Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan gave an interview to several Turkish media outlets as part of the Antalya Diplomatic Forum.

Question: How would you describe your meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Thank you for this opportunity. First of all, this is an opportunity to talk to you and, through you, to your colleagues and Turkish society because sometimes I feel that there are perceptions in both societies that do not necessarily reflect the relations and perceptions between the two countries' high-ranking officials. Therefore, this is a perfect opportunity.

I met with Minister Fidan. Of course, this was not our first meeting. We had a very substantive discussion on the bilateral agenda, the steps taken, future programs, and common regional issues.

Question: Can you be more specific and point out some results?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Look, if we talk about the Armenia-Turkey bilateral agenda, several tangible steps have already been taken, such as the use of airspace or the assessment of the infrastructure of the Margara-Alijan border checkpoint by specialists from both countries. The two countries also bilaterally and jointly assessed the infrastructure of the Gyumri-Kars railway, part of which is on the border. A few days ago, specialists from different departments of the two countries met in Turkey, and the goal was to restore the historical Ani bridge, which is also on the border. There are several other programs.

In other words, the process continues, and developments are taking place. At the same time, I cannot help but mention that agreements have not yet been implemented. For example, we agreed to open the border for citizens of third countries and citizens holding diplomatic passports of Armenia and Turkey. Unfortunately, this agreement has not yet been implemented.

 

At the same time, both sides have a common understanding that the ultimate goal is the full normalization of relations, the establishment of diplomatic relations, and the complete opening of the border. Moreover, today, by an interesting coincidence, Minister Fidan and our delegations discussed opportunities that can contribute to normalizing relations. In other words, I emphasize that our dialogue concerns not only the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border as a goal but also large-scale trade, which is a real opportunity between the two countries. We also discussed joint energy projects and transit opportunities. Moreover, we touched on cooperation on international platforms because reality shows that on some issues, particularly in the Middle East, our perceptions are sometimes closer than they might seem. In other words, there are many opportunities.

Question: During today's panel discussion, you have already touched on this issue, but if possible, I would like to ask if you could provide additional information. About a month ago, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov announced that peace talks with Armenia have been completed, and the parties have agreed on a draft peace treaty. Please indicate what stage this process is at. What is the main obstacle to signing? Have discussions begun, or are they continuing on the date and place of signing? Will the signing take place in Turkey? Or has the process reached a deadlock?

Ararat Mirzoyan: This is an important issue, and I will not ignore it. It is also part of the general Armenia-Turkey dialogue. As you mentioned, we were able to agree on the draft peace treaty, and it is fully ready for signing. This is a rather significant achievement. It is a historic event, something unprecedented. Imagine Armenia and Azerbaijan; after a long conflict and bloodshed in our region, we agreed on the text.

We have proposed immediately starting consultations with our Azerbaijani partners to determine the place and date of the signing ceremony. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan has a somewhat different understanding of the issue. They believe that Armenia must take some additional steps to make the signing of the agreement possible.

For example, the issue of the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group is mentioned. We are fully prepared to start and initiate the process of dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group. Our understanding is that if there is no longer a conflict, and the Minsk Group was created precisely for the conflict, then the need for the existence of that group also disappears. But we must have, so to speak, an institutional end to the conflict, which will be the signing and ratification of a peace agreement. That is why we have proposed to our Azerbaijani partners to sign two documents on the same day: first, a peace treaty between our two countries, and then a joint application to the relevant OSCE secretariat regarding our readiness to begin the process of dissolving the Minsk Group.

Our Azerbaijani partners also constantly refer to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. They demand changes to our Constitution. They say that in our Constitution, in its Preamble, we have a reference to our Declaration of Independence, which is correct, and in which, according to them, we have a territorial claim to our territorial integrity, which is not entirely accurate, since only those parts of the Declaration of Independence have binding legal force in the sense of the Constitution that is quoted in the Constitution. Moreover, the agreement we will sign touches upon this issue. To fully understand the situation, I need to provide more details here.

Thus, under the agreement, the parties mutually recognize each other's territorial integrity within the borders between our countries as Soviet Socialist Republics at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which later became internationally recognized borders. This provision fully addresses the concerns of the Azerbaijani side, allowing us to agree on the agreement's text. At the same time, it is also entirely consistent with our perceptions.

If we sign this agreement and it is sent for ratification, then within the framework of that process, it should be sent to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion or opinion. That is our legal procedure. If our Constitutional Court records that this point, this wording fully complies with the Constitution, that is, it does not contain any territorial claims beyond the borders, which is acceptable to the Azerbaijani side and recognized by the international community, then this means that there is no problem. Thus, the solution is not outside the peace agreement but within it. And the shortest way to address the issue is to sign and ratify the peace agreement.

