Tweet
IT WAS PAINFUL FOR USA TO VOTE AGAINST UN RESOLUTION ON OCCUPIED TERRITORY OF AZERBAIJAN - AMERICAN DIPLOMAT
Trend News Agency
June 5 2008
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan, Baku, 4 June /Trend News corr M. Aliyev/ Trend News'
interview with Matthew Bryza, American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Question: In their every speech, OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairmen say
Azerbaijan and Armenia should make a compromise. Armenia speaks about
self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan sticks to its
own position in which country's territorial integrity is a principal
issue. What do you mean by compromise? What can push these sides to
a compromise?
Answer: From you question it seems like the countries have not
advanced to a compromise at all. This is not like that at all. Draft
framework agreement coordinating almost all the principles is on
the table of negotiations. But there are still a couple of serious
principles to be clarified. One, two or three years ago we could not
say that. But a good progress has been marked since that time. So,
the final compromise will require courage, political will and trust
between the leaders of the two countries. I cannot foretell whether
that will happen. I do not know.
Question: There are reports that involvement of other international
organizations in peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh may change the
situation, which OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairs have failed to achieve
so far. The European Union is mentioned as a new intermediary. Can
that be a way out of the situation?
Answer: The joint work of the European Union and the United States
always leads to positive results. I am not against the participation
of European Union. EU must define by itself how important that is. The
decision will be made by the European Union and French co-chairman. If
they propose some definite conception to OSCE, that will please anyway.
I do not think another format or more participants are needed. You
do raise the issue which proves that there is a will to achieve
compromise. If you take a look at present structure of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, you will see three possible variants. The
first is restoration of war which no one wants. The second is one
of the sides will reject its current position, but that will not
happen. And the last one is compromise. Thus, do the sides need to
reject their current positions? War is awful! So the logic states
that you must come to a compromise. I think the sides understand the
only acceptable option is a compromise.
Question: During voting at the UN on the Resolution envisaging
immediate liberation of Azerbaijani territory occupied by Armenia,
the USA, France and Russia as the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group
voted against it, though they could have just abstained. If you do
support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, so why you did not
back the demand to Armenia to liberate Azerbaijani territory? That
caused discontent at the Azerbaijani Government.
Answer: I completely understand the discontent of the
Azerbaijani Government. That was a very painful decision for my
Government. Azerbaijan is our friend and strategic partner. One cannot
support those who are against your partner. But in our opinion,
a possible position is a real one. For us, a Resolution leading
to compromise over which we are working would be possible. While
that Resolution reflects the position of only one side. To be a
frank intermediary to help a joint compromise we said no. But that
is not the direction we wanted to follow. We want to advance to a
compromise. We worked over the Resolution jointly with our friends
at the Azerbaijani Government in order to make it acceptable, but
failed. So, I can say I am very sorry and I am very upset about the
situation. But now we have to move forward, to find a compromise and
to establish friendly relations.
Trend News Agency
June 5 2008
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan, Baku, 4 June /Trend News corr M. Aliyev/ Trend News'
interview with Matthew Bryza, American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Question: In their every speech, OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairmen say
Azerbaijan and Armenia should make a compromise. Armenia speaks about
self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan sticks to its
own position in which country's territorial integrity is a principal
issue. What do you mean by compromise? What can push these sides to
a compromise?
Answer: From you question it seems like the countries have not
advanced to a compromise at all. This is not like that at all. Draft
framework agreement coordinating almost all the principles is on
the table of negotiations. But there are still a couple of serious
principles to be clarified. One, two or three years ago we could not
say that. But a good progress has been marked since that time. So,
the final compromise will require courage, political will and trust
between the leaders of the two countries. I cannot foretell whether
that will happen. I do not know.
Question: There are reports that involvement of other international
organizations in peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh may change the
situation, which OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairs have failed to achieve
so far. The European Union is mentioned as a new intermediary. Can
that be a way out of the situation?
Answer: The joint work of the European Union and the United States
always leads to positive results. I am not against the participation
of European Union. EU must define by itself how important that is. The
decision will be made by the European Union and French co-chairman. If
they propose some definite conception to OSCE, that will please anyway.
I do not think another format or more participants are needed. You
do raise the issue which proves that there is a will to achieve
compromise. If you take a look at present structure of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, you will see three possible variants. The
first is restoration of war which no one wants. The second is one
of the sides will reject its current position, but that will not
happen. And the last one is compromise. Thus, do the sides need to
reject their current positions? War is awful! So the logic states
that you must come to a compromise. I think the sides understand the
only acceptable option is a compromise.
Question: During voting at the UN on the Resolution envisaging
immediate liberation of Azerbaijani territory occupied by Armenia,
the USA, France and Russia as the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group
voted against it, though they could have just abstained. If you do
support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, so why you did not
back the demand to Armenia to liberate Azerbaijani territory? That
caused discontent at the Azerbaijani Government.
Answer: I completely understand the discontent of the
Azerbaijani Government. That was a very painful decision for my
Government. Azerbaijan is our friend and strategic partner. One cannot
support those who are against your partner. But in our opinion,
a possible position is a real one. For us, a Resolution leading
to compromise over which we are working would be possible. While
that Resolution reflects the position of only one side. To be a
frank intermediary to help a joint compromise we said no. But that
is not the direction we wanted to follow. We want to advance to a
compromise. We worked over the Resolution jointly with our friends
at the Azerbaijani Government in order to make it acceptable, but
failed. So, I can say I am very sorry and I am very upset about the
situation. But now we have to move forward, to find a compromise and
to establish friendly relations.