Tweet
Today, Azerbaijan
Feb 21 2008
Kosovo vs. Nagorno Karabakh, or a small reticence of the United
States
21 February 2008 [13:25] - Today.Az
Declaration of Kosovo's independence and recognition of a new state
in the Balkan peninsula became the most important event of this week,
which divided the world into two parts. It is not a secret to anyone
that the two poles are headed by the United States and Europe from
the one side and Russia from the other.The word "precedent" is used
more frequently by political scientists and politicians.
It should be reminded that it was Russian President Vladimir Putin
who declared the universality of the Kosovo model of conflict
resolution during the meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel on
January 21 od 2007. It was followed by numerous indignant
announcements by officials of the United States, European Union and
international organizations on uniqueness of the situation in Kosovo
and inapplicability of the resolution model to other conflicts.
Moscow and pseudo-formations, it controls, in Moldova, Azerbaijan and
Georgia rebutted the arguments of the West, accusing it of double
standards and insisted on adoption of the Kosovo variant as a
precedent.
Armenian diplomats were notable for understanding the senseleness of
disputes with the West and at the same time, not willing to give up
the dream of recognition of the Kosovo model as an international
precedent. At the same time, Armenia, faring the reaction of its
Russian supporters, is willing to recognize the Kosovo independence,
to equate the situation in Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh.
Vardan Oskanyan's attempt to interpret the thesis of the absence of
precedent, is an attempt to preserve the image before the West and
the internal audience.
It should be noted that Azerbaijan behaved independently, unlike
Armenia, by not recognizing Kosovo. The matter is not about the fare
to have the same destiny as Serbia. Baku has stressed its adherence
to the international law and demonstrated the observance of
principles, rather than striving for satisfaction of allies and
partners on energy security and combat with international terror.
Returning to the chronology of a dispute around the Kosovo model, the
sensational announcement of V.Putin, made in the Kremlin on February
14, should be singled out.
He criticized western countries for double standards and put the
unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria and Northern
Cyprus (the Turkish republic recognized only by Turkey) into the one
and the same list. Nagorno Karabakh was not mentioned among them.
What does it mean? Does it mean that Nagorno Karabakh has no chances
for recognition by the world in the future of its independence, or,
on the contrary, that the issue of Nagorno Karabakh has been settled
so that stopped being a problem? Taking into account that Putin's
words were welcomed both in Yerevan and Baku, it should be supposed
that the answer to the question is not monosemantic.
The US Embassy to Azerbaijan has made an odd announcement, which
requires a detailed text analysis, on February 19, the 20th
anniversary of the well known session of the Oblast committee of the
Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The announcement starts with an
optimistic note, assuring Azerbaijan that "Kosovo differs with its
specifics and does not set a precedent for other regions, including
Nagorno Karabakh. Yet it is followed by sentences, containing a
subtext which is dangerous for Baku). The announcement says that
"Kosovo is regulated by provisions of a special resolution
(resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council), adopted for assistance
to the definition of the future status. The resolution also envisions
possible independent status of Kosovo via political processes".
At the same time, the statement says regarding Nagorno Karabakh: "Our
policy remains changeless. The United States, recognizing the
territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Azerbaijan, supports
peaceful and coordinated resolution of the conflict. At the same
time, we would like to declare, that the future status of Nagorno
Karabajkh should be defined by way of international talks".
The future (now established) status of Kosovo,settled by means of
political processes and the future status of Nagorno Karabakh,
defined by way of international talks... What is the difference?
Considering that resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council also
implied preservation of the territorial integrity of Serbia (we have
become witnesses of how the world treats promises and resolutions and
being aware of the status of the autonomous region set by these
political processes, it is only to ask what is a difference between
"political processes" and "international talks" and is it guaranteed
that the announcements on recognition of the territorial integrity
and sovereign rights of Azerbaijan will not be affected by
"international talks"? Will there appear a person who will put a
document, terminating international resolutions, on the table of
negotiations within 15 years? Unfortunately, no one can guarantee it.
In conclusion, the authors of the announcement almost threaten that
"all attempts of military resolution or a resolution, beyond the
compromise, may pose a threat on stability in the Caucasus region".
This should be interpreted as follows: the military resolution is
declared by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to be illegal and invalid
and in case of absence of compromises (which is more likely to be
expected) the final resolution on the status of the province will be
worked out by means of INTERNATIONAL (not bilateral) talks and
presented to both presidents. This means that the resolution will be
adopted by superstates and in conditions of predicted absence of
compromises on the micro-level, it will be imposed on sides. The same
occurred with the Akhtisaari's plan. Calming Azerbaijan down with
announcements on recognition of its territorial integrity and
inapplicability of the Kosovo scenario to Nagorno Karabakh, none of
the co-chairmen has ever announced that the future status of this
occupied land will be defined in the framework of Azerbaijan's
international borders!
Gradually, Baku's suspicions were raised by official representative
of the US Department of State, Schon McCormack, who did not mention
Nagorno Karabakh in his notifications to Russia regarding comparison
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Kosovo, noting that any
comparisons "develop separatism in these regions". Such an attitude
can partially be explained by the fact that Vladimir Putin did not
mention Nagorno Karabakh answering the question of a German
reporterfive days ago. What will occur if Putin had mentioned it?
Would McCormack spread this separatism feature on this province? It
is difficult to answer, however, it should be reminded that the
representatives of the US Department of State have never called the
regime in Khankendi as separatist, whose strivings should not be
encouraged.
Punning and Americans' constant avoiding of clear answer create the
atmosphere of reticence between the two partners on strategic
cooperation. A small reticence can further lead to great distrust in
the future. Washington should understand that these insignificant
details do not stay unnoticed by Baku.