At the same time, theoretically, the possibility of the Constitutional Court issuing a negative conclusion that the relevant point does not comply with the Constitution is not excluded. However, I have serious grounds to assume that the court will express a positive position. And this is a remarkable circumstance. A few months ago, in September, our Constitutional Court issued an opinion on such an issue. We had signed another document between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It was the first international document ever signed between the two countries, the Regulations on the Activities of the Demarcation Commissions. In that regulation, our two states once again agreed that the basis for the demarcation should be the Alma-Ata Declaration, which repeats the idea that I have already mentioned: the borders should be the borders that existed at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Again, we have applied to our Constitutional Court to ratify the document, and our Constitutional Court has declared that it is fully consistent with our Constitution. I have good reason to believe that in the case of a peace agreement that says the same thing, our Constitutional Court will likely again say that it is consistent with our Constitution. So, no problem.

In parallel, we see and have our concerns about the Constitution of Azerbaijan. And again, let me explain. This is not just a mirror image. Their Constitution has a reference to their Declaration of Independence. So, in their Declaration of Independence, they declare that the current Republic of Azerbaijan is the successor of the first Azerbaijani (Democratic) Republic, not the Soviet one. And the first Azerbaijani Republic, which existed before the Soviet Union, declared its sovereignty over much larger territories than today's Azerbaijan. It includes more than 60% of the sovereign territories of today's Armenia. So, we see, we have our concerns, but why don't we raise this issue continuously? Because we see, as I mentioned before, in the case of our Constitution, the solution is a peace agreement. We sign it and solve the problem—the end.

 

Returning to the main question, we are very constructive and very flexible. We have done a lot of work on this text. Now, it is ready for signing. No peace agreement in the world would answer all possible questions. If two societies have a history of hostility and conflicts, they cannot solve everything with one document. The peace agreement envisages the creation of a mechanism. This committee will monitor the agreement's implementation and deal with all the possible difficulties and irregularities that can and are likely to be recorded during the process. In other words, we are forming a toolkit to manage these challenges. Therefore, the expectation that all possible issues must be resolved before the signing of the peace agreement is, in our assessment, neither fair nor realistic.

Question: How should we understand this? Are the negotiations continuing? What are your suggestions regarding the date and place of the signing? Can Turkey host this event?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yes, sorry, I forgot about that part. Everyone needs to understand all the nuances; otherwise, you will not have a clear picture of the current situation. Yes, we are negotiating because there is no alternative. If we have a peace agenda, what alternative can there be to negotiations?

The negotiations are ongoing. As for the location, you know, it's not essential. There is an idea to sign it on the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Several other capitals offer their services; I don't rule anything out. I haven't received that offer yet, but I don't rule out any options.

Journalist: Mr. Minister, I want to continue my colleague's first question. By the way, I also followed your interesting debate with Jeyhun Bayramov and your Georgian colleague. As you explained, there is an apparent demand from Azerbaijan to change your Constitution. So, a short question: would you consider a constitutional amendment? There was talk of holding a referendum. Would you consider signing a constitutional amendment to a peace agreement with Azerbaijan?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Let's start with the fact that when the democratic revolution took place in Armenia and our current ruling party came to power, we almost immediately announced that we would change our Constitution. And now, as I see it, it will be an amendment to the current Constitution and a new one. The existing commission, which deals with constitutional amendments, is discussing legal mechanisms, and as far as I know, the commission's mandate expires in 2026. In the same year, we have parliamentary elections. So, since 2018, we have insisted on a new Constitution, which continues to be on our agenda. We are going to implement it.

However, linking the issue with normalizing Armenian-Azerbaijani relations is not constructive. Returning to my previous comments, I emphasize that there are two ways. The first step is to wait until all possible questions are answered and then take steps. The second is acting now, not waiting for all the solutions simultaneously. I also discussed this during the panel discussion, emphasizing that we need to build gradually, laying the first stone, then the next, and so on. Looking back, we can see that we have built a strong and stable bridge at some point. Therefore, we are deeply convinced that we need to start right now.

