!à‡`="justify">The electoral victory of Serzh Sarkisyan in the presidential elections of Armenia and subsequent establishment of a new government under the premiership of former President of the Armenian Central Bank, Tigran Sarkisyan, has been reflected in domestic and foreign press that there might be positive achievements regarding Armenian foreign policy towards Turkey and Azerbaijan.

|dents occurred in the demonstrations organized to commemorate April 24 in Yerevan disturbed these high hopes immediately.

Also, there was another significant recent development proving that Armenian foreign policy towards the resolution of the Karabagh question would not change. Armenian Parliament began to discuss a resolution entitled “On Settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh Problem”. Although the title of the resolution included the word “settlement”, the text of the resolution indicates that there are expressions which indeed impede settlement.

As is known, after the demonstrations occurred in Armenia right after the presidential elections state of emergency had been declared, while on the other hand, in Karabagh Armenian-Azeri clashes intensified to a degree inexperienced since the signature of the cease-fire in 1994. Therefore this draft resolution clearly shows the concerns for these recent developments. However, rather than developing a solution-oriented strategy, the other side, namely Azerbaijan was blamed for the initiation of this recent crisis. Accordingly the draft resolution stipulates that “the Azeri high-ranking officials’ anti-Armenian militant propaganda is dangerous and aims to break the peace process”, that the Azeri army’s “provocative” actions violate the cease-fire regime and that Azerbaijan took open steps to “torpedo the peace process”. However it is not absolutely known how these clashes had intensified. While the Armenian side argued that the clashes had started as a result of the provocative actions of the Azeri troops, Azeri side accused Armenia of violating the cease-fire regime. Therefore, while some kind of a mutual understanding would prevent escalation of the crisis, both sides followed the strategy of blaming each other.

In the draft resolution, it is also stipulated that Armenian Parliament takes into account “the blackmail with respect to the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, which is accompanied with threats to express distrust in them and pass the discussion of the conflict settlement to other organizations”. However, seen from the side of Azerbaijan Minsk Group had already lost its objectivity and reliability since the co-chairs of Minsk Group, namely the US, France and Russia had not approved a UN General Council Resolution dated March 14 which had recognized territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded immediate withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories. Therefore, Azerbaijan demanded reorganization of the Minsk Group, or at least consolidation of the efficiency of other members, namely Italy, Finland, Belarus and Turkey.

Another issue in the draft resolution is the emphasis on the self-determination right of the Karabagh people and perception of this right as an indispensable part of international law. However, it is quite ironic that such an emphasis was made by the Parliament of a country which had occupied Azeri territories through violating even the basic principles of international law and which still disregards four UN Security Council Resolutions regarding that matter..
In the conclusion of the draft resolution, Armenian Parliament has two demands from Armenian President and Prime Minister. The first demand is the enhancement of “Armenia’s initiative concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh problem”. The second one is the formulation of “legal grounds for ensuring the security of Nagorno-Karabakh in case of military aggression by Azerbaijan”.

Tigran Torosyan, the Speaker of the Armenian Parliament said that this resolution was prepared as a response to the recent developments in Karabagh and he clearly stipulated that Armenian recognition of the independence of Nagorno Karabagh is among the options. It can be argued that such a strategy shows that Armenia does not positively engage in negotiations; rather opted for a policy of non-resolution of the Karabagh problem.

To sum up, it would be great optimism to expect the new government to take major steps for the resolution of the Karabagh problem with a novel approach. Resolution of this question through bilateral negotiations via the mediation of reliable and objective international platforms is still a significant option on the table for the maintenance of permanent peace in the region.