Tweet
SHOTS IN OUR DIRECTION HAVE BECOME TOO FREQUENT
ArmInfo, 27 August, 2006
An interview with Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, OSCE CIO Personal
Representative for Nagorny Karabakh. Ten years have past since the
beginning of his diplomatic mission to the region of Nagorny Karabakh
conflict.
Mr. Ambassador, the fire near the contact-line of Azerbaijani
Armed Forces (AF) and Armenian and Nagorny Karabakh AFs have become
another subject for discussion and a new reason for accusations by
the Azerbaijani party. You have monitored the areas of the fires. What
conclusions have you arrived at? Is it possible to speak of the nature
of fires, given the accusation by Azerbaijan "that the fire was set
on the area intentionally?"
I'd like to note that I am not a legal investigator and I am not
authorized to make accusations against any of the parties. In addition,
I have no mandate for investigations. My task is to create trust
between the conflicting parties. Under this provision of my mandate,
I visited the territories of fires in early July. The results of
my trip are reflected in a report. The fires rise for different
reasons. Moreover, one should not forget about the possibility of
fires as a result of careless fire handling. The gentlemen do not
dispute about facts. There is a report. Everyone can read it, but
to read carefully as not to make conclusions or statements which are
not available in it.
That's why one should not say as if I wrote that the fires happen
because of climate conditions. I have written that the fires happened
before as well and the climate conditions this year especially
contributed to fire spread. I also talk about the necessity of
fire-fighting . Not only my mandate but my profession as well does not
allow to talk about the fire reasons. I am a diplomat, an economist
by education and not a fire expert.
Do you think that the accusations by Azerbaijan that you have allegedly
taken a "pro-Armenian position" are a result of misunderstanding
of the demands of your mandate? May OSCE hold additional monitoring
to find out the basis of such statements by Baku, which constantly
accuses Armenia of making fires and "not extinguishing" them?
I permanently have to explain what is the meaning of my mandate. If
the conflict parties need an attorney, let them create an Institute
to point by finger to one or another side. There was not such a point
in my mandate when it was determined. As for the additional study
of the fire situation, if the conflict parties want to carry out an
investigation, such a work can be organized.
But this initiative must be offered by the conflict parties
I think the key goal of such an investigation will be also a definition
on how to avoid these fires and what to do to extinguish them as soon
as possible if they break out. If both the parties are ready to such
a combined action, it will mean that they try to fight these fires. If
one of the parties refuse, then, nothing will come out of it.
Azerbaijani Media report that you have brought the proposals of
the Azerbaijani party regarding the acts for fire extinguishing,
haven't you?
The Azerbaijani party is interested in the joint acts to avoid
agricultural loss caused by fires. Can you imagine how difficult it
is for farmers to work so close to trenches? Moreover, they suffer
from fires. I met with Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan in Yerevan and
I plan meetings with NKR leadership. I hope we shall arrive at some
conclusions. The Azerbaijani party has already applied for experts.
What experts exactly, Azerbaijani-Turkish?
They speak of experts engaged in fires and ecology. No specific ones
are mentioned. When there is a relevant decision on such work, then,
the experts will, probably, be specified as well.
Your report does not mention any forest fires. It just touches upon
the burnt grass. Even if the version of intentional fire is admitted
as a truth, is there any sense in it? The stir around the fires seems
to be the main effect of these fires.
I cannot rule out that it is favorable for someone to create a problem
to another party if the wind blows in the opposite way. It is possible
to explain it theoretically. One should not forget about the mined
areas between the front lines. Fires on these areas lead to explosions
and the territory becomes free for passage. In such cases, the local
commanders have to mine these areas again to ensure the security of
the given area. Though, I can hardly imagine that they will endanger
the lives of their soldiers to mine these territories again.
At the same time, I think such "passages" may become a reason for
concern of local commanders. There is another theoretical version:
the fires are a result of firing with tracer bullets. It must not
be ruled out either. In addition, I'd like to note that not only the
grass fire is in question. Fires damage also fields and pastures.
In this case, which of the parties must be more concerned about it? Can
we consider such a way of "mind clearing" a definite preparation in
the context of Azerbaijan's militarist statements?
I think, from the point of view of local commanders, both the parties
must be concerned about the situation.
If a fire broke out in a territory, one can suppose that majority
of the mines will be liquidated. However, there is no exact data on
such areas, though the Azerbaijani party presented the atlas of the
fire areas. Both the parties reported on the measures they have taken
to extinguish the fires. After my monitoring of the contact-line of
NKR and Azerbaijani Armed Forces, there were rains that localized
the fires. However, fires are currently observed on the boundary of
Armenia and Azerbaijan. It also arouses concern, especially because
the fires are not far from front line.
