security. The Republic of Armenia has only legitimate goals in the defense field, namely, the defense of its internationally recognized territories. No country can ever accuse any other country of having such a goal.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize again our commitment to the peace agenda and reaffirm our readiness to reach solutions within the framework of the agreed principles, that is, to sign a peace agreement and demarcation. In addition to the above, I must also emphasize our willingness to open regional communications based on the principles of sovereignty, jurisdiction, equality, and reciprocity of countries expressed in the “Crossroads of Peace” project. The implementation of this project will give a new impetus to the economic development of all countries in our region. Thank you, dear colleagues.”
