Tweet
A SUBJECTIVE EQUIVALENCE
Azat Artsakh Daily
02 March 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
Or Why Does Matthew Bryza Maintain a Sickly Agiotage Around The
Negotiation Process As is well known in the function of OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairman around Nagorno Karabakh besides especial search of
ways for settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict and for obtaining a
compromise between the three conflicting parties, the maintenance of
intensity of the process of negotiation also enters, for in order not
to give it to enter the state of stagnation. I dare to hope that all
the three Minsk Group co-chairmen will realize this mission in full
measures who continue to apply considerable efforts for approaching
to a final peaceful decision of the problem.
However, American OSCE Minsk Group co-chairman saw the intermediary
problem wider in spite of his French and Russian colleagues. Namely,
to maintain not only the negotiation process, but a sickly agiotage
around it. It has already become an original regularity that Bryza
periodically announced strange but contradictory announcements
which didn't do good to the peaceful process in no way. According
to Azerbaijani Agency, American diplomat announced, "The agreement
of the regulation of Karabakhian problem must be balanced and just
and answer the most important demand of Azerbaijan that is, securing
its territorial integrity". For the sake of truth, it should be not
ed that in the interview of "Golos America" Matthew Bryza mentioned
also the principles of rights of self -determination and non-usage of
forces together with "the most important demands of Azerbaijan". As
they say, that is something at least. If we take it seriously, this is
not the first case when the diplomat has emphatically over-stressed
"the territorial integrity" to the prejudice of self-determination,
which is "the most important demand" of NK. More precise, NK has
already incarnated this right, now its demands consist only in that
this act of desire by the way, is perfect in perfect accordance with
the norms of international law, which has again been recognized by
the international norms and consolidated by de-jure. In the process
of regulation of Karabakhian conflict, an amusing situation has
already been watched in a certain sense. All the participants of
the process, the three conflicting parts and the mediators appeal
to the international law; however, the conclusion is not seen. The
reason is in that everybody treats this right in one's one way. "The
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh cannot be the part of Azerbaijan,
there is neither juridical nor historical presupposition for this,
and the most important is that the nation of Artsakh has no desire",
the president of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan said. Every inhabitant of
independent NK may sign unde r these words, because such position bases
on the right basis which not only Azerbaijan but also mediators have
not managed to contest. The president of Azerbaijan understood and
treated the international law in a very peculiar way. In the interview
to Reuter Agency given by the president of Azerbaijan in Davos, on
January 29, Ilham Aliyev complaining to the absence of the results
in the process of negotiation, stated the following "The problem
can be solved only by the basis of principles of the international
law. The given principles of the international law are foreseen by
the conclusion of the Armenian forces from our lands and the return
of forced resettles to these lands". We may agree that this new word
in the international jurisprudence, so to speak, international law
by Azerbaijani completely rejecting not likely all Helsinki final act
of OSCE. Here it is important to know the point of view of OSCE to the
international principles, on basis of which the given Euro-organization
is going to decide Karabakhian problem. "For OSCE the principle of the
nation's right to the self-determination and the state's territorial
integrity are equal", said Goran Lenmarker, a special co-chairman of
Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE by NK, during his regional visit on
last week. Probably, I cannot say more particularly, and the question
about the priority of either one or another principle=2 0 is taken
away. However, another one is arisen. Why does M. Bryza, presenting
OSCE as G. Lenmarker, invariable underline the primacy of the principle
of territorial integrity to the right of self-determination? Doesn't
such an open Azerbaijanian position keep an oil-hidden motive? As
is well known, Mr. Bryza promotes oil interests of Washington in
Azerbaijan, besides especial intermediary missions in the frame of
OSCE Minsk Group. However, his, such kind of announcement, first,
distrust is cast upon the two Armenian parts to the intermediary
mission. Second, they allow Azerbaijan to take an uncomplying position,
pulling out macsimalistic and demands treated from reality. It means
that they disturb to the regulation of the process, still more hold
away the prospects of all-embracing, balanced and just agreement,
as M. Bryza said. Moreover, we have to treat skeptic to the words
of G. Lenmarker about that he has seen good opportunities for the
regulation of Nagorno Karabakh conflict in this year.
