Tweet
AZERBAIJANI DIPLOMACY HOLDS NO VICTORY
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on July 01, 2008
Armenia
Thus, in the frameworks of their regional visit, the Co-Chairs of the
Minsk Group yesterday visited Stepanakert and had a meeting with the
NKR authorities.
Was this a "pro-forma" visit or do the Co-Chairs still hope that
it will be possible to push the Azerbaijani authorities towards the
implementation of the "Madrid" proposals prior to the presidential
elections?
VAHRAM ATANESYAN
Head of the NA Committee on Foreign Relations
"In general, I don't think that any visit of the Co-Chairs may be
considered as a regular one, because if such visits were of regular,
usual and ordinary nature, the Co-Chairs would prefer not to visit the
region at all. That's to say, each visit does really mean something.
As shown by the overall results of the visits, the international
community, on behalf of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, is interested
in the settlement of the conflict. As to what extent the parties
perceive that attitude is a different matter. But the Co-Chairs are
trying to find a mutually acceptable solution which cannot give way
to any divergence of opinions.
As regards the most recent visit of the Co-Chairs, it should be
estimated the G-8 Foreign Ministers' joint statement in the context
of the confirmations concerning the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. My impression is that they are an additional proof showing
that the mediators do not approve the conflict settlement prospect
supported and urged forward by Azerbaijan."
"Do you mean Azerbaijan's ambitions for "solving" the problem through
military operations?"
"The matter is first of all addressed to the efforts of bringing the
settlement process beyond the frameworks of the OSCE Minsk Group and
transferring it to other international tribunals, particularly, the UN
Security Council and Assembly. And the enthusiasm of the Azerbaijani
diplomacy seems to be giving way after the adoption of the well-known
UN Resolution.
In particular, I believe that the agreement reached between the two
Presidents with regard to continuing the talks based on the Madrid
principles testifies to the fact that Azerbaijan's attacking policy
in the panorama of the undesirable pre-electoral and post-electoral
developments of Armenia is beginning to retreat.
In the meantime, Azerbaijan is certainly trying to reiterate
its willingness of solving the problem through military
operations. Although the word does not suit the language of diplomacy,
I don't find a better characterization at the moment. If it is
announced on the level of the President that the first stage of the
war is over, and Azerbaijan is always ready to solve the problem
through military operations, this can be estimated as an undisguised
pressure against the international community and the mediators.
Interpreting Azerbaijan's attitude, we can state the following: if
the mediators insist on settling the conflict based upon the Madrid
principles, i.e. there's no respect for the territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan, resuming the military operations remains the only
way for the latter to solve the problem. Because, to the best of
our knowledge, those principles envisage the definition of the NKR
status through a referendum. Azerbaijan naturally admits the fact
with a great sorrow, perceiving it as a mechanism of legalizing the
secession of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
Judging by all, the last visit of the Co-Chairs was aimed at mitigating
the anxiety of the Azerbaijani side. As to what extent they succeeded
in their efforts will be shown by the further development of the
negotiation process.
"To what extent is your optimism about the retreat of Azerbaijan's
attacking policy justified, taking into consideration the fact that
the Azerbaijani delegation gained the successive advantage over us by
'thrusting in' the anti-Armenian formulation passed by the UN into
the PACE Resolution?"
"In general, I would advise or rather, ask the Armenian delegation not
to overload itself and avoid initiating debates with the Azerbaijani
party.
I believe it would be more proper to simply state that if Azerbaijan
has problems with Nagorno Karabakh, this is none of Armenia's business,
and Azerbaijan had better display its willingness by initiating
a direct dialogue with Karabakh with the purpose of settling its
problems.
That's to say, the Armenian party doesn't have initiate a debate
with the Azeris on most different topics such as ecological issues,
human rights etc.
Nevertheless, I think that restoring territorial integrity is the
general political attitude of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe, and it applies not only to Azerbaijan but also to Georgia
and Moldova. This may be considered as one of the manifestations of
the East-West conflicts.
The Azerbaijani diplomacy has held no victory at this point because
the conversation is about the principle of territorial integrity
in general.
What does territorial integrity mean, and which are the internationally
recognized borders of Azerbaijan? These are the questions that should
be discussed on the legal plane. The thing is that Azerbaijan is now
making claims for a territory which has never formed part of its
statehood. In my opinion, the declarative statements on restoring
territorial integrity should be viewed in this context."
