Tweet
VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV: AZERBAIJANIS AND ARMENIANS NEED TERMINATION OF CENTURY-LONG ANTAGONISM AND CONFRONTATION AND NOT NEW BLOODSHED
ArmInfo
2008-12-10 13:22:00
ArmInfo. 'Azerbaijanis and Armenians need termination of a century-long
antagonism and confrontation and not a new and more tragic bloodshed',
deputy Chairman of the Association of Russian Diplomats, Head of
the mediatory mission in 1992-1996, authorized representative of
the Russian president for Nagorno Karabakh, OSCE MG participant and
co-chairman from Russia Vladimir Kazimirov writes, in the article
"Signature is high and the bottom is double. Who is ready to set
aside peaceful solution in Karabakh?"
published in "Vremya Novostey" newspaper yesterday.
'At OSCE member-states' foreign ministerial meeting, which finished on
December 5 in Helsinki, OSCE MG cochairmen (Russia, USA and France)
called on the Karabakh conflict parties to confirm adherence to
its peaceful settlement. I would seem why to be repeated? In fact,
the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia have already signed
November 2 Moscow Declaration penetrated with an unambiguous adjustment
for recovery of the situation, security and stability in South Caucasus
and peaceful settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. There is no
high signature than the presidential one. What forced the ministers
to repeat the call as if responded by the presidents? The August
events in Caucasus made to think those why rather often came out
with threats to settle this conflict by force. The signature under
the Moscow Declaration hindered Baku to resume a militant rhetoric,
however, not for long.
In an interview with the Italian TV company at late November, President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev tried to prove that the Declaration 'does
not deprive Baku of the right to settle this conflict in a military
way'. This is a very interesting interpretation of the international
document and the own signature under it! Whether peaceful settlement of
the conflict rules out the military way? Is it possible to contribute
to recovery of the situation, security and stability in the region
by such kind of 'explanations'? The real price of each signature is
cognized, especially as many arguments of Baku in this conflict are
far not indisputable.
It is impossible to hide that Nagorno Karabakh had become a subject
of dispute long ago. However, it is not so easy to reduce everything
to the 'Armenian aggression' at late 20th century as the background
and dynamics of the conflict is much more difficult. Azerbaijanis
and Armenians need termination of a century-long antagonism and
confrontation and not a new and more tragic bloodshed. The Moscow
Declaration marks a way to liquidation of wars between them it requires
more serious approach (and not signatures with a double bottom), that
is, non-alternative political settlement of the conflict in Karabakh',
the article of V. Kazimirov says.
ArmInfo
2008-12-10 13:22:00
ArmInfo. 'Azerbaijanis and Armenians need termination of a century-long
antagonism and confrontation and not a new and more tragic bloodshed',
deputy Chairman of the Association of Russian Diplomats, Head of
the mediatory mission in 1992-1996, authorized representative of
the Russian president for Nagorno Karabakh, OSCE MG participant and
co-chairman from Russia Vladimir Kazimirov writes, in the article
"Signature is high and the bottom is double. Who is ready to set
aside peaceful solution in Karabakh?"
published in "Vremya Novostey" newspaper yesterday.
'At OSCE member-states' foreign ministerial meeting, which finished on
December 5 in Helsinki, OSCE MG cochairmen (Russia, USA and France)
called on the Karabakh conflict parties to confirm adherence to
its peaceful settlement. I would seem why to be repeated? In fact,
the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia have already signed
November 2 Moscow Declaration penetrated with an unambiguous adjustment
for recovery of the situation, security and stability in South Caucasus
and peaceful settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. There is no
high signature than the presidential one. What forced the ministers
to repeat the call as if responded by the presidents? The August
events in Caucasus made to think those why rather often came out
with threats to settle this conflict by force. The signature under
the Moscow Declaration hindered Baku to resume a militant rhetoric,
however, not for long.
In an interview with the Italian TV company at late November, President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev tried to prove that the Declaration 'does
not deprive Baku of the right to settle this conflict in a military
way'. This is a very interesting interpretation of the international
document and the own signature under it! Whether peaceful settlement of
the conflict rules out the military way? Is it possible to contribute
to recovery of the situation, security and stability in the region
by such kind of 'explanations'? The real price of each signature is
cognized, especially as many arguments of Baku in this conflict are
far not indisputable.
It is impossible to hide that Nagorno Karabakh had become a subject
of dispute long ago. However, it is not so easy to reduce everything
to the 'Armenian aggression' at late 20th century as the background
and dynamics of the conflict is much more difficult. Azerbaijanis
and Armenians need termination of a century-long antagonism and
confrontation and not a new and more tragic bloodshed. The Moscow
Declaration marks a way to liquidation of wars between them it requires
more serious approach (and not signatures with a double bottom), that
is, non-alternative political settlement of the conflict in Karabakh',
the article of V. Kazimirov says.