Tweet
Azeri pundit points to similarities between Karabakh, Middle East problems
Yeni Musavat, Baku
29 Nov 04
Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on
29 November headlined "Karabakh is becoming a tiring problem" and
subheaded "Leyla Aliyeva: The West wants to make people forget about
the problem"
It was impossible to break the deadlock in the Karabakh peace talks
this year either. The outgoing year of 2004 could be regarded as the
most passive and unsuccessful (wasted) one in the history of the
conflict settlement. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs do not conceal
this either.
However, some garrulous "analysts" were extremely upbeat in 2003 and
said that there would be a U-turn in the conflict settlement
immediately after the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidential elections
and after new leaders enter their offices. This was not the case. The
idea of "starting talks from scratch" suggested by [Azerbaijani
President] Ilham Aliyev to show off was a fiasco.
The only positive memorable point about the issue this year was the
Baku government's initiative to put the issue on the agenda of the UN
General Assembly. Unfortunately, the discussions were not successful
and failed to meet our national interests. A draft resolution [on the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan] was not adopted. The vote was
postponed indefinitely. However, we learnt an expert opinion about the
importance of the initiative and the consequences it might have.
Commenting on the UN discussions, political analyst Leyla Aliyeva said
that an analysis of the recent developments had produced some negative
results.
"Watching the peace process, one can conclude that someone wants to
put the Karabakh problem on the back burner. I can also observe that
they have stopped mentioning Karabakh at conferences and
meetings. They are Europe and the USA in the first place. They want
the parties to the conflict to gradually integrate and cooperate," she
said.
>From this standpoint, the political analyst highly assessed the
putting of the issue on the UN agenda.
"We should always keep the issue in the focus of the international
community. In particular, we should take into account the fact that
Armenians are being settled on our occupied lands. This is a very
dangerous process. Because it will be rather difficult to return those
lands after Armenians settle there. This has been the case in the
Middle East."
Incidentally, the political analyst stressed that the same scheme and
approach were being taken both on the Nagornyy Karabakh and Middle
East problems at the moment.
"The conflict has been continuing in the Middle East for 40
years. Jews settled on the occupied territories and this has emerged
as an additional problem now. Of course, we do not need such a
problem. Therefore, the UN General Assembly discussions might be
regarded as positive. But it would be wrong to expect major and
practical results from these discussions. I do not think that they
will act as an important incentive for the peace process. This is good
tactics as a PR campaign."
Commenting on reasons for the negative stance of leading western
states and of the US envoy [presumably, the USA's Karabakh mediator
Steven Mann] to the Karabakh discussions in the UN, Leyla Aliyeva said
that they did not want the issue to be a subject of discussions in a
larger framework. Because they think that the sides can find a common
language within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group more
easily. They think that it would be wrong to hinder in any way the
talks based on making mutual compromises that have been under way
within the framework of the Minsk Group for a long time. The mediators
think that the discussion of the issue in the UN precisely hinders the
talks and creates tension.
From: Baghdasarian
Yeni Musavat, Baku
29 Nov 04
Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on
29 November headlined "Karabakh is becoming a tiring problem" and
subheaded "Leyla Aliyeva: The West wants to make people forget about
the problem"
It was impossible to break the deadlock in the Karabakh peace talks
this year either. The outgoing year of 2004 could be regarded as the
most passive and unsuccessful (wasted) one in the history of the
conflict settlement. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs do not conceal
this either.
However, some garrulous "analysts" were extremely upbeat in 2003 and
said that there would be a U-turn in the conflict settlement
immediately after the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidential elections
and after new leaders enter their offices. This was not the case. The
idea of "starting talks from scratch" suggested by [Azerbaijani
President] Ilham Aliyev to show off was a fiasco.
The only positive memorable point about the issue this year was the
Baku government's initiative to put the issue on the agenda of the UN
General Assembly. Unfortunately, the discussions were not successful
and failed to meet our national interests. A draft resolution [on the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan] was not adopted. The vote was
postponed indefinitely. However, we learnt an expert opinion about the
importance of the initiative and the consequences it might have.
Commenting on the UN discussions, political analyst Leyla Aliyeva said
that an analysis of the recent developments had produced some negative
results.
"Watching the peace process, one can conclude that someone wants to
put the Karabakh problem on the back burner. I can also observe that
they have stopped mentioning Karabakh at conferences and
meetings. They are Europe and the USA in the first place. They want
the parties to the conflict to gradually integrate and cooperate," she
said.
>From this standpoint, the political analyst highly assessed the
putting of the issue on the UN agenda.
"We should always keep the issue in the focus of the international
community. In particular, we should take into account the fact that
Armenians are being settled on our occupied lands. This is a very
dangerous process. Because it will be rather difficult to return those
lands after Armenians settle there. This has been the case in the
Middle East."
Incidentally, the political analyst stressed that the same scheme and
approach were being taken both on the Nagornyy Karabakh and Middle
East problems at the moment.
"The conflict has been continuing in the Middle East for 40
years. Jews settled on the occupied territories and this has emerged
as an additional problem now. Of course, we do not need such a
problem. Therefore, the UN General Assembly discussions might be
regarded as positive. But it would be wrong to expect major and
practical results from these discussions. I do not think that they
will act as an important incentive for the peace process. This is good
tactics as a PR campaign."
Commenting on reasons for the negative stance of leading western
states and of the US envoy [presumably, the USA's Karabakh mediator
Steven Mann] to the Karabakh discussions in the UN, Leyla Aliyeva said
that they did not want the issue to be a subject of discussions in a
larger framework. Because they think that the sides can find a common
language within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group more
easily. They think that it would be wrong to hinder in any way the
talks based on making mutual compromises that have been under way
within the framework of the Minsk Group for a long time. The mediators
think that the discussion of the issue in the UN precisely hinders the
talks and creates tension.
From: Baghdasarian