Tweet
IT MAY RESULT IN SOMETHING
HAKOB BADALYAN
LRAGIR.AM
11:59:51 - 22/04/2009
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement seems to embrace a
regular phase of activation. At least, meetings on this topic, phone
conversations, visits, agreements, a future high ranking Armenian and
Azerbaijani meeting, and positive predictions that there will be a
turnover in the settlement in May or June are heard more often. This
was stated by the OSCE Minsk group American co-chair Mathew Bryza. This
entire, to tell the truth, leaves an impression of deja vu. All this
already happened and not once, when it was stated that a turnover is
very near to take place - a long waited agreement is to be signed.
The precedents create grounds to think that this time too at the
last moment something will go wrong and nothing will happen, and the
"turnover" will be again postponed and the status-quo will be still
preserved. Though it seems that there is a common approach to change
the status-quo, with which even the Armenian government agrees, which
became evident from Serge Sargsyan's statement at his last press
conference, who said that the conversations on the preservation of
the status quo are swagger. If everyone is for the change of the
status quo, but the latter is not being changed this means that
there is some difference of stances on the measure and form of the
changes. Apparently, this difference is not related only to the ideas
of the conflict sides Armenia, Karabakh and Azerbaijan, but also the
mediators -U.S., Russia and France, otherwise they could have imposed
their own opinion on the sides as they have enough power for it.
Do now the approaches and interests of the mediator states
coincide? The next activation of the negotiation process suggests
that they may coincide, therefore the Co-Chairs are working hard to
record a turnover. But the precedents suggest that they are not always
determined by the mediator's coincidence of interests. Consequently,
there is no guarantee that the next activation can not be caused by
this. Thus, any such phase can be new and unique regardless the types
of the other activation phases. Therefore, each phase can be decisive
and fateful.
Will the current phase be crucial? It is difficult to say because
the negotiations are still confidential.
Already there is no doubt that the United States and Europe, and Russia
are showing more interest in the settlement of the Karabakh issue, but
the potential of any of the sides to settle the conflict is not seen
moreover that each of them pursues their own geopolitical interests in
the settlement of this question. But today, those interests require not
only solution, but also active participation in the process according
to the principle "It may result in something". The point is that if
you do not succeed, you will at least be able to prevent the other
mediators to resolve the conflict.
HAKOB BADALYAN
LRAGIR.AM
11:59:51 - 22/04/2009
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement seems to embrace a
regular phase of activation. At least, meetings on this topic, phone
conversations, visits, agreements, a future high ranking Armenian and
Azerbaijani meeting, and positive predictions that there will be a
turnover in the settlement in May or June are heard more often. This
was stated by the OSCE Minsk group American co-chair Mathew Bryza. This
entire, to tell the truth, leaves an impression of deja vu. All this
already happened and not once, when it was stated that a turnover is
very near to take place - a long waited agreement is to be signed.
The precedents create grounds to think that this time too at the
last moment something will go wrong and nothing will happen, and the
"turnover" will be again postponed and the status-quo will be still
preserved. Though it seems that there is a common approach to change
the status-quo, with which even the Armenian government agrees, which
became evident from Serge Sargsyan's statement at his last press
conference, who said that the conversations on the preservation of
the status quo are swagger. If everyone is for the change of the
status quo, but the latter is not being changed this means that
there is some difference of stances on the measure and form of the
changes. Apparently, this difference is not related only to the ideas
of the conflict sides Armenia, Karabakh and Azerbaijan, but also the
mediators -U.S., Russia and France, otherwise they could have imposed
their own opinion on the sides as they have enough power for it.
Do now the approaches and interests of the mediator states
coincide? The next activation of the negotiation process suggests
that they may coincide, therefore the Co-Chairs are working hard to
record a turnover. But the precedents suggest that they are not always
determined by the mediator's coincidence of interests. Consequently,
there is no guarantee that the next activation can not be caused by
this. Thus, any such phase can be new and unique regardless the types
of the other activation phases. Therefore, each phase can be decisive
and fateful.
Will the current phase be crucial? It is difficult to say because
the negotiations are still confidential.
Already there is no doubt that the United States and Europe, and Russia
are showing more interest in the settlement of the Karabakh issue, but
the potential of any of the sides to settle the conflict is not seen
moreover that each of them pursues their own geopolitical interests in
the settlement of this question. But today, those interests require not
only solution, but also active participation in the process according
to the principle "It may result in something". The point is that if
you do not succeed, you will at least be able to prevent the other
mediators to resolve the conflict.