What does the Azerbaijani party propose for fire fighting? Baku has
recently made a "proposal" to the Armenian party to go 20 km back
and let Azerbaijan liquidate the fires.
There are no direct contacts between the representatives of Armenia
and Azerbaijan. But, if this proposal was by the Azerbaijani party,
the Armenian party should discuss it. I'd like to add several words
concerning the monitoring of the fire areas. The monitoring embraced
all the regions indicated by Azerbaijan. However, on the third day
of the monitoring, a single shot was made in our direction. In this
connection, I had to stop the work. Shots in our direction have become
too frequent. I have resolved that the monitoring will not be continued
unless additional measures of our security are taken.
Is it possible to find out where from the shot was made?
My mandate does not allow me to hold an investigation. It requires
a full cooperation of both parties, otherwise, it is impossible to
solve the issue. I cannot make unfounded accusations either.
What is your assessment of the situation on the contact-line?
"I will be glad if there is no contact line. But, unfortunately, it
exists and a there are fires from time to time, the wounded and the
killed. The present stability on the contact line does not mean that
there is no firing. Just the shoots are fixed in a less quantity than
in other periods, especially in the beginning of the year. I hope we
have managed to normalize the situation.
Though, something can happen for different reasons. And we must try
to help the parties maintain the cease-fire.
How many people have died in the current year due to cease-fire
violations?
I have no very true data about the number of the killed and wounded
since I receive exact information not from all parties. However,
according to the data of local commanders, about 20 people have been
wounded or killed this year on both parties.
Do the parties inform of cease-fire violations themselves?
There was such agreement. However, I monitor the contact-line
quite regularly, and generally I receive information during the
monitoring. Sometimes, the parties themselves request a monitoring.
Are there any mechanisms of verifying the information provided by
the parties?
I should repeat that my mandate does not include an investigation. I
take into account everything the party representatives tell me and
always note that I receive the information from the sides. I do not
evaluate the validity of the received information.
In other words, the information of the parties is not verified, it is?
I have a personal opinion, but it is my personal opinion. I reiterate
that I have no mandate of investigation. If I have such, it will be
quite another question.
Can your activity be considered effective if you data are based on
the statements of the parties only? Can your mandate be extended? Is
it possible to introduce an institution of control?
The mandate can be extended, of course, subject to the agreement
of parties.
In this case, the staff of the group must be enlarged. We are only 6 at
present. There is need for specialists in ballistics and others. The
budget should be increased as well. But I am not competent to solve
such questions.
It is the parties that should make a relevant proposal to the OSCE. For
now, there are only discussions in media and allegations against me
that I pointed a finger at the opposite party. That is why, I have
to explain constantly that it is not my task. I think the creation
of more control instruments can be useful, but, best of all, is to
achieve peace and get rid of all this. If the parties agree with the
necessity of an attorney, they should take into account that sometimes
he may point a finger just at them.
Do you think that the tension of the situation on the contact-line
coincides with the meetings of Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders or
the visits of high-ranking foreign guests to the region?
I think the visits bear no relation to it. The situation really
becomes tense in springs. And the reasons are different. The
start of field works near the contact-line can also be one of
the reasons. Unfortunately, it arouses a response of the opposite
party. You can ask militaries, they will explain the acts of the
opposite party.
How the situation on the contact-line influences the public of both
countries and vice versa?
I think a long calm in the negotiation process also contributes to
the worsening of the situation on the contact line. The number of
violations increases. But, as I've noted, the number of violations
decreases during active negotiations. Besides, there is another
question: what the violation is? Cease-fire violation is a long
firing. But, what to do in case of five shots with intervals, for
instance? A sniper firing is, undoubtedly, a violation.
Do you think the parties are ready to maintain the cease-fire
independently or they need the presence of international peacemakers?
At present the cease-fire is maintained due to the efforts of the
parties.
However, if an agreement is achieved, there will be need
for peacemakers. There are issues the parties cannot solve
independently. It is necessary to help them. That is, to carry out
"police functions."
War is a disaster. People suffer even when there is cease-fire
regime. One officer was blown up by a mine in my presence. He lost
his leg. Can you imagine the grief of that man and his relatives? The
sooner the conflict is resolved the better it will be for everyone. I
hope the parties will achieve an agreement at last.