/Day.Az/
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/43271.html
Feb 21 2008
Kosovo vs. Nagorno Karabakh, or a small reticence of the United
States
21 February 2008 [13:25] - Today.Az
Declaration of Kosovo's independence and recognition of a new state
in the Balkan peninsula became the most important event of this week,
which divided the world into two parts. It is not a secret to anyone
that the two poles are headed by the United States and Europe from
the one side and Russia from the other.The word "precedent" is used
more frequently by political scientists and politicians.
It should be reminded that it was Russian President Vladimir Putin
who declared the universality of the Kosovo model of conflict
resolution during the meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel on
January 21 od 2007. It was followed by numerous indignant
announcements by officials of the United States, European Union and
international organizations on uniqueness of the situation in Kosovo
and inapplicability of the resolution model to other conflicts.
Moscow and pseudo-formations, it controls, in Moldova, Azerbaijan and
Georgia rebutted the arguments of the West, accusing it of double
standards and insisted on adoption of the Kosovo variant as a
precedent.
Armenian diplomats were notable for understanding the senseleness of
disputes with the West and at the same time, not willing to give up
the dream of recognition of the Kosovo model as an international
precedent. At the same time, Armenia, faring the reaction of its
Russian supporters, is willing to recognize the Kosovo independence,
to equate the situation in Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh.
Vardan Oskanyan's attempt to interpret the thesis of the absence of
precedent, is an attempt to preserve the image before the West and
the internal audience.
It should be noted that Azerbaijan behaved independently, unlike
Armenia, by not recognizing Kosovo. The matter is not about the fare
to have the same destiny as Serbia. Baku has stressed its adherence
to the international law and demonstrated the observance of
principles, rather than striving for satisfaction of allies and
partners on energy security and combat with international terror.
Returning to the chronology of a dispute around the Kosovo model, the
sensational announcement of V.Putin, made in the Kremlin on February
14, should be singled out.
He criticized western countries for double standards and put the
unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria and Northern
Cyprus (the Turkish republic recognized only by Turkey) into the one
and the same list. Nagorno Karabakh was not mentioned among them.
What does it mean? Does it mean that Nagorno Karabakh has no chances
for recognition by the world in the future of its independence, or,
on the contrary, that the issue of Nagorno Karabakh has been settled
so that stopped being a problem? Taking into account that Putin's
words were welcomed both in Yerevan and Baku, it should be supposed
that the answer to the question is not monosemantic.
The US Embassy to Azerbaijan has made an odd announcement, which
requires a detailed text analysis, on February 19, the 20th
anniversary of the well known session of the Oblast committee of the
Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The announcement starts with an
optimistic note, assuring Azerbaijan that "Kosovo differs with its
specifics and does not set a precedent for other regions, including
Nagorno Karabakh. Yet it is followed by sentences, containing a
subtext which is dangerous for Baku). The announcement says that
"Kosovo is regulated by provisions of a special resolution
(resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council), adopted for assistance
to the definition of the future status. The resolution also envisions
possible independent status of Kosovo via political processes".
At the same time, the statement says regarding Nagorno Karabakh: "Our
policy remains changeless. The United States, recognizing the
territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Azerbaijan, supports
peaceful and coordinated resolution of the conflict. At the same
time, we would like to declare, that the future status of Nagorno
Karabajkh should be defined by way of international talks".
The future (now established) status of Kosovo,settled by means of
political processes and the future status of Nagorno Karabakh,
defined by way of international talks... What is the difference?
Considering that resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council also
implied preservation of the territorial integrity of Serbia (we have
become witnesses of how the world treats promises and resolutions and
being aware of the status of the autonomous region set by these
political processes, it is only to ask what is a difference between
"political processes" and "international talks" and is it guaranteed
that the announcements on recognition of the territorial integrity
and sovereign rights of Azerbaijan will not be affected by
"international talks"? Will there appear a person who will put a
document, terminating international resolutions, on the table of
negotiations within 15 years? Unfortunately, no one can guarantee it.
In conclusion, the authors of the announcement almost threaten that
"all attempts of military resolution or a resolution, beyond the
compromise, may pose a threat on stability in the Caucasus region".
This should be interpreted as follows: the military resolution is
declared by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to be illegal and invalid
and in case of absence of compromises (which is more likely to be
expected) the final resolution on the status of the province will be
worked out by means of INTERNATIONAL (not bilateral) talks and
presented to both presidents. This means that the resolution will be
adopted by superstates and in conditions of predicted absence of
compromises on the micro-level, it will be imposed on sides. The same
occurred with the Akhtisaari's plan. Calming Azerbaijan down with
announcements on recognition of its territorial integrity and
inapplicability of the Kosovo scenario to Nagorno Karabakh, none of
the co-chairmen has ever announced that the future status of this
occupied land will be defined in the framework of Azerbaijan's
international borders!
Gradually, Baku's suspicions were raised by official representative
of the US Department of State, Schon McCormack, who did not mention
Nagorno Karabakh in his notifications to Russia regarding comparison
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Kosovo, noting that any
comparisons "develop separatism in these regions". Such an attitude
can partially be explained by the fact that Vladimir Putin did not
mention Nagorno Karabakh answering the question of a German
reporterfive days ago. What will occur if Putin had mentioned it?
Would McCormack spread this separatism feature on this province? It
is difficult to answer, however, it should be reminded that the
representatives of the US Department of State have never called the
regime in Khankendi as separatist, whose strivings should not be
encouraged.
Punning and Americans' constant avoiding of clear answer create the
atmosphere of reticence between the two partners on strategic
cooperation. A small reticence can further lead to great distrust in
the future. Washington should understand that these insignificant
details do not stay unnoticed by Baku.
/Day.Az/
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/43271.html