"There is a widespread opinion that the West, on behalf of the Council
of Europe, demonstrated a mild attitude towards us by not applying
any sanctions with the purpose of imposing concessions with regard
to the Karabakh issue. Is it possible to have a serious approach to
this viewpoint?"
"I think these are merely tricks used with the purpose of gaining
some dividends in the internal political campaign. I am sincerely
sorry that an issue like the Karabakh conflict becomes a subject of
political speculations.
As regards the allegations that the Council of Europe had a mild
attitude to Armenia, they probably mean the authorities of Armenia. And
a mild or non-mild attitude towards the authorities may be displayed
by the public, society and the electorate responsible for forming
those authorities. If the present-day authorities have been formed by
the major part of the electorate, it is necessary to respect their
decision and initiate the step-by-step implementation of all the
activities aimed at strengthening construction work on the state level,
fostering the country's economy and increasing its military power.
That's to say, it is necessary to make goal-oriented steps to solve
the problems we are facing. And if it is impossible to solve global
problems, we must be able to at least resist the challenges faced by
the whole region and especially Armenia.
STRATEGY MUSTN'T CHANGE
Thus, in the framework of their regional visit Minsk Group co-Chairmen
visited Stepanakert and met with NKR authorities.
Is it a regular meeting or the mediators really hope to avert the
process of "blockading" the Madrid process by Azerbaijan.
Political Analyst Davit Babayan
"The visit of the co-Chairmen is of both political and protocol nature.
Protocol - because the co-Chairmen regularly visit the region and every
time, besides meeting with Armenian and Azerbaijani leadership they
visit Artsakh. Thus in essence they prove that NKR is a conflicting
party, though at the moment it doesn't partake in the negotiation
process. In this regard this visit can be considered a regular visit.
On the other hand, the recent developments make this visit very
important from the political point of view.
Let's start from the fact that Kosovo declared its independence
recently and many countries did recognize this independence, which
gives a new energy to the settlement of the conflict. On March 4 as
we know the Azerbaijanis violated the cease-fire. After this negative
event the co-Chairmen should have visited the region and discussed
it with NKR President, the authorities and the government. It's
worth mentioning that the government has changed in the countries
of the region, both Armenia and Karabakh have new Presidents, new
Presidential elections are in store for Azerbaijan in autumn, and in
this regard the regular visit of the co-Chairmen to the region a bit
differs from the previous ones.
NKR President and the government have reconfirmed Artsakh's stance
regarding the peaceful settlement of the conflict and that Azerbaijan's
bellicose announcements hinder the process of the negotiations."
"How do you estimate the fact that Azerbaijan managed to repeat its
famous resolution in PACE, regarding the "liberation of the occupied
territories by Azerbaijan?"
"Thus Azerbaijan is doing its best to hide it's anti-democratic
policy towards the national minorities. We all know that during the
recent weeks and even months the idea of the national sovereignty
is bursting among the lezgies, talishis and avars. They have already
appealed to Daghistan, Russia and the whole world anticipating that
the international community will somehow respond to the violation of
the minorities' rights.
It is natural that Azerbaijanis intend to gain dividends, trying to
decline the attention of the international community and bring it
to Armenia's internal political problems. It is evident and we must
always take it into account."
"The leaders of the "pan-national" movement don't even hide that their
goal is to convince PACE use political sanctions against Armenia."
"The recent developments testify to the fact that the rivalry has
become sharper between the two geopolitical poles. And if at present
any European or western structure or state uses political sanctions
against Armenia it will definitely change the ratio of the forces in
the region.
At the moment it is not beneficial for anyone especially the West
to use political sanctions against Armenia, that can have impact on
Armenia's foreign policy. That is why I don't think it can happen.
Of course it is beneficial for certain internal and foreign
powers. Firstly for Azerbaijan, which can gain dividends in case of
Armenia's "pro-Russian" stance, representing itself as the champion
of the western values."
"Has Armenia's policy regarding Karabakh changed after the "coup
d'état", or everything is the same?"
"In general the strategy of the settlement of Karabakh conflict should
be the same for Armenian people. There can be some changes in terms
of the tactics, but the main approach must be the same, which is -
Karabakh can't be part of Azerbaijan.
The second principle, which is not less important, is the guarantee of
Artsakh's security. In this regard, in my view nothing has changed and
it cannot change because the majority of the people doesn't question
these two principles. In this case the change of government cannot
have any influence on the policy regarding Karabakh."
