Tweet
RIPENS IN ROOT
Azat Artsakh Daily
05 March 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
The Council of Kozma Prutkov is Relevant For The Co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group In the last day of winter, the co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group around Nagorno Karabakh Yury Merzlyakov (Russia),
Bernard Fassier (France) and Matthew Bryza (USA) visited Stepanakert
in the frame of regional visit.
On the same day, the meeting of the foreign mediators with the
president of NK Bako Sahakyan took place, the details of which is not
open by venture of confidentiality. Co-chairs did not speak about this,
informing the Press dosated and avaricious information concerning to
the maintenance of the talk with the president of NKR and the coarse
of the process of regulation. Very likely, only Russian mediator
Yury Merzlyakov opened the brackets slightly underlining that the
co-chairs presented to the governing body of NK new opportunities
for the process, which, in their appearance, appeared in the result
of the last meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Certainly, it will be interesting to know what kind of opportunities
and prospect they open for the process of regulation. Especially, in
the context of recent optimistic announcement of some politicians
working at the Karabakhian problem concerning to the "golden
opportunity" for the achievement of the diplomatic break in 2009. In
particular,20special representative of the Parliamentary Assemble of
OSCE around NK Goran Lenmarker has recently spoken about good chances
for the regulation of the conflict. However, the fact attracts
attention to itself that the optimism of the mediators becomes
increasingly "careful". Therefore, Yury Merzlyakov said to the
journalists in Stepanakert "objective conditions have been created
for the achievement of the regulation, but the subjective ones are
not exactly absent". It is interesting whether to which conditions
Russian diplomat concerns the collaboration of the Karabakhian part
in the process of negotiation, subjective or objective.
Nevertheless, it seems to the subjective one, because NK remains
out of the negotiation process contrary to the official documents of
OSCE. Meanwhile, the question of the participation of Karabakh is by
no means the idle and the objective (I should underline) and has a
determinant meaning for the achievement of realistic and i.e. for a
viable decision of the problem.
Bako Sahakyan again confirmed the position of the Karabakhian part in
the meeting with the mediators, which is consisted in the necessity
for the reestablishment of the full-format negotiations with an
obligatory participant of NKR in all the stages of the regulation. It
is notable that in orally the co-chairman of the Minsk Group invariably
confirmed justice of the given demands of the Karabakhian part, in
prac tice they have not provided for its realization. It seems, that
"the subjective factor" of Azerbaijan disturbs them protesting with
fervour against the return of NK to the negotiating table. To the
amount of reasons, which are served an obstacle in the way to the
comprehensive regulation, the circumstance should be concerned that the
intermediary missions have already tried to eliminate the consequence,
but not the reasons of Azerbaijan-Karabakhian conflicts. At that,
in the process of negotiation the mediators speak only about the
consequences, concerning only to Azerbaijan on Baku's suggestion, for
some reason forgetting about the Armenian refugees and the Armenian
territories are being at the Azerbaijani occupation. Nobody argues,
that the consequences must be removed but at the same time it is
necessary to observe the priority, in other words not to put a cart
in front of a horse. Because, without removal of the reasons of
the conflict, the risk is too big to get hold of consequence again,
moreover it is more dimensioned. By the way, a Secretary General of
The Council of Europe Terry Davis also underlined that in any conflict
one should find a source and carry on a struggle with the reasons,
which have brought to it.
As is well known, the reason is concluded in the state politics of
Azerbaijan directed to the destruction of Artsakh and the occupation
the Armenian historical territories. Did Aze rbaijan refuse from
its genocide politics? Unambiguously, no, did not. It means that
it continues to remain a potential source for the renewal of the
conflict. Certainly, for the neutralization of this treat, intermediary
efforts are aimed not only to the chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group
but to all the authoritative international structures. So, in any rate
they affirm in the corresponding cases. However, their efforts can
be crowned with success only in that case if a sincere concernment
in objective one is reinforced by the active discussion of the basic
question in the process of negotiation, i.e. taking into account
the free desire of the nation of NK, the settlement of the conflict
and the establishment of a long time peace in the region. Moreover,
this is neither removal of the consequence of the conflict nor the
status of NK, which has already be defined by its people and "worked"
successfully. This is a security in the basis of reliable guarantee
of the safety of NK, to the amount of which concerns international
recognition of the actual independence of the republic. It is obvious
that any agreement around NK in which the opinions of its inhabitants
are not taken into account, objective realities and objective reasons
of the beginnings of the Azerbaijan-Karabakhian conflict are deprived
of the prospect to be consummated.
