Tweet
Today.Az, Azerbaijan
Refutation of one's own words as a style of Matthew Bryza's diplomacy
05 July 2008 [11:24] - Today.Az
US OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Matthew Bryza seems to introduce a new
style in diplomacy.
The main feature of this new style is that the US diplomat may accuse
mass media representatives of distorting his words when needed.
As is known, the most popular methods used in the world of diplomacy,
include diplomat's ability to escape the direct answer to a definite
question and ability to speak much saying nothing in general.
Yet, the method of saying something clearly and later accusing
reporters of distorting one's words, can be further called "Matthew
Bryza's school".
We have again witnessed the use of the diplomatic method, to be called
"Bryza's step" henceforth. Thus, while visiting Armenia, the US
co-chair of the Minsk Group, speaking to reporters, refuted the words,
he had voiced in Baku while talking to Azerbaijani journalists, when
he said that "it would be safer for Armenians if the lands go back to
Azerbaijan"
Armenian journalists noted that M.Bryza again refuted the words,
voiced in the conversation with Azerbaijani journalists. It should be
noted that M.Bryza, visiting Baku, also often refuted his words,
voiced in Armenia, saying Armenian mass media representatives had
distorted his words.
Certainly, this position is successful for a diplomat, especially
considering the level of relations between Azerbaijani and Armenian
journalists. Just imagine how much fun Azerbaijani journalists must
have from writing that Armenian journalists have distorted M.Bryza's
words and vise versa.
In the result, M.Bryza is considered to be dealing with diplomacy and
saying what each side wants to hear from him in each of the
countries. Meanwhile, there is no progress in the resolution of
Nagorno Karabakh conflict. But the co-chairs, including M.Bryza, by no
means blame themselves for it, as it is the fault of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, which fail to agree with each other.
If Azerbaijan and Armenia could agree on the conflict settlement, why
do they need Matthew Bryza and two his fellow-co-chairs? It means that
representatives of the three countries, including M.Bryza, should get
a bad mark on diplomacy for the unsettled conflict. However, the
resume of the diplomat will fix long years of his efforts, taking
diplomatic steps and dealing with the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. We should note from our side that M.Bryza's major diplomatic
method was accusation of mass media representatives of distorting his
words, even if they are communicated correctly.
In conclusion, it should be noted that M.Bryza speaks Russia well. But
every time his incorrectly interpreted words make us think that,
perhaps, he implied one thought, but voiced it differently. In this
case, we would recommend him not to speak Russian, but hire a
professional interpreter while visiting Azerbaijan and Armenia.
/Day.Az/
Refutation of one's own words as a style of Matthew Bryza's diplomacy
05 July 2008 [11:24] - Today.Az
US OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Matthew Bryza seems to introduce a new
style in diplomacy.
The main feature of this new style is that the US diplomat may accuse
mass media representatives of distorting his words when needed.
As is known, the most popular methods used in the world of diplomacy,
include diplomat's ability to escape the direct answer to a definite
question and ability to speak much saying nothing in general.
Yet, the method of saying something clearly and later accusing
reporters of distorting one's words, can be further called "Matthew
Bryza's school".
We have again witnessed the use of the diplomatic method, to be called
"Bryza's step" henceforth. Thus, while visiting Armenia, the US
co-chair of the Minsk Group, speaking to reporters, refuted the words,
he had voiced in Baku while talking to Azerbaijani journalists, when
he said that "it would be safer for Armenians if the lands go back to
Azerbaijan"
Armenian journalists noted that M.Bryza again refuted the words,
voiced in the conversation with Azerbaijani journalists. It should be
noted that M.Bryza, visiting Baku, also often refuted his words,
voiced in Armenia, saying Armenian mass media representatives had
distorted his words.
Certainly, this position is successful for a diplomat, especially
considering the level of relations between Azerbaijani and Armenian
journalists. Just imagine how much fun Azerbaijani journalists must
have from writing that Armenian journalists have distorted M.Bryza's
words and vise versa.
In the result, M.Bryza is considered to be dealing with diplomacy and
saying what each side wants to hear from him in each of the
countries. Meanwhile, there is no progress in the resolution of
Nagorno Karabakh conflict. But the co-chairs, including M.Bryza, by no
means blame themselves for it, as it is the fault of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, which fail to agree with each other.
If Azerbaijan and Armenia could agree on the conflict settlement, why
do they need Matthew Bryza and two his fellow-co-chairs? It means that
representatives of the three countries, including M.Bryza, should get
a bad mark on diplomacy for the unsettled conflict. However, the
resume of the diplomat will fix long years of his efforts, taking
diplomatic steps and dealing with the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. We should note from our side that M.Bryza's major diplomatic
method was accusation of mass media representatives of distorting his
words, even if they are communicated correctly.
In conclusion, it should be noted that M.Bryza speaks Russia well. But
every time his incorrectly interpreted words make us think that,
perhaps, he implied one thought, but voiced it differently. In this
case, we would recommend him not to speak Russian, but hire a
professional interpreter while visiting Azerbaijan and Armenia.
/Day.Az/