Tweet
CLEAR ROLECASTING NECESSARY
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
19 Dec 2008
Armenia
Armenia shouldn't negotiate instead of Karabakh
Yesterday the Caucasian Institute of Mass Media organized a
"summarizing" discussion on Karabakh issue, in which ex presidential
candidate of NKR Masis Mayilyan was invited. The latter introduced
his viewpoints regarding the developments that took place in 2008
around the negotiation process on the settlement of Karabakh issue.
According to the speaker the Moscow declaration gave a positive
impulse to the negotiation process. It is another question that the
Azerbaijani President partially devaluated Medvedev's initiative,
making announcements, which included "elements of perfidy", saying
that no document can exclude the possibility of restarting war.
It is not accidental that during the meeting of OSCE Foreign Ministers
in Helsinki, the Foreign Ministers of Minsk Group Co-Chairing states,
as well as the Foreign Ministers of the 56 member states, enshrined
and reconfirmed with a joint announcement, that the problem must be
settled exclusively with peaceful methods. Moreover in response to
the announcements made by Ilham Aliev, they underscored the principle
of not using force in the declaration, the expression "political
settlement" included in the Maindorf declaration was replaced by the
formulation "peaceful settlement" in Helsinki.
The second speaker, political scientist Alexander Iskandaryan said
we shouldn't confuse the settlement of Karabakh conflict with the
negotiation process: "They are two different formats, with different
parameters, different role-players, different developments, etc. The
developments taking place in the settlement process are not always
expressed in the negotiation process.
For example they build roads in Karabakh, inhabit territories
and all the before mentioned remains unnoticed in the negotiation
process. And visa verse the rumors circulated in the press "about
ceding territories" are very often combined with articles about
inhabiting the same territories, building roads, because I must repeat
they are two different formats. That is to say Minsk process is not
only Minsk process."
As regards Maindorf declaration the political scientist considers it
strange that our political figures raise hullabaloo regarding this
neutral document.
He said the latter simply states that: "At the moment there is no
settlement for Karabakh issue." Meanwhile he says that Azerbaijan's
endeavor to shift the issue to other instances is a waste of time.
He said the existing panic is firstly conditioned by the "alarmism
and catastrophic mentality" characteristic to our society and the
anticipation of the radicals to gain political dividends. "Actually
this is a problem, but it is not the problem of20Karabakh. It is
conditioned by internal factors."
"Is the settlement process eternal? Or one day they will bring us
face to face with fact, forcing us to solve the issue?"
According to A. Iskandaryan this can happen only if the ratio of
forces is breached and the scale works to the benefit of the one
party. Something that can't happen in the near future. "On the other
hand who said that Karabakh conflict can't be frozen." The speaker said
quoting the precedents of Kashmir, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus. The most
important thing is that the negotiations continue, because dialogue
is always better than cold and especially "hot" war.
Moreover as Masis Mayilyan stated: "Life shows that after the meeting
of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan or the Ministers of the
two countries, the firings usually stop on the border.
"And what should they do to bring Karabakh to the negotiation table
and make it a complete party to negotiation?"
A. Iskandaryan doesn't consider this issue very urgent. Moreover he
believes at present Karabakh has nothing to do there. Once the two
parties achieve fundamental agreement over certain version and the
matter comes to the discussion of certain details of Karabakh's
principle interests, they will not invite but even ask Karabakh
authorities to partake in the negotiation process.
According to Masis May ilyan: "It is high time for the two Armenian
states to develop the third direction, the process of the recognition
of NKR, irrespective of Azerbaijan, as for example the process of
the recognition of the genocide without Turkey's participation. They
should start similar process in the direction of the recognition
of Karabakh. This will make Minsk group work more effectively and
Azerbaijan - to be more flexible in its stance."
On the other hand: "Karabakh and Armenia must reach an agreement
regarding their roles in the negotiation process. Which means
there should be a clear casting of roles and competencies. Armenia
shouldn't hold negotiations regarding issues under the jurisdiction
of Karabakh. In that case they will have to speak with Karabakh."
