Tweet
BRYZA IS WRONG IN TAKING THE IDEA OF A VOTE ON THE STATUS OF NK
Day.Az
Aug 2 2008
Azerbaijan
Matthew Bryza is wrong in taking the idea of a vote on the status of
the mountainous part of Karabakh out of the entire context of talks
Day.az interview with Azerbaijani political analyst Ilqar Mammadov
[Interviewer] How would comment on the statement by the US co-chairman
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, that the status of Nagornyy
Karabakh should be determined by voting either through a plebiscite
or a referendum of the people in that region.
[Mammadov] This statement reflects only part of the well-known topics
which are now on the negotiating table. The parties do not have full
agreement on all of them. For example, there is agreement between
Baku and Yerevan to discuss the idea of determining the status of the
mountainous part of Karabakh on the basis of a certain vote. But there
are questions here, such as: what does "the population" mean? When,
where and on which procedure is the votesupposed to take place? Baku
believes that the population of the mountainous part of Karabakh also
includes Azerbaijanis who were driven out of that region, the vote can
be conducted only after long-term co-existence of these Armenians and
Azerbaijanis in that region is ensured and the vote must take place
only on the status of the region within Azerbaijan. But Yerevan says
that a referendum on independence should be conducted as soon as
possible and only ethnic Armenians [of that region] must vote.
That is why it is impossible to say that Bryza has said something
new. But he or the media quoting him is wrong in taking the idea
of a vote on the status of the mountainous part of Karabakh out of
the entire context of the talks. I do not think that the Azerbaijani
authorities took a right step in agreeing four years ago to discussing
the idea of such a vote.Moreover, those who speak about it must take
into account all conditions of such agreement.
[Interviewer] But it is evident that the number of ethnic Armenians
in Nagornyy Karabakh was much bigger than that of ethnic Azerbaijanis
due to the known reasons before the conflict started.
[Mammadov] First, most of the Armenians have already left
there. Second, most of the Azerbaijanis driven out of Karabakh have
made families and children. If all of them return to the former
Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region, the Armenians may not have the
demographic advantage in this part of Azerbaijan they once had after
the occupation of those lands by the Tsarist Russia. In addition,
procedural issues are also important. For example, a "referendum" has
recently been held in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, which
required a two-third of votes to validate the outcome of the vote.
[Interviewer] Even if we ensure the equality of the ethnic composition
in Nagornyy Karabakh in some means, the Armenians may attempt to
influence the outcome of the vote due to their favourite policy of
illegal settlements in the territories they did not own before the
referendum.
[Mammadov] The Azerbaijani side can also resort to similar methods
if the developments go that way.
[Interviewer] Mathew Bryza is noted for his habit of denying many big
statements on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. May the American
diplomat say this time again that journalists misunderstood him?
[Mammadov] I think that this statement indeed reflects Matthew Bryza's
thoughts. It is another question that the position of the co-chairmen
to the problem is extremely unfair. Unfortunately, our government
indulges them. For example, why is the population of Karabakh entitled
to a vote, but the population of Zangazur [an Armenian region that was
home to ethnic Azerbaijanis before the start of the Karabakh conflict]
is not? Do the co-chairmen really recognize that the successful use
of violence by the authorities in the Republic of Armenia against the
Azerbaijani population of Zangazur creates some rights for Karabakh
Armenians and deprives the rights of Azerbaijanis of Zangazur, who
were three times more at the start of the conflict? Do they really
think that Baku is to blame for failing to use effective force against
Karabakh Armenians? Then, this is a direct call to war.
Or, let us take a definition called "the corridor between Karabakh and
Armenia", which Bryza also mentioned earlier. There will not be peace
in the South Caucasus if we think about it in the way of corridors like
"a corridor or not a corridor". We need real regional integration, but
not temporary corridors from war to war. If we talk about corridors,
then the corridor to Naxcivan is a sacred right of Azerbaijan. Why
did Bryza forget about it?
[Interviewer] In any case, Bryza's statement has caused a lot of
fuss outside the conflict region. In particular, the leader of the
Abkhaz separatists, Sergey Bagapsh, welcomed the statement of the US
co-chairman. Hearing from the US diplomat about the decision to hold
a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh, Bagapsh called on the USA to take
on board the outcomes of voting in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What
do you think about this?
[Mammadov] As can be seen, Bagapsh did not even understand what
Matthew Bryza meant. He did not say who would take part in a supposed
vote. If the Georgians who were driven out of Abkhazia return there,
the idea of independence of Abkhazia will fail in the referendum.
