Tweet
"APPROACHING THE LAST PHASE OF THE TALKS"
by Tamara Ovnatanjan
Source: Novoye Vremya (Yerevan), November 30, 2006, EV
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 6, 2006 Wednesday
RESULTS OF THE TALKS BETWEEN PRESIDENTS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN: A
VIEW FROM YEREVAN; The Azerbaijani-Armenian talks: no progress is made.
The meeting between presidents Robert Kocharjan (Armenia) and Ilham
Aliyev (Azerbaijan) took place within the framework of the CIS summit
in Minsk. The meeting did not differ from the two previous earlier
this year in terms of information on the talks. It is only possible
to make guesses over what transpired at the meeting on two comments -
by Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan and Aliyev himself. What
their comments revealed inevitably leads to the conclusion that could
be drawn even before the meeting, the conclusion that the third round
of the talks failed to produce any breakthroughs.
Oskanyan appraised the outcome of the negotiations as "positive".
"Agenda of the talks was centered around the issues that have defied
a solution so far," the Armenian diplomat said referring to some
document the president had allegedly discussed. Asked to comment on
the future of the talks, Oskanyan made a reference to the forthcoming
elections (in 2007 in Armenia and 2008 in both countries). Oskanyan
said he didn't think that the elections would disrupt the talks. "I'm
convinced that the negotiations will continue," he said.
Oskanyan's vague optimism was supplemented by Aliyev's unexpected
openness with the Azerbaijani media.
"Some serious talks took place. We discussed moot points. A whole
number of issues were settled. There are, however, some principal
matters on which our opinions differ, and we discussed them at the
latest meeting," Aliyev said.
The president added that negotiations within the framework of the
Prague Process had been under way for more than three years. A lot
of meetings took place. "We are approaching the final phase of the
talks," Aliyev said.
"We want the problem solved with territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
honored," Aliyev summed up Azerbaijanis' stand. "UN resolutions must
be observed. Azerbaijan lands have to be freed from occupiers for the
return of more than 1 million Azerbaijanis. We are pleased with the
latest activities of international organizations. They also insist
on observation of the territorial integrity principle."
If anything is to be concluded from the comment, it is that
Azerbaijan's stand has not changed. And since it is so, why the
Azerbaijani president believes that the "final phase" is approaching
is anybody's guess. Final phases stipulate a compromise, at the
very least.
Contours of the probable compromise may be glimpsed in the latest
statement of American negotiations, Matthew Bryza, to the effect that
the negotiations are currently centered around two problems: return
of the territories forming the security belt and Nagorno-Karabakh's
status. It is logical to assume that even if Armenia agrees to make
a concession in the matter of land, it will only do so in return for
the status concessions from Azerbaijan. What the Azerbaijani president
said, however, does not imply readiness for compromises.
"Territorial integrity should be restored, and Nagorno-Karabakh will
enjoy broad powers of an autonomy," Illarionov firmly said.
Kocharjan explained Armenia's position during a visit to Germany a
week ago. "Try as we might, we cannot recall a single precedent where
a nation would abandon sovereignty after 15 years of enjoying it.
Nobody intends to do so in Karabakh's case. We are talking
irreversibility of changes in people's conscience," he said addressing
the Bertelsmann Foundation.
In any case, the negotiations in Minsk were entirely a waste of time
and effort. This time, the Azerbaijani side did without military
rhetoric always deployed both before and after previous meetings
within the framework of the Prague Process.
The mediator countries' and particularly America's stand on the matter
might have played its part. All these countries are convinced that the
conflict in question cannot be solved by military means. On the other
hand, other factors including economic ones could also persuade the
Azerbaijani leadership to change the concept. The Baku-based newspaper
Zerkalo even published a not exactly pro-Azerbaijani speech of Wayne
Mery at the John Hopkins University.
This expert and prominent diplomat put it bluntly: Azerbaijan couldn't
hope to win a war launched to settle the conflict.
In any case, Official Baku decided to abandon military rhetoric for
the time being and turn to Russia. Its reasoning is apparently the
following, "If President Vladimir Putin puts Kocharjan under pressure,
then Aliyev may play ball and meet the demands from Moscow not to
help Georgia with gas and electric power." In fact, this hypothesis is
promoted by the daily Kommersant that makes references to its sources
in Azerbaijan. Kommersant even maintains that Kocharjan and Ilham
Aliyev may meet soon again in early December, in Moscow. Armenian
sources do not confirm it.
by Tamara Ovnatanjan
Source: Novoye Vremya (Yerevan), November 30, 2006, EV
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 6, 2006 Wednesday
RESULTS OF THE TALKS BETWEEN PRESIDENTS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN: A
VIEW FROM YEREVAN; The Azerbaijani-Armenian talks: no progress is made.
