Tweet
WHY IS THE OSCE MINSK GROUP QUICKLY RESUMING THE TALKS?
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
20-03-2008 18:45:14
While through their emissaries the European and the other international
organizations are trying to pressure on Armenia where the state of
emergency is ending, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are trying to
"rapidly" resume the talks. Why are they in a hurry?
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs representing the United States, Russia
and France issued a statement on March 15 based on the results of
meetings with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and
reminded that the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia the United States and
France, recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and do
not recognize the independence of Karabakh, and at the same time,
they state that the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is to be an object of
talks between the sides.
In the statement the co-chairs underline the importance of resuming the
talks after the break determined by the Armenian presidential election.
Who will negotiate on behalf of the Armenian side if the tenure of
the Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan is coming to its end,
the new government has not been appointed yet, the acting president
is leaving, and the new one has not been inaugurated yet? Besides,
it is not clear yet whether Armenia will overcome this home political
crisis easily.
Logically, if the mediators really want a fair decision, they should
not make use of the opportunity and artificially accelerate the
developments.
Does it mean that the mediators are trying to coerce Armenia to agree
to an unfavorable solution? If yet, why should Armenia continue to
negotiate in this format?
The impression is that the Armenian politicians are absorbed with the
diplomatic and information components of the talks and have lost the
meaning and goal. Meanwhile, initially the goal after the cease-fire
in 1994 was the documentalization of the outcome of the war, the
signing of peace agreement, in which the capitulation of Azerbaijan
is set down. The peace agreement has not been signed yet. Not only
Azerbaijan has not admitted capitulation but also acts as a winner,
claiming not only to the territories around the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region but also Nagorno-Karabakh itself.
It is difficult to explain to a side viewer who is unaware of the
talks how this transformation happened. How did the loser succeed
involving the winner into a diplomatic maze, where did it lose the
real arguments?
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
20-03-2008 18:45:14
While through their emissaries the European and the other international
organizations are trying to pressure on Armenia where the state of
emergency is ending, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are trying to
"rapidly" resume the talks. Why are they in a hurry?
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs representing the United States, Russia
and France issued a statement on March 15 based on the results of
meetings with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and
reminded that the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia the United States and
France, recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and do
not recognize the independence of Karabakh, and at the same time,
they state that the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is to be an object of
talks between the sides.
In the statement the co-chairs underline the importance of resuming the
talks after the break determined by the Armenian presidential election.
Who will negotiate on behalf of the Armenian side if the tenure of
the Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan is coming to its end,
the new government has not been appointed yet, the acting president
is leaving, and the new one has not been inaugurated yet? Besides,
it is not clear yet whether Armenia will overcome this home political
crisis easily.
Logically, if the mediators really want a fair decision, they should
not make use of the opportunity and artificially accelerate the
developments.
Does it mean that the mediators are trying to coerce Armenia to agree
to an unfavorable solution? If yet, why should Armenia continue to
negotiate in this format?
The impression is that the Armenian politicians are absorbed with the
diplomatic and information components of the talks and have lost the
meaning and goal. Meanwhile, initially the goal after the cease-fire
in 1994 was the documentalization of the outcome of the war, the
signing of peace agreement, in which the capitulation of Azerbaijan
is set down. The peace agreement has not been signed yet. Not only
Azerbaijan has not admitted capitulation but also acts as a winner,
claiming not only to the territories around the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region but also Nagorno-Karabakh itself.
It is difficult to explain to a side viewer who is unaware of the
talks how this transformation happened. How did the loser succeed
involving the winner into a diplomatic maze, where did it lose the
real arguments?