Tweet
KAZIMIROV: FRAME AGREEMENT ON NK LACKS PEACE GUARANTEES
Regnum, Russia
June 27 2006
The "frame agreement" on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement
voiced by the U.S. does not guarantee non-resumption of hostilities
in Nagorno Karabakh, as the mere peacemakers' dislocation here is not
enough, the OSCE Minsk group Russian Co-Chair in 1992-1996, Ambassador
Vladimir Kazimirov told REGNUM while commenting on the statements made
by the new U.S. Co-Chair for the conflict settlement Matthew Bryza.
"It is the key issue. Without not just rhetorical but substantial
guarantees provided by the conflict parties themselves and by
international organizations (perhaps, even the U. N. Security
Council) one will not manage to initiate the first stage, in which
the Azerbaijani party would like to see the liberation of a part of
the occupied territories and the return of forced migrants there." To
start implementing measures planned in the first stage, one would need
to first rid of the threats of forceful revenge, to stop violating
the principles of the peaceful conflict settlement, non-application
of force and threatening by force, Kazimirov said.
"Only if all the parties, without exception, denounce irresponsible
and inadequate dreams of power can open the way for real changes in
the situation, for practical implementation of coordinated measures",
Vladimir Kazimirov stated. He noted that "it is quite naïve to hope
to obtain something from peaceful steps first and then get 'the rest'
by force - this is only the way to deceive yourself."
Speaking on the Matthew Bryza's extensive interview as a new
Co-Chair, the Russian diplomat noted it was an unusual and even too
pretentious interview. "It may seem that the conflict parties and
mediators have failed to reach accords on Karabakh and decided to
come to understanding on something and all of a sudden agreed to
abandon the confidentiality of the negotiation process. However,
another approach is applied sometimes: rules are invented exactly to
be violated," Kazimirov observed. He also reminded that a few years
ago Baku, despite an agreement on the talks' confidentiality, had
published the full texts of the three proposals made in 1997-1998
by the three Co-Chairs (Russia, the U. S. and France) to the three
conflict parties -Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno Karabakh. Then
Yerevan did the same. "It is a bit strange that such an interview
is actually the first step taken by the new U. S. Co-Chair. Couldn't
he wait for the first visit to the conflict region? There were many
bold mediators on Nagorno Karabakh both here, in Russia, and in other
countries as well. However, where are their achievements?" Vladimir
Kazimirov wondered.
In his words, in case the parties and mediators really decided to
make public the essence of the "frame agreement," it would be much
more reliable to read out the text of the project presented to the
two parties instead of a private interview with its retelling. "The
document's original is always more convincing than its retelling.
Otherwise, this kind of breaking of micro-agreements between the
parties is worthy of regret. Especially if it has been done not by a
conflict party that can have different interests but a mediator who
must honor any agreements, including the procedural ones," Vladimir
Kazimirov summed up.
--Boundary_(ID_ywL7iTW0SGkXPknXfn8wGg)--
Regnum, Russia
June 27 2006
The "frame agreement" on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement
voiced by the U.S. does not guarantee non-resumption of hostilities
in Nagorno Karabakh, as the mere peacemakers' dislocation here is not
enough, the OSCE Minsk group Russian Co-Chair in 1992-1996, Ambassador
Vladimir Kazimirov told REGNUM while commenting on the statements made
by the new U.S. Co-Chair for the conflict settlement Matthew Bryza.
"It is the key issue. Without not just rhetorical but substantial
guarantees provided by the conflict parties themselves and by
international organizations (perhaps, even the U. N. Security
Council) one will not manage to initiate the first stage, in which
the Azerbaijani party would like to see the liberation of a part of
the occupied territories and the return of forced migrants there." To
start implementing measures planned in the first stage, one would need
to first rid of the threats of forceful revenge, to stop violating
the principles of the peaceful conflict settlement, non-application
of force and threatening by force, Kazimirov said.
"Only if all the parties, without exception, denounce irresponsible
and inadequate dreams of power can open the way for real changes in
the situation, for practical implementation of coordinated measures",
Vladimir Kazimirov stated. He noted that "it is quite naïve to hope
to obtain something from peaceful steps first and then get 'the rest'
by force - this is only the way to deceive yourself."
Speaking on the Matthew Bryza's extensive interview as a new
Co-Chair, the Russian diplomat noted it was an unusual and even too
pretentious interview. "It may seem that the conflict parties and
mediators have failed to reach accords on Karabakh and decided to
come to understanding on something and all of a sudden agreed to
abandon the confidentiality of the negotiation process. However,
another approach is applied sometimes: rules are invented exactly to
be violated," Kazimirov observed. He also reminded that a few years
ago Baku, despite an agreement on the talks' confidentiality, had
published the full texts of the three proposals made in 1997-1998
by the three Co-Chairs (Russia, the U. S. and France) to the three
conflict parties -Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno Karabakh. Then
Yerevan did the same. "It is a bit strange that such an interview
is actually the first step taken by the new U. S. Co-Chair. Couldn't
he wait for the first visit to the conflict region? There were many
bold mediators on Nagorno Karabakh both here, in Russia, and in other
countries as well. However, where are their achievements?" Vladimir
Kazimirov wondered.
In his words, in case the parties and mediators really decided to
make public the essence of the "frame agreement," it would be much
more reliable to read out the text of the project presented to the
two parties instead of a private interview with its retelling. "The
document's original is always more convincing than its retelling.
Otherwise, this kind of breaking of micro-agreements between the
parties is worthy of regret. Especially if it has been done not by a
conflict party that can have different interests but a mediator who
must honor any agreements, including the procedural ones," Vladimir
Kazimirov summed up.
--Boundary_(ID_ywL7iTW0SGkXPknXfn8wGg)--