--Boundary_(ID_dGf8/WVXrjimnCX/kX qjqg)--
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on July 01, 2008
Armenia
Thus, in the frameworks of their regional visit, the Co-Chairs of the
Minsk Group yesterday visited Stepanakert and had a meeting with the
NKR authorities.
Was this a "pro-forma" visit or do the Co-Chairs still hope that
it will be possible to push the Azerbaijani authorities towards the
implementation of the "Madrid" proposals prior to the presidential
elections?
VAHRAM ATANESYAN
Head of the NA Committee on Foreign Relations
"In general, I don't think that any visit of the Co-Chairs may be
considered as a regular one, because if such visits were of regular,
usual and ordinary nature, the Co-Chairs would prefer not to visit the
region at all. That's to say, each visit does really mean something.
As shown by the overall results of the visits, the international
community, on behalf of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, is interested
in the settlement of the conflict. As to what extent the parties
perceive that attitude is a different matter. But the Co-Chairs are
trying to find a mutually acceptable solution which cannot give way
to any divergence of opinions.
As regards the most recent visit of the Co-Chairs, it should be
estimated the G-8 Foreign Ministers' joint statement in the context
of the confirmations concerning the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. My impression is that they are an additional proof showing
that the mediators do not approve the conflict settlement prospect
supported and urged forward by Azerbaijan."
"Do you mean Azerbaijan's ambitions for "solving" the problem through
military operations?"
"The matter is first of all addressed to the efforts of bringing the
settlement process beyond the frameworks of the OSCE Minsk Group and
transferring it to other international tribunals, particularly, the UN
Security Council and Assembly. And the enthusiasm of the Azerbaijani
diplomacy seems to be giving way after the adoption of the well-known
UN Resolution.
In particular, I believe that the agreement reached between the two
Presidents with regard to continuing the talks based on the Madrid
principles testifies to the fact that Azerbaijan's attacking policy
in the panorama of the undesirable pre-electoral and post-electoral
developments of Armenia is beginning to retreat.
In the meantime, Azerbaijan is certainly trying to reiterate
its willingness of solving the problem through military
operations. Although the word does not suit the language of diplomacy,
I don't find a better characterization at the moment. If it is
announced on the level of the President that the first stage of the
war is over, and Azerbaijan is always ready to solve the problem
through military operations, this can be estimated as an undisguised
pressure against the international community and the mediators.
Interpreting Azerbaijan's attitude, we can state the following: if
the mediators insist on settling the conflict based upon the Madrid
principles, i.e. there's no respect for the territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan, resuming the military operations remains the only
way for the latter to solve the problem. Because, to the best of
our knowledge, those principles envisage the definition of the NKR
status through a referendum. Azerbaijan naturally admits the fact
with a great sorrow, perceiving it as a mechanism of legalizing the
secession of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
Judging by all, the last visit of the Co-Chairs was aimed at mitigating
the anxiety of the Azerbaijani side. As to what extent they succeeded
in their efforts will be shown by the further development of the
negotiation process.
"To what extent is your optimism about the retreat of Azerbaijan's
attacking policy justified, taking into consideration the fact that
the Azerbaijani delegation gained the successive advantage over us by
'thrusting in' the anti-Armenian formulation passed by the UN into
the PACE Resolution?"
"In general, I would advise or rather, ask the Armenian delegation not
to overload itself and avoid initiating debates with the Azerbaijani
party.
I believe it would be more proper to simply state that if Azerbaijan
has problems with Nagorno Karabakh, this is none of Armenia's business,
and Azerbaijan had better display its willingness by initiating
a direct dialogue with Karabakh with the purpose of settling its
problems.
That's to say, the Armenian party doesn't have initiate a debate
with the Azeris on most different topics such as ecological issues,
human rights etc.
Nevertheless, I think that restoring territorial integrity is the
general political attitude of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe, and it applies not only to Azerbaijan but also to Georgia
and Moldova. This may be considered as one of the manifestations of
the East-West conflicts.
The Azerbaijani diplomacy has held no victory at this point because
the conversation is about the principle of territorial integrity
in general.
What does territorial integrity mean, and which are the internationally
recognized borders of Azerbaijan? These are the questions that should
be discussed on the legal plane. The thing is that Azerbaijan is now
making claims for a territory which has never formed part of its
statehood. In my opinion, the declarative statements on restoring
territorial integrity should be viewed in this context."