Journalist: Do you think that Azerbaijan's demands, not only regarding amendments to the Preamble of the RA Constitution, or the OSCE mission, or even the EU monitoring mission, although as far as I understand from your comments, many of these demands are already addressed within the framework of the peace agreement, do you think that they are made with good intentions, or do you think that Azerbaijan has a broader vision or agenda here? You were supposed to make a joint statement on the draft peace agreement, but that did not happen. Moreover, the Azerbaijani side unilaterally made a statement before you and then presented these demands. And even though discussions on this Preamble have been going on for some time now, and both sides are trying to find a solution, the question remains as to the fate of the agreement. Of course, my question is late, and I am now trying to understand the process more deeply, but is it possible that it will lead to an escalation? Of course, I hope not, but it is interesting to see its direction.

 

Ararat Mirzoyan: You raise a fundamental question. Turning to the details regarding the European Monitoring Mission, it is worth noting that the mission's mandate mainly aims to support normalizing relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and ensure stability along the border. As soon as the peace treaty is signed and enters into force, there will be no need for such a mission anymore.

 

As soon as stability is established along the border, the mandate and the mission are completed, and there will be no more additional involvement. However, the main problem is with your question. Not the Constitution, not the Minsk Group, nor anything else. The problem is that sometimes, we feel that Azerbaijan does not want to build peace with Armenia. Based on the calculations, we are concerned that they do not want to complete the settlement, do not wish to complete the negotiations and sign the peace treaty.

 

There are also other directions in the settlement process. We have presented several proposals in restoring communication and strengthening mutual trust, including mutual verification and arms control. They were well-founded and realistic proposals. Unfortunately, we have not received a constructive response. The general impression is that the Azerbaijani side is not interested in completing the settlement process and is not ready to build peace. Moreover, we are periodically witnessing new manifestations of tension both in the rhetoric of the Azerbaijani leadership and in the actual development of the situation, which can lead to escalation.

For example, look at Armenian public opinion. You will see that a significant part of Armenian citizens believe that Azerbaijan has further plans: to launch a new attack on Armenia, to establish control over some parts of its sovereign territories, etc. In this regard, there is also an answer to your question. When we discover Azerbaijan's real intentions, we will likely find answers to the questions.

Journalist: Your comments indicate that Azerbaijan has not yet given a final answer regarding further meetings, where and how the peace agreement will be signed. Is that correct?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yes, there is no news on that issue. They say their position is as follows: they will not discuss this issue until this or that demand is met, first the first, then the second, then the third, and so on. This is the reality, but we continue to communicate with them.

Journalist: Do you think Turkey can play a constructive role in bringing the two sides closer, for example, at the level of leaders? Have you discussed this issue with the Turkish Foreign Minister?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yes, of course. And Turkey's public position is that our normalization process is going well. This is my interpretation. I am not quoting any Turkish official's statement verbatim, but my general impression is that Turkey says, yes, our bilateral process is going well, we have this program, that program, we have the intention to fully normalize Armenia-Turkey relations, but we cannot fully complete it until the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalization is fully implemented.

 

In other words, our perception is that, and this is also my personal view, if we start from the opposite side and fully normalize Armenian-Turkish relations, it will definitely and undoubtedly positively impact Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization. But this is one of those questions where everyone has their answer and approach, and yes, there are different opinions on this issue. But you asked whether Turkey can play a positive role. Without a doubt, yes.

 

Journalist: Did you decide on a date during today's meetings when the three countries could meet? Or could there be another option? What could be the basis of Azerbaijan's position?

Ararat Mirzoyan: There is currently no agreement or plan regarding a joint meeting of the three countries, but several discussions are underway. We hope that this process will have a positive outcome.

Journalist: What did Hakan Fidan say when you said that if Armenian-Turkish relations are normalized, it could positively impact the other side? What was his answer?

Ararat Mirzoyan: This question is worth asking our Turkish colleagues. If you get the answer, please share it with me.

Journalist: You said that the national elections are next year, in 2026. If the government changes, will the political line regarding the negotiations change?

Ararat Mirzoyan: This is an interesting aspect of the whole story. I can say with certainty that the peace agenda of the current government of the Republic of Armenia and Prime Minister Pashinyan has full support from the Armenian society. Well, of course, there are also critics. That is how democracy works. If we do not have an opposition that expresses different points of view, then how can we ensure the development of society on any issue? But in general, we have the support of the majority. And as for the parliament, we have the majority there too.

But time passes, and if the government of the Republic of Armenia's peace agenda fails to deliver tangible results in the settlement process, even those who believe in the peace agenda may raise the question: "Well, the peace agenda sounds nice, but it is impossible to build peace alone. It seems your neighbors do not share your vision of a peaceful and prosperous region, nor do you desire normal relations. This may mean I will no longer see the point in supporting your peace agenda tomorrow."

