Tweet
Today, Azerbaijan
July 7 2006
Sabina Freizer: "The MG statement means in practice that there is no
longer any internationally facilited negotiations format for the
resolution of the NK conflict"
07 July 2006 [02:02] - Today.Az
"In the statement of OSCE Minsk Group in reality it is meant that
there is not any more international level talks format for settlement
of Nagorno Garabagh conflict," said Sabina Freizer, Director of the
Caucasus project of the International Crisis Group (ICG).
"ICG has prepared two reports last year in connection with the NK
problem and gave many recommendations.
The first is "Nagorno Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground
aimed to describe the current situation in NK and the districts
around it, and how IDPs from occupied lands are living in
Azerbaijan".
The second report is "Nagorno Karabakh: A Plan for Peace focussed on
the negotiations process". This report also included a long list of
recommendations to the Azerbaijani and Armenian governments, to the
de facto NK authorities, and to international organizations,"
Director of the Caucasus project of the International Crisis Group
(ICG) Sabina Freizer has told APA in her exclusive interview.
According to her, the peace plan that they recommended in their
second report was very close to what was on the table in the OSCE
Minsk-Group facilitated talks: "As we can see from the statement made
by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs at the OSCE Permanent Council in
Vienna on 22 June, 2006, which describes the principles that were
under discussion."
Stating the current situation with reagard to the conflict more
critic, Sabina Freizer said that Azerbaijan and Armenia was more
close to peace in the summer of 2005 than today: "Today I assess the
situation as being very critical. I believe that the Azerbaijani and
Armenian sides were much closer to an agreement in summer 2005 than
they are today. There was much optimism until the Rambouillet meeting
that there would be a peace agreement this year, that Armenian backed
troops would begin withdrawal, and Azerbaijani IDPs would begin to
return home during the second half of 2006 or in early 2007. This
optimism has disappeared. Instead the co-chairs have stated that they
are going to suspend their work."
Stating an attitude to the opinion of co-chairs' that
responcibility for the settlement of the conflict lays on
Presidents Sabina Freizer stated that the most important text to
consider is the statement made by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs at
the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on 22 June, 2006: "This
statement provides a coherent and unified approach to the resolution
of the conflict. It is perhaps the most open and critical statement
the OSCE Minsk Group has ever made. It is also the first time since
the start of the Minsk Group facilitated negotiations in 1994 that
the co-chairs have said that they see no point in continuing their
work. I am very surprised that few in Azerbaijan or in Armenia are
commenting on this point. The Minsk Group statement means in practice
that there is no longer any internationally facilited negotiations
format for the resolution of the NK conflict.
What does this mean? Will the two sides manage to negotiate on their
own without any third party mediation? Will another mediator appear?
If the United States, Russia and France are giving up, what other
international forces have the influence and authority to play a
negotiator role? I don't believe that any new mediators will appear.
Rather we are entering a very dangerous phase where there will be no
peaceful negotiations between the sides. Again since 1994 this is the
first time that we are in such a situation."
According to Sabina Freizer, during the past week the Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia have issued highly critical
statements to each other: "I think that these clearly show the points
of disagreement in the negotiations process. The Armenian side is
insisting that the principles included a reference to the Lachin
corridor, and to the right to self determination of the people of NK
of their own status through a referendum. The Azerbaijani side is
stating that the principles included liberalisation of the occupied
territories, demilitarization of the conflict zone, and the return of
all Azerbaijani IDPs. Yet these are precisely the points that the two
sides continue to disagree on -- and why they were unable to sign a
set of principles in Rambouillet and Bucharest.
The modalities of withdrawal from Lachin and Kelbajar and the
modalities of a popular vote on the status of NK were not agreed upon
by the sides. This is why the co-chairs recommended that they be
addressed later -- in seperate working groups. But in the meantime
they suggested that a peacebuilding process start with the withdrawal
of Armenia backed troops of five districts -- to be followed by
withdrawal from the other two -- and return of IDPs to their homes."
Calling this tragic eelement Sabina Freizer stated that in 2006 there
was a chance for withdrawal to begin and return to start. All issues
might not be resolved but a peace process would begin. Now there is
no peace process. There is not even a negotiations process. Instead
the Azerbaijani side is increasingly refering to the military option.
If Azerbaijan decides to take offensive action against NK and
Armenia, how many more years will it be before this conflict is
resolved? How many more displaced persons and casualties will there
be? How definite is it that Azerbaijan will get a better deal using
the military option than what is on the table today?
The issue of the referendum on the status of Nagorno Karabakh is
clearly one of the most sensitive points in the package that was
being discussed. As the co-chairs state: for a withdrawal of Armenian
backed forces from the occupied territories to begin, the sides would
have to agree on the principle that a referendum will determine final
status. But the precise modalities of this referendum would be
discussed in further negotiations. Thus the key issue of debate
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani side of who would participate in
the referendum, where and when it would be held, would be decided
upon later. The co-chairs add that the referendum could only occur
"after suitable pre-conditions for such a vote have been achieved"
which I consider to mean, after the return of displaced Azerbaijanis
to NK. The international community is unlikely to use any other
pressure mechanisms to encourage Armenia to withdraw from the
occupied territories.