"There is a widespread opinion that the West, on behalf of the Council
of Europe, demonstrated a mild attitude towards us by not applying
any sanctions with the purpose of imposing concessions with regard
to the Karabakh issue. Is it possible to have a serious approach to
this viewpoint?"
"I think these are merely tricks used with the purpose of gaining
some dividends in the internal political campaign. I am sincerely
sorry that an issue like the Karabakh conflict becomes a subject of
political speculations.
As regards the allegations that the Council of Europe had a mild
attitude to Armenia, they probably mean the authorities of Armenia. And
a mild or non-mild attitude towards the authorities may be displayed
by the public, society and the electorate responsible for forming
those authorities. If the present-day authorities have been formed by
the major part of the electorate, it is necessary to respect their
decision and initiate the step-by-step implementation of all the
activities aimed at strengthening construction work on the state level,
fostering the country's economy and increasing its military power.
That's to say, it is necessary to make goal-oriented steps to solve
the problems we are facing. And if it is impossible to solve global
problems, we must be able to at least resist the challenges faced by
the whole region and especially Armenia.
STRATEGY MUSTN'T CHANGE
Thus, in the framework of their regional visit Minsk Group co-Chairmen
visited Stepanakert and met with NKR authorities.
Is it a regular meeting or the mediators really hope to avert the
process of "blockading" the Madrid process by Azerbaijan.
Political Analyst Davit Babayan
"The visit of the co-Chairmen is of both political and protocol nature.
Protocol - because the co-Chairmen regularly visit the region and every
time, besides meeting with Armenian and Azerbaijani leadership they
visit Artsakh. Thus in essence they prove that NKR is a conflicting
party, though at the moment it doesn't partake in the negotiation
process. In this regard this visit can be considered a regular visit.
On the other hand, the recent developments make this visit very
important from the political point of view.
Let's start from the fact that Kosovo declared its independence
recently and many countries did recognize this independence, which
gives a new energy to the settlement of the conflict. On March 4 as
we know the Azerbaijanis violated the cease-fire. After this negative
event the co-Chairmen should have visited the region and discussed
it with NKR President, the authorities and the government. It's
worth mentioning that the government has changed in the countries
of the region, both Armenia and Karabakh have new Presidents, new
Presidential elections are in store for Azerbaijan in autumn, and in
this regard the regular visit of the co-Chairmen to the region a bit
differs from the previous ones.
NKR President and the government have reconfirmed Artsakh's stance
regarding the peaceful settlement of the conflict and that Azerbaijan's
bellicose announcements hinder the process of the negotiations."
"How do you estimate the fact that Azerbaijan managed to repeat its
famous resolution in PACE, regarding the "liberation of the occupied
territories by Azerbaijan?"
"Thus Azerbaijan is doing its best to hide it's anti-democratic
policy towards the national minorities. We all know that during the
recent weeks and even months the idea of the national sovereignty
is bursting among the lezgies, talishis and avars. They have already
appealed to Daghistan, Russia and the whole world anticipating that
the international community will somehow respond to the violation of
the minorities' rights.
It is natural that Azerbaijanis intend to gain dividends, trying to
decline the attention of the international community and bring it
to Armenia's internal political problems. It is evident and we must
always take it into account."
"The leaders of the "pan-national" movement don't even hide that their
goal is to convince PACE use political sanctions against Armenia."
"The recent developments testify to the fact that the rivalry has
become sharper between the two geopolitical poles. And if at present
any European or western structure or state uses political sanctions
against Armenia it will definitely change the ratio of the forces in
the region.
At the moment it is not beneficial for anyone especially the West
to use political sanctions against Armenia, that can have impact on
Armenia's foreign policy. That is why I don't think it can happen.
Of course it is beneficial for certain internal and foreign
powers. Firstly for Azerbaijan, which can gain dividends in case of
Armenia's "pro-Russian" stance, representing itself as the champion
of the western values."
"Has Armenia's policy regarding Karabakh changed after the "coup
d'état", or everything is the same?"
"In general the strategy of the settlement of Karabakh conflict should
be the same for Armenian people. There can be some changes in terms
of the tactics, but the main approach must be the same, which is -
Karabakh can't be part of Azerbaijan.
The second principle, which is not less important, is the guarantee of
Artsakh's security. In this regard, in my view nothing has changed and
it cannot change because the majority of the people doesn't question
these two principles. In this case the change of government cannot
have any influence on the policy regarding Karabakh."
--Boundary_(ID_dGf8/WVXrjimnCX/kX qjqg)--