Azat Artsakh Daily
05 March 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
The Council of Kozma Prutkov is Relevant For The Co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group In the last day of winter, the co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group around Nagorno Karabakh Yury Merzlyakov (Russia),
Bernard Fassier (France) and Matthew Bryza (USA) visited Stepanakert
in the frame of regional visit.
On the same day, the meeting of the foreign mediators with the
president of NK Bako Sahakyan took place, the details of which is not
open by venture of confidentiality. Co-chairs did not speak about this,
informing the Press dosated and avaricious information concerning to
the maintenance of the talk with the president of NKR and the coarse
of the process of regulation. Very likely, only Russian mediator
Yury Merzlyakov opened the brackets slightly underlining that the
co-chairs presented to the governing body of NK new opportunities
for the process, which, in their appearance, appeared in the result
of the last meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Certainly, it will be interesting to know what kind of opportunities
and prospect they open for the process of regulation. Especially, in
the context of recent optimistic announcement of some politicians
working at the Karabakhian problem concerning to the "golden
opportunity" for the achievement of the diplomatic break in 2009. In
particular,20special representative of the Parliamentary Assemble of
OSCE around NK Goran Lenmarker has recently spoken about good chances
for the regulation of the conflict. However, the fact attracts
attention to itself that the optimism of the mediators becomes
increasingly "careful". Therefore, Yury Merzlyakov said to the
journalists in Stepanakert "objective conditions have been created
for the achievement of the regulation, but the subjective ones are
not exactly absent". It is interesting whether to which conditions
Russian diplomat concerns the collaboration of the Karabakhian part
in the process of negotiation, subjective or objective.
Nevertheless, it seems to the subjective one, because NK remains
out of the negotiation process contrary to the official documents of
OSCE. Meanwhile, the question of the participation of Karabakh is by
no means the idle and the objective (I should underline) and has a
determinant meaning for the achievement of realistic and i.e. for a
viable decision of the problem.
Bako Sahakyan again confirmed the position of the Karabakhian part in
the meeting with the mediators, which is consisted in the necessity
for the reestablishment of the full-format negotiations with an
obligatory participant of NKR in all the stages of the regulation. It
is notable that in orally the co-chairman of the Minsk Group invariably
confirmed justice of the given demands of the Karabakhian part, in
prac tice they have not provided for its realization. It seems, that
"the subjective factor" of Azerbaijan disturbs them protesting with
fervour against the return of NK to the negotiating table. To the
amount of reasons, which are served an obstacle in the way to the
comprehensive regulation, the circumstance should be concerned that the
intermediary missions have already tried to eliminate the consequence,
but not the reasons of Azerbaijan-Karabakhian conflicts. At that,
in the process of negotiation the mediators speak only about the
consequences, concerning only to Azerbaijan on Baku's suggestion, for
some reason forgetting about the Armenian refugees and the Armenian
territories are being at the Azerbaijani occupation. Nobody argues,
that the consequences must be removed but at the same time it is
necessary to observe the priority, in other words not to put a cart
in front of a horse. Because, without removal of the reasons of
the conflict, the risk is too big to get hold of consequence again,
moreover it is more dimensioned. By the way, a Secretary General of
The Council of Europe Terry Davis also underlined that in any conflict
one should find a source and carry on a struggle with the reasons,
which have brought to it.
As is well known, the reason is concluded in the state politics of
Azerbaijan directed to the destruction of Artsakh and the occupation
the Armenian historical territories. Did Aze rbaijan refuse from
its genocide politics? Unambiguously, no, did not. It means that
it continues to remain a potential source for the renewal of the
conflict. Certainly, for the neutralization of this treat, intermediary
efforts are aimed not only to the chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group
but to all the authoritative international structures. So, in any rate
they affirm in the corresponding cases. However, their efforts can
be crowned with success only in that case if a sincere concernment
in objective one is reinforced by the active discussion of the basic
question in the process of negotiation, i.e. taking into account
the free desire of the nation of NK, the settlement of the conflict
and the establishment of a long time peace in the region. Moreover,
this is neither removal of the consequence of the conflict nor the
status of NK, which has already be defined by its people and "worked"
successfully. This is a security in the basis of reliable guarantee
of the safety of NK, to the amount of which concerns international
recognition of the actual independence of the republic. It is obvious
that any agreement around NK in which the opinions of its inhabitants
are not taken into account, objective realities and objective reasons
of the beginnings of the Azerbaijan-Karabakhian conflict are deprived
of the prospect to be consummated.