How grounded are the militarists statements by the Azerbaijani party?
There is a definite logic of events. This logic says that if one party
has lost territories it will try to get them back. At the moment,
peaceful negotiations are in process between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
which are mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group. I hope they will continue
till the moment when we are able to declare that a peaceful agreement
is achieved.
What will be the response of the international community if Azerbaijan
anyway tries to start a war?
I am an optimist and I think the negotiations will be a success. As
regards the response of the international community, it is senseless
speaking of future. One can suppose that in case of such developments
both the parties will search for allies.
During your trips of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh, you
meet with the leadership and ordinary citizens of these states. Do you
think the leadership of these states are ready to adopt decisions? And
whether the publics are ready to accept these decisions?
There are various people and groups in society. There is "a silent
majority" and small groups of people who express their views much too
loudly. For example, minority plunged Yugoslavia into tragedy. Instead
of acting like they in Czechoslovakia did and living peacefully
afterwards, they in Yugoslavia preferred starting war with each
other. Of course, one can't directly compare these two cases.
I would just like to appeal to the "silent majority." This is one more
example that war is not a solution. I think that most of Armenians
and Azeris understand that they must stop their enmity. The task of
their leaders is to attain such a peace that everybody realizes that
he has got something. This implies compromise, there is no other way.
Do you think it is the very case when all the parties will be
satisfied?
Nobody can be absolutely satisfied in such difficult problems. Let's
remember the WWI, France was one of the victor countries. Germany
was forced to pay a war indemnity. The French were satisfied but the
Germans felt so humiliated that they started everything again at the
very first opportunity. There is an English saying: war does not
prove who is right and who is left. I think the "silent majority"
in both Armenia and Azerbaijan understands that the only way out is
mutual concessions.
What will allow this "silent majority" to have more chances to express
its opinion?
These are, probably, elections.
Hence, it rests upon "transparent and fair" elections, doesn't it?
Everything is not so easy. Everyone plays on "hot public sentiments
and these mechanisms are used very often" during a pre-election
campaign. But in the everyday life if you ask a passerby if he wants
peace, he is most likely to give a positive answer.
Do the parties contribute to your mission?
The parties support me much. They are always ready to help me,
including the governments of both Armenia and Azerbaijan and the
leadership of Nagorny Karabakh.
ArmInfo, 27 August, 2006
An interview with Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, OSCE CIO Personal
Representative for Nagorny Karabakh. Ten years have past since the
beginning of his diplomatic mission to the region of Nagorny Karabakh
conflict.
Mr. Ambassador, the fire near the contact-line of Azerbaijani
Armed Forces (AF) and Armenian and Nagorny Karabakh AFs have become
another subject for discussion and a new reason for accusations by
the Azerbaijani party. You have monitored the areas of the fires. What
conclusions have you arrived at? Is it possible to speak of the nature
of fires, given the accusation by Azerbaijan "that the fire was set
on the area intentionally?"
I'd like to note that I am not a legal investigator and I am not
authorized to make accusations against any of the parties. In addition,
I have no mandate for investigations. My task is to create trust
between the conflicting parties. Under this provision of my mandate,
I visited the territories of fires in early July. The results of
my trip are reflected in a report. The fires rise for different
reasons. Moreover, one should not forget about the possibility of
fires as a result of careless fire handling. The gentlemen do not
dispute about facts. There is a report. Everyone can read it, but
to read carefully as not to make conclusions or statements which are
not available in it.
That's why one should not say as if I wrote that the fires happen
because of climate conditions. I have written that the fires happened
before as well and the climate conditions this year especially
contributed to fire spread. I also talk about the necessity of
fire-fighting . Not only my mandate but my profession as well does not
allow to talk about the fire reasons. I am a diplomat, an economist
by education and not a fire expert.
Do you think that the accusations by Azerbaijan that you have allegedly
taken a "pro-Armenian position" are a result of misunderstanding
of the demands of your mandate? May OSCE hold additional monitoring
to find out the basis of such statements by Baku, which constantly
accuses Armenia of making fires and "not extinguishing" them?
I permanently have to explain what is the meaning of my mandate. If
the conflict parties need an attorney, let them create an Institute
to point by finger to one or another side. There was not such a point
in my mandate when it was determined. As for the additional study
of the fire situation, if the conflict parties want to carry out an
investigation, such a work can be organized.