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
19 Dec 2008
Armenia
Armenia shouldn't negotiate instead of Karabakh
Yesterday the Caucasian Institute of Mass Media organized a
"summarizing" discussion on Karabakh issue, in which ex presidential
candidate of NKR Masis Mayilyan was invited. The latter introduced
his viewpoints regarding the developments that took place in 2008
around the negotiation process on the settlement of Karabakh issue.
According to the speaker the Moscow declaration gave a positive
impulse to the negotiation process. It is another question that the
Azerbaijani President partially devaluated Medvedev's initiative,
making announcements, which included "elements of perfidy", saying
that no document can exclude the possibility of restarting war.
It is not accidental that during the meeting of OSCE Foreign Ministers
in Helsinki, the Foreign Ministers of Minsk Group Co-Chairing states,
as well as the Foreign Ministers of the 56 member states, enshrined
and reconfirmed with a joint announcement, that the problem must be
settled exclusively with peaceful methods. Moreover in response to
the announcements made by Ilham Aliev, they underscored the principle
of not using force in the declaration, the expression "political
settlement" included in the Maindorf declaration was replaced by the
formulation "peaceful settlement" in Helsinki.
The second speaker, political scientist Alexander Iskandaryan said
we shouldn't confuse the settlement of Karabakh conflict with the
negotiation process: "They are two different formats, with different
parameters, different role-players, different developments, etc. The
developments taking place in the settlement process are not always
expressed in the negotiation process.
For example they build roads in Karabakh, inhabit territories
and all the before mentioned remains unnoticed in the negotiation
process. And visa verse the rumors circulated in the press "about
ceding territories" are very often combined with articles about
inhabiting the same territories, building roads, because I must repeat
they are two different formats. That is to say Minsk process is not
only Minsk process."
As regards Maindorf declaration the political scientist considers it
strange that our political figures raise hullabaloo regarding this
neutral document.
He said the latter simply states that: "At the moment there is no
settlement for Karabakh issue." Meanwhile he says that Azerbaijan's
endeavor to shift the issue to other instances is a waste of time.
He said the existing panic is firstly conditioned by the "alarmism
and catastrophic mentality" characteristic to our society and the
anticipation of the radicals to gain political dividends. "Actually
this is a problem, but it is not the problem of20Karabakh. It is
conditioned by internal factors."
"Is the settlement process eternal? Or one day they will bring us
face to face with fact, forcing us to solve the issue?"
According to A. Iskandaryan this can happen only if the ratio of
forces is breached and the scale works to the benefit of the one
party. Something that can't happen in the near future. "On the other
hand who said that Karabakh conflict can't be frozen." The speaker said
quoting the precedents of Kashmir, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus. The most
important thing is that the negotiations continue, because dialogue
is always better than cold and especially "hot" war.
Moreover as Masis Mayilyan stated: "Life shows that after the meeting
of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan or the Ministers of the
two countries, the firings usually stop on the border.
"And what should they do to bring Karabakh to the negotiation table
and make it a complete party to negotiation?"
A. Iskandaryan doesn't consider this issue very urgent. Moreover he
believes at present Karabakh has nothing to do there. Once the two
parties achieve fundamental agreement over certain version and the
matter comes to the discussion of certain details of Karabakh's
principle interests, they will not invite but even ask Karabakh
authorities to partake in the negotiation process.
According to Masis May ilyan: "It is high time for the two Armenian
states to develop the third direction, the process of the recognition
of NKR, irrespective of Azerbaijan, as for example the process of
the recognition of the genocide without Turkey's participation. They
should start similar process in the direction of the recognition
of Karabakh. This will make Minsk group work more effectively and
Azerbaijan - to be more flexible in its stance."
On the other hand: "Karabakh and Armenia must reach an agreement
regarding their roles in the negotiation process. Which means
there should be a clear casting of roles and competencies. Armenia
shouldn't hold negotiations regarding issues under the jurisdiction
of Karabakh. In that case they will have to speak with Karabakh."