Day.Az
Aug 2 2008
Azerbaijan
Matthew Bryza is wrong in taking the idea of a vote on the status of
the mountainous part of Karabakh out of the entire context of talks
Day.az interview with Azerbaijani political analyst Ilqar Mammadov
[Interviewer] How would comment on the statement by the US co-chairman
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, that the status of Nagornyy
Karabakh should be determined by voting either through a plebiscite
or a referendum of the people in that region.
[Mammadov] This statement reflects only part of the well-known topics
which are now on the negotiating table. The parties do not have full
agreement on all of them. For example, there is agreement between
Baku and Yerevan to discuss the idea of determining the status of the
mountainous part of Karabakh on the basis of a certain vote. But there
are questions here, such as: what does "the population" mean? When,
where and on which procedure is the votesupposed to take place? Baku
believes that the population of the mountainous part of Karabakh also
includes Azerbaijanis who were driven out of that region, the vote can
be conducted only after long-term co-existence of these Armenians and
Azerbaijanis in that region is ensured and the vote must take place
only on the status of the region within Azerbaijan. But Yerevan says
that a referendum on independence should be conducted as soon as
possible and only ethnic Armenians [of that region] must vote.
That is why it is impossible to say that Bryza has said something
new. But he or the media quoting him is wrong in taking the idea
of a vote on the status of the mountainous part of Karabakh out of
the entire context of the talks. I do not think that the Azerbaijani
authorities took a right step in agreeing four years ago to discussing
the idea of such a vote.Moreover, those who speak about it must take
into account all conditions of such agreement.
[Interviewer] But it is evident that the number of ethnic Armenians
in Nagornyy Karabakh was much bigger than that of ethnic Azerbaijanis
due to the known reasons before the conflict started.
[Mammadov] First, most of the Armenians have already left
there. Second, most of the Azerbaijanis driven out of Karabakh have
made families and children. If all of them return to the former
Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region, the Armenians may not have the
demographic advantage in this part of Azerbaijan they once had after
the occupation of those lands by the Tsarist Russia. In addition,
procedural issues are also important. For example, a "referendum" has
recently been held in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, which
required a two-third of votes to validate the outcome of the vote.
[Interviewer] Even if we ensure the equality of the ethnic composition
in Nagornyy Karabakh in some means, the Armenians may attempt to
influence the outcome of the vote due to their favourite policy of
illegal settlements in the territories they did not own before the
referendum.
[Mammadov] The Azerbaijani side can also resort to similar methods
if the developments go that way.
[Interviewer] Mathew Bryza is noted for his habit of denying many big
statements on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. May the American
diplomat say this time again that journalists misunderstood him?
[Mammadov] I think that this statement indeed reflects Matthew Bryza's
thoughts. It is another question that the position of the co-chairmen
to the problem is extremely unfair. Unfortunately, our government
indulges them. For example, why is the population of Karabakh entitled
to a vote, but the population of Zangazur [an Armenian region that was
home to ethnic Azerbaijanis before the start of the Karabakh conflict]
is not? Do the co-chairmen really recognize that the successful use
of violence by the authorities in the Republic of Armenia against the
Azerbaijani population of Zangazur creates some rights for Karabakh
Armenians and deprives the rights of Azerbaijanis of Zangazur, who
were three times more at the start of the conflict? Do they really
think that Baku is to blame for failing to use effective force against
Karabakh Armenians? Then, this is a direct call to war.
Or, let us take a definition called "the corridor between Karabakh and
Armenia", which Bryza also mentioned earlier. There will not be peace
in the South Caucasus if we think about it in the way of corridors like
"a corridor or not a corridor". We need real regional integration, but
not temporary corridors from war to war. If we talk about corridors,
then the corridor to Naxcivan is a sacred right of Azerbaijan. Why
did Bryza forget about it?
[Interviewer] In any case, Bryza's statement has caused a lot of
fuss outside the conflict region. In particular, the leader of the
Abkhaz separatists, Sergey Bagapsh, welcomed the statement of the US
co-chairman. Hearing from the US diplomat about the decision to hold
a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh, Bagapsh called on the USA to take
on board the outcomes of voting in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What
do you think about this?
[Mammadov] As can be seen, Bagapsh did not even understand what
Matthew Bryza meant. He did not say who would take part in a supposed
vote. If the Georgians who were driven out of Abkhazia return there,
the idea of independence of Abkhazia will fail in the referendum.