Azat Artsakh Daily
02 March 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
Or Why Does Matthew Bryza Maintain a Sickly Agiotage Around The
Negotiation Process As is well known in the function of OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairman around Nagorno Karabakh besides especial search of
ways for settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict and for obtaining a
compromise between the three conflicting parties, the maintenance of
intensity of the process of negotiation also enters, for in order not
to give it to enter the state of stagnation. I dare to hope that all
the three Minsk Group co-chairmen will realize this mission in full
measures who continue to apply considerable efforts for approaching
to a final peaceful decision of the problem.
However, American OSCE Minsk Group co-chairman saw the intermediary
problem wider in spite of his French and Russian colleagues. Namely,
to maintain not only the negotiation process, but a sickly agiotage
around it. It has already become an original regularity that Bryza
periodically announced strange but contradictory announcements
which didn't do good to the peaceful process in no way. According
to Azerbaijani Agency, American diplomat announced, "The agreement
of the regulation of Karabakhian problem must be balanced and just
and answer the most important demand of Azerbaijan that is, securing
its territorial integrity". For the sake of truth, it should be not
ed that in the interview of "Golos America" Matthew Bryza mentioned
also the principles of rights of self -determination and non-usage of
forces together with "the most important demands of Azerbaijan". As
they say, that is something at least. If we take it seriously, this is
not the first case when the diplomat has emphatically over-stressed
"the territorial integrity" to the prejudice of self-determination,
which is "the most important demand" of NK. More precise, NK has
already incarnated this right, now its demands consist only in that
this act of desire by the way, is perfect in perfect accordance with
the norms of international law, which has again been recognized by
the international norms and consolidated by de-jure. In the process
of regulation of Karabakhian conflict, an amusing situation has
already been watched in a certain sense. All the participants of
the process, the three conflicting parts and the mediators appeal
to the international law; however, the conclusion is not seen. The
reason is in that everybody treats this right in one's one way. "The
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh cannot be the part of Azerbaijan,
there is neither juridical nor historical presupposition for this,
and the most important is that the nation of Artsakh has no desire",
the president of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan said. Every inhabitant of
independent NK may sign unde r these words, because such position bases
on the right basis which not only Azerbaijan but also mediators have
not managed to contest. The president of Azerbaijan understood and
treated the international law in a very peculiar way. In the interview
to Reuter Agency given by the president of Azerbaijan in Davos, on
January 29, Ilham Aliyev complaining to the absence of the results
in the process of negotiation, stated the following "The problem
can be solved only by the basis of principles of the international
law. The given principles of the international law are foreseen by
the conclusion of the Armenian forces from our lands and the return
of forced resettles to these lands". We may agree that this new word
in the international jurisprudence, so to speak, international law
by Azerbaijani completely rejecting not likely all Helsinki final act
of OSCE. Here it is important to know the point of view of OSCE to the
international principles, on basis of which the given Euro-organization
is going to decide Karabakhian problem. "For OSCE the principle of the
nation's right to the self-determination and the state's territorial
integrity are equal", said Goran Lenmarker, a special co-chairman of
Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE by NK, during his regional visit on
last week. Probably, I cannot say more particularly, and the question
about the priority of either one or another principle=2 0 is taken
away. However, another one is arisen. Why does M. Bryza, presenting
OSCE as G. Lenmarker, invariable underline the primacy of the principle
of territorial integrity to the right of self-determination? Doesn't
such an open Azerbaijanian position keep an oil-hidden motive? As
is well known, Mr. Bryza promotes oil interests of Washington in
Azerbaijan, besides especial intermediary missions in the frame of
OSCE Minsk Group. However, his, such kind of announcement, first,
distrust is cast upon the two Armenian parts to the intermediary
mission. Second, they allow Azerbaijan to take an uncomplying position,
pulling out macsimalistic and demands treated from reality. It means
that they disturb to the regulation of the process, still more hold
away the prospects of all-embracing, balanced and just agreement,
as M. Bryza said. Moreover, we have to treat skeptic to the words
of G. Lenmarker about that he has seen good opportunities for the
regulation of Nagorno Karabakh conflict in this year.