Tweet
MATTHEW BRYZA AGAIN REFUTES WORDS, SPREAD ON HIS BEHALF
Today.Az
07 August 2008 [12:27]
It is already not funny. It is more like a soap opera, which can be
called "The tragedy of a diplomat".
The point is that US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza
again refuted words, spread by journalists on his behalf. Matthew
Bryza seems to add to the history of the world diplomacy as a person,
whose words were constantly "distorted" and which he had to refute.
If previously in Armenia he rebutted the words, spread by Azerbaijani
journalists and in Azerbaijan by Armenians, this time, he trapped
Russian media representatives, if exactly, Interfax news agency. The
point is M.Bryza's statement, spread by Interfax, according to which
he said "Karabakh residents will decide themselves whether they will
fall under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction or no".
In his interview to BBC Azerbaijan press service, M.Bryza said his
words had been distorted and misinterpreted.
The full text of M.Bryza's interview to BBC is given below. We do
hope that the US co-chair will not say that journalists of this world
famous radio have distorted his words again.
- People who read just a part of my interview to Interfax, had
drawn wrong conclusions, as it does not contain the details of the
affais. Therefore, they do not take into account some details. People
in Azerbaijan consider that I have said that Nagorno Karabakh residents
will soon determine their fate. In the reality, I have said that
there is a large package of proposals. These are just proposals from
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
These proposals include withdrawal of Armenian troops from seven
regions around Nagorno Karabakh, return of Azerbaijani IDP, deployment
of peacekeeping forces and creation of a certain kind of communication
between Armenia and Karabakh.
It can also include a kind of voting. I can not say it may be a
referendum or a plebiscite or a form of voting to involve Nagorno
Karabakh residents.It may occur in the future, of which we can not
speak now. But it may occur only after IDP return to their homes. It
was also stated by Novruz Mamedov.
The details of this voting have not been defined yet. Voting details
can be defined only in the framework of any major agreement. It
means that nothing has been coordinated before the full package
has been coordinated. We do not force anyone to accept any
version of the resolution, we just make our proposals. Agreement
on the status of Nagorno Karabakh can be reached only between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. The parties should reach the consensus
independently. Otherwise, there is no sense of proposals, made by
the co-chairs.
- Mr.Bryza, Interfax reads quoting on you that "Karabakh residents
should decide whether to fall under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction or
no". But Azerbaijan says that regardless of the form of a peaceful
agreement Nagorno Karabakh must remain part of Azerbaijan. A referendum
or a voting can only define the status of Nagorno Karabakh's remaining
a part of Azerbaijan.
Perhaps, the government of Azerbaijan reacted so sharply to it,
therefore...
- If Interfax has published something, it does not mean that it is
exactly like that. I spend too much time on distorted words and
wrong quotes. In this case we become the witnesses of incorrect
interpretation of my words.
The reality is that we base our work on the territorial integrity
and that is all.
- Cannot any referendum change it?
- We recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. This
international principle has a high diplomatic status. At the same
time, there are political, not jural, but political principles,
important for the Armenian side. If an agreement is reached, it means
both parties should sign it. The parties should reach an agreement
on the previously confirmed platform that is on the basis of the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. But this agreement should also
envision political agreements important for the other party. We are
currently working on this agreement.
- Perhaps, this event shows the difference in positions of the parties
during the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Which progress
has been attained as compared to the last year?
- It is a founded question. We have not reached any serious
achievements through the past year, as this year was full of
cataclysms. Elections in Armenia, ending in tragic violence,
were shocking. It caused the need to establish familiarization
contacts between Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents and the Foreign
Ministers. And it really took place.
The Presidents called the meeting in Saint Petersburg constructive. It
is now possible to say that the process has returned to its normal
course. But it can still be said that no significant progress has
been attained on fundamental issues through the past year. Now it
is possible to hold serious discussions between the leaders of the
two countries.
- Mr.Bryza, have you contacted the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan
regarding the interview in the Interfax and given any explanation?
- Certainly, I have.
- Why wasn't your answer made public?
