A delegation of Artsakh government officials visiting Yerevan this week has emphasized that any attempt that would consider Artsakh’s future as part of Azerbaijan is a “red line” for Artsakh.

The delegation, which includes Artsakh President Arayik Harutyunyan, Foreign Minister David Babayan, Parliament Speaker Arthur Tovmasian and others has held meetings with various Armenia government representatives and the parliament speaker.

After meeting with Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan on Friday, clear differences of approach from Armenian and Artsakh leaders emerged over the so-called “peace deal” between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Artsakh is concerned that with the October 6 announcement, Armenia will recognize Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan.

Speaking after the meeting with Simonyan, Babayan, the Artsakh foreign minister said the peace accord must specify that the mutual recognition of borders does not apply to Artsakh.

“There must be a special point saying that this issue [of Karabakh’s status] will be discussed later on,” Babayan said, adding that this idea is also proposed by unspecified “various countries.”

“We must make clear that Artsakh will never be a part of Azerbaijan,” Babayan went on. “It is very important for us to see this philosophy spelled out through that point and policy.”

“I don’t think that there should be such reference in the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan because it could cause reciprocal demands and desires [from Azerbaijan,]” Simonyan told reporters in a clear rejection of Artsakh’s concerns. “In any case, Armenia has never had territorial claims to Azerbaijan, and an emphasis on territories would complicate and possibly even thwart the signing of the treaty.”

The delegation has also stressed that Artsakh remains committed to the resumption of the negotiations process headed by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, with participation of Artsakh’s government.

Artsakh Foreign Minister Babayan emphasized the point when speaking to reporters saying that Artsakh does not oppose dialogue with Azerbaijan, but says that the negotiation must take place within the framework of an internationally recognized platform, and that platform is the OSCE Minsk Group.

“We have never opposed the Stepanakert-Baku dialogue,” Babayan told reporters in Yerevan. “Quite the contrary. In fact when after 1996 Artsakh was left out of a part of the negotiation process, we were always calling for resuming the full format. And now the restoration of this format has also remained on our agenda. But these negotiations must not take place out of internationally recognized platform. There is one internationally recognized platform – the OSCE Minsk Group,” he said, commenting on Yerevan’s statements that the discussions between Stepanakert and Baku are important.

Babayan added that it is mentioned in a number of documents that Artsakh is a party to both the negotiations and the conflict. He said that Azerbaijan, however, says that it does not want and will not negotiate with Artsakh as a party.

Artsakh also does not oppose improving of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Babayan said. He emphasized, however, that recognizing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan would lead to a war, bloodshed, genocide or exodus of Armenians from Artsakh.

Speaking about the October 6 statement released after the EU-mediated meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, which noted that both Armenia and Azerbaijan confirm that they recognize each other’s territorial integrity, Babayan said, “We don’t oppose the improvement of relations of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Who can oppose the improvement of those relations? But, we must understand that recognizing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan is unacceptable for Artsakh and I believe for all Armenians.”

“During the two meetings, of course there were explanations that no one is planning to abandon Artsakh or recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. Now we must engage in a very flexible policy,” Babayan said when asked whether Armenian government officials had an explanation about the contents of the October 6 announcement.