In other words, this shows that we have support today, but nothing in this world is infinite, and situations can change. But at the same time, it is evident that if we have results in the settlement process, if, for example, we sign a peace agreement, communication infrastructures are opened, people start or restore trade relations, contacts begin, humanitarian issues begin to be resolved, etc., then this will lead to a natural, good-neighborly development of ties. In that case, a return to the era of conflict will become increasingly unlikely and unrealistic.

I can say the same about normalizing our relations with Turkey. We have already taken several joint steps. If we open the border and start implementing joint energy projects, if the volume of direct trade increases, it will change the mood. And I believe that it will change not only the mood of the societies but also the entire region. We have this window of opportunity.

Today, public opinion is more supportive of this opportunity than ever before. So we have a choice. We can focus on the obstacles, on the past, on history, or we can focus on the present and build a better future together. We must jointly make this decision.

Journalist: And have you had any contact with the Trump administration? Because with the Biden administration, as is known, you signed several essential documents before the previous administration left. And was there any cooperation with the Trump administration? There is a lot of talk now about Witkoff's visit to Baku and a possible proposal to sign or sign the Abraham Accords, which could provide security guarantees to Azerbaijan. And that, of course, will change the balance of power on the ground and strengthen Azerbaijan. Do you have any contacts with the Trump team?

Ararat Mirzoyan: Yes, we do. We have contacts. The new US administration welcomed our statements on the agreement on the text of the peace treaty. I can also say that the new administration is interested in normalizing Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. We see these signals. And if it has a positive contribution, then why not?

Journalist: You mentioned Azerbaijan's potentially changing mindset. Can we say that there is a clear difference in Armenian public opinion between normalizing relations with Azerbaijan and normalizing relations with Turkey?

Ararat Mirzoyan: To be honest, some wounds are still very fresh. And it is not easy. I think the issues are very sensitive for both societies, not only for Armenian society. I should not express an opinion about Azerbaijani society or its public opinion. It would require more research or information, but there is support for the peace agenda in Armenian culture, as I said. This normalization process is supported, even though the wounds are still very fresh.

But simultaneously, we need to achieve results; this is the main issue. We need to justify expectations; otherwise, the mood may change again. I do not see a significant difference in the perceptions of the normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani and Armenian-Turkish relations, except for the fact that, as I have already mentioned, the wounds are very fresh in the case of the Armenian-Azerbaijani topic. There are still unresolved humanitarian issues. But, in both cases, there is a willingness.

Journalist: I want to ask the following. You said that the wounds are very fresh. But last month, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan made a statement in an interview with Turkish media that was widely interpreted as a signal for a new chapter in relations between the two countries. Pashinyan noted that your official position is that international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not currently among your foreign policy priorities. So, will this issue no longer be a source of tension between Turkey and Armenia? Can it finally be resolved?

 

Ararat Mirzoyan: The Prime Minister said so. Moreover, I said it in parliament. But you know, history is history, memory is memory. It isn't easy to forget one's ancestors and forget history. But it is one thing to pay respect to the past, to history, and it is quite another to live in the past. Staying in the past is very easy.

 

To move forward, we need more courage, understanding, focus, and faith in the future. We prefer the future. We have to do it together. You know, I can't do it alone. My Turkish counterpart can't do it alone, either. Nobody can do it alone. But together, we can remember history, move forward, and build a better future. I repeat this idea again and again today: this is a matter of choice; what do we choose?

Journalist: Are the Armenian Prime Minister's comments unprecedented for statesmen speaking on the Armenian side?

Ararat Mirzoyan: To say that, you need to dig a little deeper. There have been signs from the Armenian authorities before. Once we even managed to sign protocols, they were not ratified.

Journalist: Let me return to Turkey's role. You said that the Turkish Foreign Minister will naturally speak on behalf of Turkey, which we will ask him tomorrow. But I want to ask: Have you wondered if Turkey played a facilitating role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan process in these difficult times when it seems the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan are at an impasse?

Ararat Mirzoyan:  Look, the short history of the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations shows that there have been several facilitators and mediators in the process, such as the Russian Federation, the United States, the European Union, and different countries. However, the history of the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations shows that those negotiations were the most successful when we had bilateral talks. So, it is possible that all countries interested in peace in the South Caucasus and peace in Armenia-Azerbaijan relations can participate in this process somehow. But when it comes to specific negotiations, when we are alone, the two countries in one room, we can have the opportunity to talk directly, we have contacts, and we can easily exchange ideas.

From a technical point of view, we have no problems, so we probably do not need any other mediation. But again, all the countries that I mentioned, probably a few more, can make a positive contribution. So, involvement should not be limited to mediation in the negotiations.