- This question should be addressed to them. But I am sure that
Azerbaijan is aware of our position. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry
is familiarized with these proposals and they are aware of my position
and trust me. I am satisfied with it. The most important is that the
citizens of the two countries, officials of the Foreign Ministry or
simply citizens, concerned with this issue, should realize the only
thing: resolution is impossible without compromise.
Therefore, in both countries the debates should be more open. The
realities should be widely taken into account. Both parties should
get used to the idea of conceding and getting something. Yet the
concessions and obtainment should be based on the principles of the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
- Mr.Bryza, Azerbaijani press often publishes critical articles,
addressed to you. According to them, M.Bryza says one thing in Armenia
and different things in Azerbaijan and then complains that his words
have been distorted.
Do you plan to take any explanations on it?
- I think the main problem is the interpretation of my words. In some
cases I sent my remarks to Armenian and Azerbaijani journalists in
English. They mistranslated my words. I think my words are initially
translated from one language into another and then into a third
one. After it my words are interpreted either by translators or
journalists. At the same time, wrong and distorted variants of my
words are published. It is only left to correct them.
I am quite consistent in what I say. I have been the co-chair for
already two years and through this period I have always been consistent
in my statements. Therefore, I can only ask journalists to do their
work. If they have questions they may address to me again and I can
clarify the questions.
I understand that both journalists and translators can make
mistakes. We all can make mistakes.
If there is a mistake, it is my duty to correct it. But I am consistent
in my statements and I am well aware of proposals, aimed at the
resolution of the conflict. I am also one of the authors of these
proposals. In the end I want to say that these issues may create a
stir, both politically and emotionally. Sometimes, some translators
and journalists hear only the moments, they want to hear. The current
case is an example of it.
I read the first article regarding this interview on Friday, upon my
return from the meeting in Moscow. It reads: "Bryza says referendum
on Karabakh will be held". These words do not reflect what I said. I
spoke of the voting process. We do not know which form the voting
will have and whether it will be held at all.
As terminology is unclear, it should be defined. We do not know the
possible terms of possible voting. Therefore, some people hear about
the concept of voting and say that we want it to occur. Therefore,
they interpret it as "referendum".
Today.Az
07 August 2008 [12:27]
It is already not funny. It is more like a soap opera, which can be
called "The tragedy of a diplomat".
The point is that US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza
again refuted words, spread by journalists on his behalf. Matthew
Bryza seems to add to the history of the world diplomacy as a person,
whose words were constantly "distorted" and which he had to refute.
If previously in Armenia he rebutted the words, spread by Azerbaijani
journalists and in Azerbaijan by Armenians, this time, he trapped
Russian media representatives, if exactly, Interfax news agency. The
point is M.Bryza's statement, spread by Interfax, according to which
he said "Karabakh residents will decide themselves whether they will
fall under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction or no".
In his interview to BBC Azerbaijan press service, M.Bryza said his
words had been distorted and misinterpreted.
The full text of M.Bryza's interview to BBC is given below. We do
hope that the US co-chair will not say that journalists of this world
famous radio have distorted his words again.
- People who read just a part of my interview to Interfax, had
drawn wrong conclusions, as it does not contain the details of the
affais. Therefore, they do not take into account some details. People
in Azerbaijan consider that I have said that Nagorno Karabakh residents
will soon determine their fate. In the reality, I have said that
there is a large package of proposals. These are just proposals from
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
These proposals include withdrawal of Armenian troops from seven
regions around Nagorno Karabakh, return of Azerbaijani IDP, deployment
of peacekeeping forces and creation of a certain kind of communication
between Armenia and Karabakh.
It can also include a kind of voting. I can not say it may be a
referendum or a plebiscite or a form of voting to involve Nagorno
Karabakh residents.It may occur in the future, of which we can not
speak now. But it may occur only after IDP return to their homes. It
was also stated by Novruz Mamedov.
The details of this voting have not been defined yet. Voting details
can be defined only in the framework of any major agreement. It
means that nothing has been coordinated before the full package
has been coordinated. We do not force anyone to accept any
version of the resolution, we just make our proposals. Agreement
on the status of Nagorno Karabakh can be reached only between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. The parties should reach the consensus
independently. Otherwise, there is no sense of proposals, made by
the co-chairs.