But this initiative must be offered by the conflict parties
I think the key goal of such an investigation will be also a definition
on how to avoid these fires and what to do to extinguish them as soon
as possible if they break out. If both the parties are ready to such
a combined action, it will mean that they try to fight these fires. If
one of the parties refuse, then, nothing will come out of it.
Azerbaijani Media report that you have brought the proposals of
the Azerbaijani party regarding the acts for fire extinguishing,
haven't you?
The Azerbaijani party is interested in the joint acts to avoid
agricultural loss caused by fires. Can you imagine how difficult it
is for farmers to work so close to trenches? Moreover, they suffer
from fires. I met with Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan in Yerevan and
I plan meetings with NKR leadership. I hope we shall arrive at some
conclusions. The Azerbaijani party has already applied for experts.
What experts exactly, Azerbaijani-Turkish?
They speak of experts engaged in fires and ecology. No specific ones
are mentioned. When there is a relevant decision on such work, then,
the experts will, probably, be specified as well.
Your report does not mention any forest fires. It just touches upon
the burnt grass. Even if the version of intentional fire is admitted
as a truth, is there any sense in it? The stir around the fires seems
to be the main effect of these fires.
I cannot rule out that it is favorable for someone to create a problem
to another party if the wind blows in the opposite way. It is possible
to explain it theoretically. One should not forget about the mined
areas between the front lines. Fires on these areas lead to explosions
and the territory becomes free for passage. In such cases, the local
commanders have to mine these areas again to ensure the security of
the given area. Though, I can hardly imagine that they will endanger
the lives of their soldiers to mine these territories again.
At the same time, I think such "passages" may become a reason for
concern of local commanders. There is another theoretical version:
the fires are a result of firing with tracer bullets. It must not
be ruled out either. In addition, I'd like to note that not only the
grass fire is in question. Fires damage also fields and pastures.
In this case, which of the parties must be more concerned about it? Can
we consider such a way of "mind clearing" a definite preparation in
the context of Azerbaijan's militarist statements?
I think, from the point of view of local commanders, both the parties
must be concerned about the situation.
If a fire broke out in a territory, one can suppose that majority
of the mines will be liquidated. However, there is no exact data on
such areas, though the Azerbaijani party presented the atlas of the
fire areas. Both the parties reported on the measures they have taken
to extinguish the fires. After my monitoring of the contact-line of
NKR and Azerbaijani Armed Forces, there were rains that localized
the fires. However, fires are currently observed on the boundary of
Armenia and Azerbaijan. It also arouses concern, especially because
the fires are not far from front line.
What does the Azerbaijani party propose for fire fighting? Baku has
recently made a "proposal" to the Armenian party to go 20 km back
and let Azerbaijan liquidate the fires.
There are no direct contacts between the representatives of Armenia
and Azerbaijan. But, if this proposal was by the Azerbaijani party,
the Armenian party should discuss it. I'd like to add several words
concerning the monitoring of the fire areas. The monitoring embraced
all the regions indicated by Azerbaijan. However, on the third day
of the monitoring, a single shot was made in our direction. In this
connection, I had to stop the work. Shots in our direction have become
too frequent. I have resolved that the monitoring will not be continued
unless additional measures of our security are taken.
Is it possible to find out where from the shot was made?
My mandate does not allow me to hold an investigation. It requires
a full cooperation of both parties, otherwise, it is impossible to
solve the issue. I cannot make unfounded accusations either.
What is your assessment of the situation on the contact-line?
"I will be glad if there is no contact line. But, unfortunately, it
exists and a there are fires from time to time, the wounded and the
killed. The present stability on the contact line does not mean that
there is no firing. Just the shoots are fixed in a less quantity than
in other periods, especially in the beginning of the year. I hope we
have managed to normalize the situation.
Though, something can happen for different reasons. And we must try
to help the parties maintain the cease-fire.
How many people have died in the current year due to cease-fire
violations?
I have no very true data about the number of the killed and wounded
since I receive exact information not from all parties. However,
according to the data of local commanders, about 20 people have been
wounded or killed this year on both parties.
Do the parties inform of cease-fire violations themselves?
There was such agreement. However, I monitor the contact-line
quite regularly, and generally I receive information during the
monitoring. Sometimes, the parties themselves request a monitoring.
Are there any mechanisms of verifying the information provided by
the parties?
I should repeat that my mandate does not include an investigation. I
take into account everything the party representatives tell me and
always note that I receive the information from the sides. I do not
evaluate the validity of the received information.
In other words, the information of the parties is not verified, it is?
I have a personal opinion, but it is my personal opinion. I reiterate
that I have no mandate of investigation. If I have such, it will be
quite another question.
