It was from Prednestrovia that the idea of the “common state”, application of which to the Karabakh settlement was being discussed for several years, was adopted. We shall remind that Karabakh and Armenia generally approved the scheme based on this principle in 1998, while Azerbaijan refused it. The outflow of information about the current stage of the negotiations on settlement of the Prenestrovia-Moldavian conflict allows to assume that during the past time the principles of conflict settlement have transformed. According to the model being discussed today in Tiraspol and Kishinev, Prednestrovia will have fewer rights than Nagorno Karabakh should have had if Azerbaijan had accepted the principle of the “common state”. The leaders of Prednestrovia agree with the status of a “state-territorial formation” within the Moldavian Republic. This is very modest as compared with the status foreseen by the principle of a “common state”. The people of Moldova and Prednestrovia have denied the term of the “common state”. Now the matter concerns the so-called “principle of federalization”. According to the Moldavian press, the plan proposed by the mediators foresees a cross between the “common state” and the Tatarstan model of autonomy.
The secret information about the content of the “principle of federalization” appeared in the Azerbaijani press. So, if believe the “Echo” newspaper issued in Baku, the proposals of the mediators foresee, in fact, the restoration of the territorial integrity of Moldova and application of the sovereignty of Kishinev on the whole territory of the former Moldova SSR. Two facts cause the concern of the Azerbaijani analysts. The first is that the application of the Prednestrovia model to Karabakh will mean that Baku should negotiate not with Yerevan but with Stepanakert. And the second is that during the transitional period which may last for a long time, the government of NKR must be considered legitimate.
It is not understandable, why do some people think that the Prednestrovian scheme may be seriously discussed by Yerevan and Stepanakert based. In the new scheme there is almost nothing from the model of the “common state” with which Robert Kocharian and Arkady Ghukasian have agreed. In 1998 and in 2000 the authorities of NKR and Armenia have stressed that the principles on which the model of the “common state” is based were the last point of the compromise. Agreeing with the Prednestrovian model should mean full refusal of the three basic principles, which according to the authorities of Armenia and Karabakh, must be the basis of the settlement. One of those three principles is the inadmissibility of any vertical subordination.
If according to the “common state” model Karabakh should have its own Constitution and its own laws, in case with Prednestrovia the Constitution of Moldova must be dominant, and the laws adopted by the “state-territorial formation” should not contradict to it. If in 1998 the Karabakh population was suggested a model foreseeing an autonomous formation of legislative, executive and juridical bodies, direct foreign relations with foreign countries and international states, the plan proposed by the mediators to Tiraspol envisages a single executive system for Prednestrovia and Moldova. The decisions adopted by the “state-territorial formation” can be vetoed by the President of Moldova. If Karabkh could have its national guards and police, the Prednestrovians will not have such a right.
With all this, the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Vilayat Guliyev said recently that Baku does not accept the “Prednestrovian model” the application of which, according to him, would mean giving too many rights to Karabakh. If the above mentioned mechanisms of control seem not enough for the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, it is understandable, what do they really mean in Baku suggesting to the people of Karabakh “the most wide autonomy which ever existing”…