- Mr.Bryza, Interfax reads quoting on you that "Karabakh residents
should decide whether to fall under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction or
no". But Azerbaijan says that regardless of the form of a peaceful
agreement Nagorno Karabakh must remain part of Azerbaijan. A referendum
or a voting can only define the status of Nagorno Karabakh's remaining
a part of Azerbaijan.
Perhaps, the government of Azerbaijan reacted so sharply to it,
therefore...
- If Interfax has published something, it does not mean that it is
exactly like that. I spend too much time on distorted words and
wrong quotes. In this case we become the witnesses of incorrect
interpretation of my words.
The reality is that we base our work on the territorial integrity
and that is all.
- Cannot any referendum change it?
- We recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. This
international principle has a high diplomatic status. At the same
time, there are political, not jural, but political principles,
important for the Armenian side. If an agreement is reached, it means
both parties should sign it. The parties should reach an agreement
on the previously confirmed platform that is on the basis of the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. But this agreement should also
envision political agreements important for the other party. We are
currently working on this agreement.
- Perhaps, this event shows the difference in positions of the parties
during the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Which progress
has been attained as compared to the last year?
- It is a founded question. We have not reached any serious
achievements through the past year, as this year was full of
cataclysms. Elections in Armenia, ending in tragic violence,
were shocking. It caused the need to establish familiarization
contacts between Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents and the Foreign
Ministers. And it really took place.
The Presidents called the meeting in Saint Petersburg constructive. It
is now possible to say that the process has returned to its normal
course. But it can still be said that no significant progress has
been attained on fundamental issues through the past year. Now it
is possible to hold serious discussions between the leaders of the
two countries.
- Mr.Bryza, have you contacted the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan
regarding the interview in the Interfax and given any explanation?
- Certainly, I have.
- Why wasn't your answer made public?
- This question should be addressed to them. But I am sure that
Azerbaijan is aware of our position. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry
is familiarized with these proposals and they are aware of my position
and trust me. I am satisfied with it. The most important is that the
citizens of the two countries, officials of the Foreign Ministry or
simply citizens, concerned with this issue, should realize the only
thing: resolution is impossible without compromise.
Therefore, in both countries the debates should be more open. The
realities should be widely taken into account. Both parties should
get used to the idea of conceding and getting something. Yet the
concessions and obtainment should be based on the principles of the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
- Mr.Bryza, Azerbaijani press often publishes critical articles,
addressed to you. According to them, M.Bryza says one thing in Armenia
and different things in Azerbaijan and then complains that his words
have been distorted.
Do you plan to take any explanations on it?
- I think the main problem is the interpretation of my words. In some
cases I sent my remarks to Armenian and Azerbaijani journalists in
English. They mistranslated my words. I think my words are initially
translated from one language into another and then into a third
one. After it my words are interpreted either by translators or
journalists. At the same time, wrong and distorted variants of my
words are published. It is only left to correct them.
I am quite consistent in what I say. I have been the co-chair for
already two years and through this period I have always been consistent
in my statements. Therefore, I can only ask journalists to do their
work. If they have questions they may address to me again and I can
clarify the questions.
I understand that both journalists and translators can make
mistakes. We all can make mistakes.
If there is a mistake, it is my duty to correct it. But I am consistent
in my statements and I am well aware of proposals, aimed at the
resolution of the conflict. I am also one of the authors of these
proposals. In the end I want to say that these issues may create a
stir, both politically and emotionally. Sometimes, some translators
and journalists hear only the moments, they want to hear. The current
case is an example of it.
I read the first article regarding this interview on Friday, upon my
return from the meeting in Moscow. It reads: "Bryza says referendum
on Karabakh will be held". These words do not reflect what I said. I
spoke of the voting process. We do not know which form the voting
will have and whether it will be held at all.
As terminology is unclear, it should be defined. We do not know the
possible terms of possible voting. Therefore, some people hear about
the concept of voting and say that we want it to occur. Therefore,
they interpret it as "referendum".