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/27929.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
July 7 2006
Sabina Freizer: "The MG statement means in practice that there is no
longer any internationally facilited negotiations format for the
resolution of the NK conflict"
07 July 2006 [02:02] - Today.Az
"In the statement of OSCE Minsk Group in reality it is meant that
there is not any more international level talks format for settlement
of Nagorno Garabagh conflict," said Sabina Freizer, Director of the
Caucasus project of the International Crisis Group (ICG).
"ICG has prepared two reports last year in connection with the NK
problem and gave many recommendations.
The first is "Nagorno Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground
aimed to describe the current situation in NK and the districts
around it, and how IDPs from occupied lands are living in
Azerbaijan".
The second report is "Nagorno Karabakh: A Plan for Peace focussed on
the negotiations process". This report also included a long list of
recommendations to the Azerbaijani and Armenian governments, to the
de facto NK authorities, and to international organizations,"
Director of the Caucasus project of the International Crisis Group
(ICG) Sabina Freizer has told APA in her exclusive interview.
According to her, the peace plan that they recommended in their
second report was very close to what was on the table in the OSCE
Minsk-Group facilitated talks: "As we can see from the statement made
by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs at the OSCE Permanent Council in
Vienna on 22 June, 2006, which describes the principles that were
under discussion."
Stating the current situation with reagard to the conflict more
critic, Sabina Freizer said that Azerbaijan and Armenia was more
close to peace in the summer of 2005 than today: "Today I assess the
situation as being very critical. I believe that the Azerbaijani and
Armenian sides were much closer to an agreement in summer 2005 than
they are today. There was much optimism until the Rambouillet meeting
that there would be a peace agreement this year, that Armenian backed
troops would begin withdrawal, and Azerbaijani IDPs would begin to
return home during the second half of 2006 or in early 2007. This
optimism has disappeared. Instead the co-chairs have stated that they
are going to suspend their work."
Stating an attitude to the opinion of co-chairs' that
responcibility for the settlement of the conflict lays on
Presidents Sabina Freizer stated that the most important text to
consider is the statement made by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs at
the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on 22 June, 2006: "This
statement provides a coherent and unified approach to the resolution
of the conflict. It is perhaps the most open and critical statement
the OSCE Minsk Group has ever made. It is also the first time since
the start of the Minsk Group facilitated negotiations in 1994 that
the co-chairs have said that they see no point in continuing their
work. I am very surprised that few in Azerbaijan or in Armenia are
commenting on this point. The Minsk Group statement means in practice
that there is no longer any internationally facilited negotiations
format for the resolution of the NK conflict.
What does this mean? Will the two sides manage to negotiate on their
own without any third party mediation? Will another mediator appear?
If the United States, Russia and France are giving up, what other
international forces have the influence and authority to play a
negotiator role? I don't believe that any new mediators will appear.
Rather we are entering a very dangerous phase where there will be no
peaceful negotiations between the sides. Again since 1994 this is the
first time that we are in such a situation."
According to Sabina Freizer, during the past week the Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia have issued highly critical
statements to each other: "I think that these clearly show the points
of disagreement in the negotiations process. The Armenian side is
insisting that the principles included a reference to the Lachin
corridor, and to the right to self determination of the people of NK
of their own status through a referendum. The Azerbaijani side is
stating that the principles included liberalisation of the occupied
territories, demilitarization of the conflict zone, and the return of
all Azerbaijani IDPs. Yet these are precisely the points that the two
sides continue to disagree on -- and why they were unable to sign a
set of principles in Rambouillet and Bucharest.
The modalities of withdrawal from Lachin and Kelbajar and the
modalities of a popular vote on the status of NK were not agreed upon
by the sides. This is why the co-chairs recommended that they be
addressed later -- in seperate working groups. But in the meantime
they suggested that a peacebuilding process start with the withdrawal
of Armenia backed troops of five districts -- to be followed by
withdrawal from the other two -- and return of IDPs to their homes."
Calling this tragic eelement Sabina Freizer stated that in 2006 there
was a chance for withdrawal to begin and return to start. All issues
might not be resolved but a peace process would begin. Now there is
no peace process. There is not even a negotiations process. Instead
the Azerbaijani side is increasingly refering to the military option.
If Azerbaijan decides to take offensive action against NK and
Armenia, how many more years will it be before this conflict is
resolved? How many more displaced persons and casualties will there
be? How definite is it that Azerbaijan will get a better deal using
the military option than what is on the table today?
The issue of the referendum on the status of Nagorno Karabakh is
clearly one of the most sensitive points in the package that was
being discussed. As the co-chairs state: for a withdrawal of Armenian
backed forces from the occupied territories to begin, the sides would
have to agree on the principle that a referendum will determine final
status. But the precise modalities of this referendum would be
discussed in further negotiations. Thus the key issue of debate
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani side of who would participate in
the referendum, where and when it would be held, would be decided
upon later. The co-chairs add that the referendum could only occur
"after suitable pre-conditions for such a vote have been achieved"
which I consider to mean, after the return of displaced Azerbaijanis
to NK. The international community is unlikely to use any other
pressure mechanisms to encourage Armenia to withdraw from the
occupied territories.
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/27929.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress