Tweet
STATEMENT BY THE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS
Lragir.am
29 June 06
TO THE OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL
Vienna, June 22, 2006
Mr. Chairmen,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In November last year the Minsk Group Co-Chairs reported to this
Council that the two sides in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were
poised to make a transition from negotiating to decision-making
and that a historic breakthrough in the settlement of the conflict
was possible in 2006. During the past seven months, we intensified
our mediation efforts and worked hard to achieve the agreement of
both sides on basic principles for a settlement. We visited Baku
and Yerevan three times together and several more times separately,
organized two meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia
and Azerbaijan and two summits between Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev
- first in Rambouillet in February and then in Bucharest in early June.
For the first time since 1997, when the current format of the
Co-Chairmanship of the Minsk Group was established, a joint Mission
of Representatives of the Co-Chair countries at the Deputy Foreign
Minister level traveled to the region in May in order to make clear to
the presidents of both countries that 2006 is the necessary window of
opportunity for reaching an agreement on Nagrono-Karabakh. In fact,
the delegation of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigoriy Karasin,
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and high-ranking
French diplomat Pierre Morel - representing French Political Director
Stanislaus de Laboulaye - told the two Presidents that our three
countries expected them to take advantage of this opportunity by
reaching an agreement on core principles for a settlement at their
Bucharest summit in early June.
Our deputy ministers told the two Presidents that an agreement on basic
principles now, before the July G8 Summit in St. Petersburg,
would secure broad international support and a high level of
financial assistance for postconflict reconstruction and peacekeeping
activities. We stressed - as always - the belief of our nations and,
more widely, of the international community that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict can be resolved in no other way than a peaceful one. Moreover,
we stressed that both leaders need to prepare their publics for peace
and not for war.
Mr. Chairman,
Our deputy ministers proposed to Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian a set
of core principles that we believe are fair, balanced, workable,
and that could pave the way for the two sides to draft a far-reaching
settlement agreement. We continue to believe in these principles, and
we urge the Presidents to embrace them as the basis for an agreement.
Unfortunately, the Presidents chose not to reach such an agreement
in Bucharest. As mediators in this process, we will not breach the
confidentiality of their sensitive diplomatic dialogue, as we continue
to hope that they will reach an agreement. At this juncture, though,
it is our responsibility to you, Mr. Chairman, to this Council that
has provided the funding for a very intensive series of negotiations,
to the international community, and - perhaps most importantly -
to the publics in Armenia and Azerbaijan, to acquaint you with the
basic principles that we have put on the table for the consideration
of the two Presidents.
We note that the principles the Co-Chair countries proposed to the two
Presidents were not developed in a vacuum, but follow on to nine years
of detailed proposals that have been advanced by our predecessors. Even
though those proposals were not accepted by the parties, that work
of our predecessors gave us important insights and foundations. Our
approach has been a modified one: we have not tried to solve all
aspects of the conflict in one phase. Instead, our principles seek
to achieve a major degree of progress but defer some very difficult
issues to the future and envision further negotiations. In sum, they
try to solve - in a practical, balanced way - what is immediately
solvable. These principles include the phased redeployment of Armenian
troops from Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, with
special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin districts. Demilitarization
of those territories would follow. A referendum or population vote
would be agreed, at an unspecified future date, to determine the
final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sides would commit to
further negotiations to define the timing and modalities of such
a referendum or population vote. Certain interim arrangements for
Nagorno-Karabakh would allow for interaction with providers of
international assistance. An international peacekeeping force would
be deployed. A joint commission would be created to implement the
agreement. International financial assistance would be made available
for demining, reconstruction, and resettlement of internally displaced
persons in the formerly occupied territories and the war-affected
regions of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sides would renounce the use or
threat of use of force, and international and bilateral security
guarantees and assurances would be put in place.
We note with respect to the idea of a referendum or population
vote to determine the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh that
such a vote would be the product of a negotiated agreement between
the two sides. Suitable pre-conditions for such a vote would have
to be achieved so that the vote would take place in a non-coercive
environment in which well-informed citizens have had ample opportunity
to consider their positions after a vigorous debate in the public
arena.
Mr. Chairman,
This is what we have proposed to the two Presidents, but they failed to
agree. Nonetheless, we have heard both sides say repeatedly that
they have never before been so close to an agreement. It would be
a tragically wasted opportunity for the two Presidents to let this
window of opportunity close in 2006 without even the basic principles
in place for a future peace agreement for Nagorno-Karabakh. As you
know, election cycles are approaching, first in Armenia and then in
Azerbaijan during 2007-2008. We have seen before the negative effect
that national elections can have on negotiations, and we continue
to believe that now is the time for the two Presidents to summon the
political will to take a courageous step forward together toward peace.
Mr. Chairman,
As Co-Chairs, we have reached the limits of our creativity in the
identification, formulation, and finalization of these principles. We
do not believe additional alternatives advanced by the mediators
through additional meetings with the sides will produce a different
result. We hope that the Permanent Council will join us in urging
the parties to the conflict to reach an agreement as soon as possible
based on the core principles we have recommended. If the two sides are
unable to agree on those principles we have put forward, we believe it
is now contingent upon them to work together to reach an alternative
agreement that both find acceptable. We remain ready to assist. As
mediators, however, we cannot make the difficult decisions for the
parties. We think the parties would be well-served at this point by
allowing their publics to engage in a robust discussion of the many
viewpoints on these issues. We are confident that neither society wants
renewed conflict, and we urge the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan
to work with their publics and to work with each other to formulate an
agreement on core principles that both find acceptable. Ultimately, it
is the two sides that will be held accountable by their peoples and by
the international community if their actions lead to war and not peace.
Mr. Chairman,
We see no point right now in continuing the intensive shuttle diplomacy
we have engaged in over the past several months. We also see no point
in initiating further presidential meetings until the sides demonstrate
enough political will to overcome their remaining differences. Of
course, the Co-Chairs will remain available to both parties to serve
faithfully and impartially as mediators. Acting in complete unity among
the mediators, we have delivered a product reflecting our best efforts,
and we strongly believe that it is now time for the two Presidents to
take the initiative for achieving a breakthrough in the settlement
process. It is the only way to secure the positive results already
achieved through the last two years of negotiations, in order not to
restart them later from scratch. We will remain vigilant. We will
continue our analysis and close consultations among ourselves in
our unified and effective framework, in our continuing capacity as
Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, supported by Ambassador Kasprzyk and
his team. We will be ready to reengage if indeed the parties decide
to pursue the talks with the political will that has thus far been
lacking.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our sincere
gratitude to the Chairman in Office, Minister de Gucht, whose close
interest and constant attention to the issues of the Nagorno-Karabakh
settlement, including his introductory remarks before the last meeting
of two Presidents in Bucharest, have contributed greatly to our work
in the first half of 2006.
Lragir.am
29 June 06
TO THE OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL
Vienna, June 22, 2006
Mr. Chairmen,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In November last year the Minsk Group Co-Chairs reported to this
Council that the two sides in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were
poised to make a transition from negotiating to decision-making
and that a historic breakthrough in the settlement of the conflict
was possible in 2006. During the past seven months, we intensified
our mediation efforts and worked hard to achieve the agreement of
both sides on basic principles for a settlement. We visited Baku
and Yerevan three times together and several more times separately,
organized two meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia
and Azerbaijan and two summits between Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev
- first in Rambouillet in February and then in Bucharest in early June.
For the first time since 1997, when the current format of the
Co-Chairmanship of the Minsk Group was established, a joint Mission
of Representatives of the Co-Chair countries at the Deputy Foreign
Minister level traveled to the region in May in order to make clear to
the presidents of both countries that 2006 is the necessary window of
opportunity for reaching an agreement on Nagrono-Karabakh. In fact,
the delegation of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigoriy Karasin,
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and high-ranking
French diplomat Pierre Morel - representing French Political Director
Stanislaus de Laboulaye - told the two Presidents that our three
countries expected them to take advantage of this opportunity by
reaching an agreement on core principles for a settlement at their
Bucharest summit in early June.
Our deputy ministers told the two Presidents that an agreement on basic
principles now, before the July G8 Summit in St. Petersburg,
would secure broad international support and a high level of
financial assistance for postconflict reconstruction and peacekeeping
activities. We stressed - as always - the belief of our nations and,
more widely, of the international community that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict can be resolved in no other way than a peaceful one. Moreover,
we stressed that both leaders need to prepare their publics for peace
and not for war.
Mr. Chairman,
Our deputy ministers proposed to Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian a set
of core principles that we believe are fair, balanced, workable,
and that could pave the way for the two sides to draft a far-reaching
settlement agreement. We continue to believe in these principles, and
we urge the Presidents to embrace them as the basis for an agreement.
Unfortunately, the Presidents chose not to reach such an agreement
in Bucharest. As mediators in this process, we will not breach the
confidentiality of their sensitive diplomatic dialogue, as we continue
to hope that they will reach an agreement. At this juncture, though,
it is our responsibility to you, Mr. Chairman, to this Council that
has provided the funding for a very intensive series of negotiations,
to the international community, and - perhaps most importantly -
to the publics in Armenia and Azerbaijan, to acquaint you with the
basic principles that we have put on the table for the consideration
of the two Presidents.
We note that the principles the Co-Chair countries proposed to the two
Presidents were not developed in a vacuum, but follow on to nine years
of detailed proposals that have been advanced by our predecessors. Even
though those proposals were not accepted by the parties, that work
of our predecessors gave us important insights and foundations. Our
approach has been a modified one: we have not tried to solve all
aspects of the conflict in one phase. Instead, our principles seek
to achieve a major degree of progress but defer some very difficult
issues to the future and envision further negotiations. In sum, they
try to solve - in a practical, balanced way - what is immediately
solvable. These principles include the phased redeployment of Armenian
troops from Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, with
special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin districts. Demilitarization
of those territories would follow. A referendum or population vote
would be agreed, at an unspecified future date, to determine the
final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sides would commit to
further negotiations to define the timing and modalities of such
a referendum or population vote. Certain interim arrangements for
Nagorno-Karabakh would allow for interaction with providers of
international assistance. An international peacekeeping force would
be deployed. A joint commission would be created to implement the
agreement. International financial assistance would be made available
for demining, reconstruction, and resettlement of internally displaced
persons in the formerly occupied territories and the war-affected
regions of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sides would renounce the use or
threat of use of force, and international and bilateral security
guarantees and assurances would be put in place.
We note with respect to the idea of a referendum or population
vote to determine the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh that
such a vote would be the product of a negotiated agreement between
the two sides. Suitable pre-conditions for such a vote would have
to be achieved so that the vote would take place in a non-coercive
environment in which well-informed citizens have had ample opportunity
to consider their positions after a vigorous debate in the public
arena.
Mr. Chairman,
This is what we have proposed to the two Presidents, but they failed to
agree. Nonetheless, we have heard both sides say repeatedly that
they have never before been so close to an agreement. It would be
a tragically wasted opportunity for the two Presidents to let this
window of opportunity close in 2006 without even the basic principles
in place for a future peace agreement for Nagorno-Karabakh. As you
know, election cycles are approaching, first in Armenia and then in
Azerbaijan during 2007-2008. We have seen before the negative effect
that national elections can have on negotiations, and we continue
to believe that now is the time for the two Presidents to summon the
political will to take a courageous step forward together toward peace.
Mr. Chairman,
As Co-Chairs, we have reached the limits of our creativity in the
identification, formulation, and finalization of these principles. We
do not believe additional alternatives advanced by the mediators
through additional meetings with the sides will produce a different
result. We hope that the Permanent Council will join us in urging
the parties to the conflict to reach an agreement as soon as possible
based on the core principles we have recommended. If the two sides are
unable to agree on those principles we have put forward, we believe it
is now contingent upon them to work together to reach an alternative
agreement that both find acceptable. We remain ready to assist. As
mediators, however, we cannot make the difficult decisions for the
parties. We think the parties would be well-served at this point by
allowing their publics to engage in a robust discussion of the many
viewpoints on these issues. We are confident that neither society wants
renewed conflict, and we urge the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan
to work with their publics and to work with each other to formulate an
agreement on core principles that both find acceptable. Ultimately, it
is the two sides that will be held accountable by their peoples and by
the international community if their actions lead to war and not peace.
Mr. Chairman,
We see no point right now in continuing the intensive shuttle diplomacy
we have engaged in over the past several months. We also see no point
in initiating further presidential meetings until the sides demonstrate
enough political will to overcome their remaining differences. Of
course, the Co-Chairs will remain available to both parties to serve
faithfully and impartially as mediators. Acting in complete unity among
the mediators, we have delivered a product reflecting our best efforts,
and we strongly believe that it is now time for the two Presidents to
take the initiative for achieving a breakthrough in the settlement
process. It is the only way to secure the positive results already
achieved through the last two years of negotiations, in order not to
restart them later from scratch. We will remain vigilant. We will
continue our analysis and close consultations among ourselves in
our unified and effective framework, in our continuing capacity as
Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, supported by Ambassador Kasprzyk and
his team. We will be ready to reengage if indeed the parties decide
to pursue the talks with the political will that has thus far been
lacking.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our sincere
gratitude to the Chairman in Office, Minister de Gucht, whose close
interest and constant attention to the issues of the Nagorno-Karabakh
settlement, including his introductory remarks before the last meeting
of two Presidents in Bucharest, have contributed greatly to our work
in the first half of 2006.