The meeting between presidents Robert Kocharjan (Armenia) and Ilham
Aliyev (Azerbaijan) took place within the framework of the CIS summit
in Minsk. The meeting did not differ from the two previous earlier
this year in terms of information on the talks. It is only possible
to make guesses over what transpired at the meeting on two comments -
by Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan and Aliyev himself. What
their comments revealed inevitably leads to the conclusion that could
be drawn even before the meeting, the conclusion that the third round
of the talks failed to produce any breakthroughs.
Oskanyan appraised the outcome of the negotiations as "positive".
"Agenda of the talks was centered around the issues that have defied
a solution so far," the Armenian diplomat said referring to some
document the president had allegedly discussed. Asked to comment on
the future of the talks, Oskanyan made a reference to the forthcoming
elections (in 2007 in Armenia and 2008 in both countries). Oskanyan
said he didn't think that the elections would disrupt the talks. "I'm
convinced that the negotiations will continue," he said.
Oskanyan's vague optimism was supplemented by Aliyev's unexpected
openness with the Azerbaijani media.
"Some serious talks took place. We discussed moot points. A whole
number of issues were settled. There are, however, some principal
matters on which our opinions differ, and we discussed them at the
latest meeting," Aliyev said.
The president added that negotiations within the framework of the
Prague Process had been under way for more than three years. A lot
of meetings took place. "We are approaching the final phase of the
talks," Aliyev said.
"We want the problem solved with territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
honored," Aliyev summed up Azerbaijanis' stand. "UN resolutions must
be observed. Azerbaijan lands have to be freed from occupiers for the
return of more than 1 million Azerbaijanis. We are pleased with the
latest activities of international organizations. They also insist
on observation of the territorial integrity principle."
If anything is to be concluded from the comment, it is that
Azerbaijan's stand has not changed. And since it is so, why the
Azerbaijani president believes that the "final phase" is approaching
is anybody's guess. Final phases stipulate a compromise, at the
very least.
Contours of the probable compromise may be glimpsed in the latest
statement of American negotiations, Matthew Bryza, to the effect that
the negotiations are currently centered around two problems: return
of the territories forming the security belt and Nagorno-Karabakh's
status. It is logical to assume that even if Armenia agrees to make
a concession in the matter of land, it will only do so in return for
the status concessions from Azerbaijan. What the Azerbaijani president
said, however, does not imply readiness for compromises.
"Territorial integrity should be restored, and Nagorno-Karabakh will
enjoy broad powers of an autonomy," Illarionov firmly said.
Kocharjan explained Armenia's position during a visit to Germany a
week ago. "Try as we might, we cannot recall a single precedent where
a nation would abandon sovereignty after 15 years of enjoying it.
Nobody intends to do so in Karabakh's case. We are talking
irreversibility of changes in people's conscience," he said addressing
the Bertelsmann Foundation.
In any case, the negotiations in Minsk were entirely a waste of time
and effort. This time, the Azerbaijani side did without military
rhetoric always deployed both before and after previous meetings
within the framework of the Prague Process.
The mediator countries' and particularly America's stand on the matter
might have played its part. All these countries are convinced that the
conflict in question cannot be solved by military means. On the other
hand, other factors including economic ones could also persuade the
Azerbaijani leadership to change the concept. The Baku-based newspaper
Zerkalo even published a not exactly pro-Azerbaijani speech of Wayne
Mery at the John Hopkins University.
This expert and prominent diplomat put it bluntly: Azerbaijan couldn't
hope to win a war launched to settle the conflict.
In any case, Official Baku decided to abandon military rhetoric for
the time being and turn to Russia. Its reasoning is apparently the
following, "If President Vladimir Putin puts Kocharjan under pressure,
then Aliyev may play ball and meet the demands from Moscow not to
help Georgia with gas and electric power." In fact, this hypothesis is
promoted by the daily Kommersant that makes references to its sources
in Azerbaijan. Kommersant even maintains that Kocharjan and Ilham
Aliyev may meet soon again in early December, in Moscow. Armenian
sources do not confirm it.