Can your activity be considered effective if you data are based on
the statements of the parties only? Can your mandate be extended? Is
it possible to introduce an institution of control?
The mandate can be extended, of course, subject to the agreement
of parties.
In this case, the staff of the group must be enlarged. We are only 6 at
present. There is need for specialists in ballistics and others. The
budget should be increased as well. But I am not competent to solve
such questions.
It is the parties that should make a relevant proposal to the OSCE. For
now, there are only discussions in media and allegations against me
that I pointed a finger at the opposite party. That is why, I have
to explain constantly that it is not my task. I think the creation
of more control instruments can be useful, but, best of all, is to
achieve peace and get rid of all this. If the parties agree with the
necessity of an attorney, they should take into account that sometimes
he may point a finger just at them.
Do you think that the tension of the situation on the contact-line
coincides with the meetings of Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders or
the visits of high-ranking foreign guests to the region?
I think the visits bear no relation to it. The situation really
becomes tense in springs. And the reasons are different. The
start of field works near the contact-line can also be one of
the reasons. Unfortunately, it arouses a response of the opposite
party. You can ask militaries, they will explain the acts of the
opposite party.
How the situation on the contact-line influences the public of both
countries and vice versa?
I think a long calm in the negotiation process also contributes to
the worsening of the situation on the contact line. The number of
violations increases. But, as I've noted, the number of violations
decreases during active negotiations. Besides, there is another
question: what the violation is? Cease-fire violation is a long
firing. But, what to do in case of five shots with intervals, for
instance? A sniper firing is, undoubtedly, a violation.
Do you think the parties are ready to maintain the cease-fire
independently or they need the presence of international peacemakers?
At present the cease-fire is maintained due to the efforts of the
parties.
However, if an agreement is achieved, there will be need
for peacemakers. There are issues the parties cannot solve
independently. It is necessary to help them. That is, to carry out
"police functions."
War is a disaster. People suffer even when there is cease-fire
regime. One officer was blown up by a mine in my presence. He lost
his leg. Can you imagine the grief of that man and his relatives? The
sooner the conflict is resolved the better it will be for everyone. I
hope the parties will achieve an agreement at last.
How grounded are the militarists statements by the Azerbaijani party?
There is a definite logic of events. This logic says that if one party
has lost territories it will try to get them back. At the moment,
peaceful negotiations are in process between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
which are mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group. I hope they will continue
till the moment when we are able to declare that a peaceful agreement
is achieved.
What will be the response of the international community if Azerbaijan
anyway tries to start a war?
I am an optimist and I think the negotiations will be a success. As
regards the response of the international community, it is senseless
speaking of future. One can suppose that in case of such developments
both the parties will search for allies.
During your trips of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh, you
meet with the leadership and ordinary citizens of these states. Do you
think the leadership of these states are ready to adopt decisions? And
whether the publics are ready to accept these decisions?
There are various people and groups in society. There is "a silent
majority" and small groups of people who express their views much too
loudly. For example, minority plunged Yugoslavia into tragedy. Instead
of acting like they in Czechoslovakia did and living peacefully
afterwards, they in Yugoslavia preferred starting war with each
other. Of course, one can't directly compare these two cases.
I would just like to appeal to the "silent majority." This is one more
example that war is not a solution. I think that most of Armenians
and Azeris understand that they must stop their enmity. The task of
their leaders is to attain such a peace that everybody realizes that
he has got something. This implies compromise, there is no other way.
Do you think it is the very case when all the parties will be
satisfied?
Nobody can be absolutely satisfied in such difficult problems. Let's
remember the WWI, France was one of the victor countries. Germany
was forced to pay a war indemnity. The French were satisfied but the
Germans felt so humiliated that they started everything again at the
very first opportunity. There is an English saying: war does not
prove who is right and who is left. I think the "silent majority"
in both Armenia and Azerbaijan understands that the only way out is
mutual concessions.
What will allow this "silent majority" to have more chances to express
its opinion?
These are, probably, elections.
Hence, it rests upon "transparent and fair" elections, doesn't it?
Everything is not so easy. Everyone plays on "hot public sentiments
and these mechanisms are used very often" during a pre-election
campaign. But in the everyday life if you ask a passerby if he wants
peace, he is most likely to give a positive answer.
Do the parties contribute to your mission?
The parties support me much. They are always ready to help me,
including the governments of both Armenia and Azerbaijan and the
leadership of Nagorny Karabakh.