Tweet
SOME POINTS IN AGREEMENT ON KARABAKH DO NOT CORRESPOND TO THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF KARABAKH
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
18-01-2008 13:13:46
The visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to Karabakh ended. It will
be possible to judge about its results if the co-chairs return to Baku
where they had visited before Yerevan and Stepanakert. Officials in
Baku stated the co-chairs promised to return to Baku if a positive
result is achieved.
With regard to the basic principles which the co-chairs said to
have systemized and extended to the parties, there is hardly any
positive result.
After the meeting with the co-chairs President Bako Sahakyan said
some points of the agreement are not in the interests of Karabakh. And
since the points of the agreement count about ten, it turns out that
no agreement has been reached on the basic principles.
Although the Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov declined to say which
points were not agreed, ostensibly the Armenian side and Karabakh
disagree to the idea of return of territories around the former
Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region and the refugees, and a referendum
to be held in an indefinite period.
Earlier the Armenian minister of foreign affairs Vardan Oskanyan
had told journalists that he had met with the people of Karabakh
who had told him they agree with the basic issues. Apparently, the
Armenian minister meant his only meeting with the representatives
of the Karabakh society over the past decade, which happened two
years ago at Artsakh State University. It was immediately after the
release of the ICG reports which spelled out for the first time the
ideas about territories and refugees. At that time there was a hail
of questions how the minister imagines life in Karabakh without a
security area, safe communication with Armenia and a fast-changing
ethnic and demographic situation. The minister was also asked what he
means by saying "Karabakh". The Armenian minister said "the territory
of former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region."
Since then, however, Karabakh has adopted its Constitution which sets
down that NKR is the state within its present borders which has nothing
to do with the NKAR. And the president of Karabakh is the guarantor
of the territorial integrity and security of the country. Perhaps
President Bako Sahakyan proceeded from this to spell out his stance
on the basic issues, noting that some of them are not in the interests
of the NKR people.
The NKR president made another symptomatic statement about the
participation of Karabakh in the talks. The necessity for participation
has been discussed for a long time, but this time the president did not
speak about the involvement of Karabakh but about the future role of
Armenia. He said Armenia must also participate in the talks, thereby
underlining that the Karabakh issue has been solved. Apparently the
president has had a talk with the Armenian government about this, and
if earlier Yerevan did not insist on proposals on the participation
of Karabakh, now he has apparently changed its stance.
And the third circumstance. For the first time in the past few years
the co-chairs took part in the monitoring of the line of contact. The
U.S. co-chair Matthew Bryza said in answer to the question why that
they wanted to do it for a long time. And he added a sacramental phrase
that a good mediator should know about the situation at the line of
contact. Without knowing the real reason for the participation of
the co-chairs in the monitoring, we only note that Bryza's statement
should be conveyed to Ambassador Peter Semneby, Lord Russell Johnston,
those innumerable officials who prepare reports, proposals, make
evaluations and even solutions regarding the Karabakh issue but do
not bother to arrive in Karabakh and meet with the society of Artsakh
at the state university at least once to hear questions which do not
require an answer.
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
18-01-2008 13:13:46
The visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to Karabakh ended. It will
be possible to judge about its results if the co-chairs return to Baku
where they had visited before Yerevan and Stepanakert. Officials in
Baku stated the co-chairs promised to return to Baku if a positive
result is achieved.
With regard to the basic principles which the co-chairs said to
have systemized and extended to the parties, there is hardly any
positive result.
After the meeting with the co-chairs President Bako Sahakyan said
some points of the agreement are not in the interests of Karabakh. And
since the points of the agreement count about ten, it turns out that
no agreement has been reached on the basic principles.
Although the Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov declined to say which
points were not agreed, ostensibly the Armenian side and Karabakh
disagree to the idea of return of territories around the former
Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region and the refugees, and a referendum
to be held in an indefinite period.
Earlier the Armenian minister of foreign affairs Vardan Oskanyan
had told journalists that he had met with the people of Karabakh
who had told him they agree with the basic issues. Apparently, the
Armenian minister meant his only meeting with the representatives
of the Karabakh society over the past decade, which happened two
years ago at Artsakh State University. It was immediately after the
release of the ICG reports which spelled out for the first time the
ideas about territories and refugees. At that time there was a hail
of questions how the minister imagines life in Karabakh without a
security area, safe communication with Armenia and a fast-changing
ethnic and demographic situation. The minister was also asked what he
means by saying "Karabakh". The Armenian minister said "the territory
of former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region."
Since then, however, Karabakh has adopted its Constitution which sets
down that NKR is the state within its present borders which has nothing
to do with the NKAR. And the president of Karabakh is the guarantor
of the territorial integrity and security of the country. Perhaps
President Bako Sahakyan proceeded from this to spell out his stance
on the basic issues, noting that some of them are not in the interests
of the NKR people.
The NKR president made another symptomatic statement about the
participation of Karabakh in the talks. The necessity for participation
has been discussed for a long time, but this time the president did not
speak about the involvement of Karabakh but about the future role of
Armenia. He said Armenia must also participate in the talks, thereby
underlining that the Karabakh issue has been solved. Apparently the
president has had a talk with the Armenian government about this, and
if earlier Yerevan did not insist on proposals on the participation
of Karabakh, now he has apparently changed its stance.
And the third circumstance. For the first time in the past few years
the co-chairs took part in the monitoring of the line of contact. The
U.S. co-chair Matthew Bryza said in answer to the question why that
they wanted to do it for a long time. And he added a sacramental phrase
that a good mediator should know about the situation at the line of
contact. Without knowing the real reason for the participation of
the co-chairs in the monitoring, we only note that Bryza's statement
should be conveyed to Ambassador Peter Semneby, Lord Russell Johnston,
those innumerable officials who prepare reports, proposals, make
evaluations and even solutions regarding the Karabakh issue but do
not bother to arrive in Karabakh and meet with the society of Artsakh
at the state university at least once to hear questions which do not
require an answer.