Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BAKU: Matthew Bryza's Mistake "Samoopredelenie": Deliberate Or Undel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BAKU: Matthew Bryza's Mistake "Samoopredelenie": Deliberate Or Undel

    MATTHEW BRYZA'S MISTAKE "SAMOOPREDELENIE": DELIBERATE OR UNDELIBERATE? - ANALYSIS

    APA
    May 8 2009
    Azerbaijan

    Prague talks showed that Turkey-Armenia rapprochement had more negative
    influence on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict

    Baku. Vugar Masimoglu - APA. The presidents' Prague meeting that
    had been expected to play the decisive role in the settlement of the
    Nagorno Karabakh conflict did not give the expected results. The most
    interesting is that for the first time the statements on the outcomes
    of the meeting differed from one another distinctly.

    -The co-chairing country confirms the Prague meeting took place in
    an uneasy manner

    Both the statements of the co-chairs at the press conference after
    the meeting, and American co-chair Matthew Bryza's interview to Radio
    Liberty showed that the talks were held in constructive manner,
    the sides agreed on the ideas of the basic principles. But these
    optimistic statements contradict the information given by diplomatic
    sources. According to the source, the talks took place in an uneasy
    manner, Armenia again tried to put into discussion a formula it had
    proposed two years ago. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's
    assessment of the meeting also confirmed the information given by
    the diplomatic source. Mr. Kouchner said in his interview to Ekho
    Moskvi radio station that the meeting was held in an uneasy manner,
    there were still many divergences between the sides. Contradictions
    in the assessments confirm that the Prague meeting did not produce
    expected results.

    -Why Armenia puts into discussion the proposals made two years ago?

    Armenia's attempts to put into discussion the proposals debated
    before the Madrid process, mean that the views that agreement will
    be reached soon on the basic principles of the settlement are not
    convincing. Actually, official Yerevan's attempts to change the
    direction of the dialogue have objective reasons. Putting into
    discussion the proposals made before the Madrid process means that
    Armenia deviates from the settlement proposal that is on the table
    (though while coordinating the presidents' meeting, the issues to be
    discussed are also coordinated accurately between the sides). There
    had been such an assumption before the Prague meeting, Azerbaijani
    Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said after meeting with the
    U.S. Secretary of State "Armenia still has hesitations over the
    settlement of the conflict and it will be known in the Prague meeting
    whether the process, which began with great hopes, will produce
    results or not." Prague meeting indeed showed that official Yerevan
    was not ready for the process of settlement and had hesitations,
    there is no other explanation to President Serzh Sargsyan's refusing
    the settlement formula on the table and putting into discussion the
    proposals debated and not coordinated two years.

    Three objective reasons of Yerevan's hesitations Armenia's hesitations
    have objective reasons. Firstly, putting into discussion the old
    proposals means that the process of settlement is delayed and Armenia
    gains extra time. Secondly, after the start of the six-party political
    dialogue on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Armenian
    Diaspora increased pressures on official Yerevan. It is proved by the
    fact that the leaders of the Armenian National Committee of America
    (ANCA) refused to meet with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian
    during his visit to the United States. This demonstrative refusal means
    that Armenian Diaspora is dissatisfied with the plan of solution that
    is on the table. Armenia, which agreed to the process of settlement
    at the urgent request of the co-chairing countries of Minsk Group,
    faced pressures of Armenian Diaspora. The only way out for Sargsyan
    government to balance the pressures exerted from both sides is to
    delay the process of settlement and gain time. The best way is to
    put the old proposals on the table again, and this was what Serzh
    Sargsyan did in Prague.

    -Turkey-Armenia rapprochement struck the first blow on Nagorno
    Karabakh conflict!

    The third objective reason is the notable improvement in Armenia-Turkey
    relations. From the very beginning official Yerevan claimed that the
    reopening of the borders with Turkey had no links to the settlement
    of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. At first similar colours were observed
    in Turkey's position, but later it was stated on various levels
    that the reopening of borders was parallel to the settlement of
    the conflict. Though American co-chair Matthew Bryza said in his
    interview to the Radio Liberty that the process took place in
    parallel, he underlined that they did not depend on each other:
    "Nagorno Karabakh and improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations are two
    separate processes. They are moving in parallel, but with different
    speed. And an improvement in one has positive influence on the
    other." In his statement the co-chair confirmed that improvement of
    Turkey-Armenia relations was more ahead of the settlement of Nagorno
    Karabakh conflict. This is one of the factors making Armenia change
    the agenda easily. Taking into account that the relations with Turkey
    moved forward enough, became an irresistible process, Turkey will not
    stop the process, even if there is no improvement in the settlement
    of the conflict, Yerevan wanted to put Azerbaijan before facts.

    Most likely Yerevan thinks that Turkey will not keep its promise
    "the borders with Armenia will be not opened until the solution of
    Nagorno Karabakh problem" under the foreign pressure. It will be clear
    soon how it will be justified, but the fact remains: "Turkey-Armenia
    rapprochement strengthened the political position of Yerevan and
    contrary to the expectations this process negatively effected on
    the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict". The Yerevan's policy
    "first open the borders and then we will see the settlement of
    the conflict" probably is supported by the United States, one of
    the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. The answer to an enigma of Matthew
    Bryza, who valued the Prague meeting, "that progress of one of the
    processes will have a positive impact on the other" is following:
    "The opening of Turkey-Armenia borders should take place before the
    settlement of Nagorno Karabakh problem and this process will promote
    the settlement of the conflict". With these ideas, the US co-chair
    supported the Armenia's tactic "first open the borders and then we
    will see the settlement of the conflict" in Prague.

    - "Samoopredelenie"(self-determination) or
    "samoupravlenie"(self-administration) ?

    There is one more interesting point in the Matthew Bryza's evaluation
    of the meeting. The US co-chair said that in his interview two
    weeks ago the Azerbaijani president told that he respected the
    self-determination right of Nagorno Karabakh Armenians and Bryza
    considered it as a preparation of Azerbaijani population to agree
    with one of the basic principles. "President Aliyev spoke about the
    Lachin corridor and its role in the security, self-administration and
    self-determination (added in Russian "samoopredelenie") of Karabakh
    population. With this statement, he made a significant step toward
    the preparation of Azerbaijani population to the agreement on basic
    principles". He referred to the interview of Azerbaijani President
    to Vesti and ITAR-TASS agency on April 18 during his working visit
    to Moscow, but there are no such ideas in the part of interview
    Matthew Bryza referred. "Our proposal contains the security of the
    people living in Nagorno Karabakh and the people to live there in
    future; local self-administration of Nagorno Karabakh; restoration
    of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The decision on the status
    of Nagorno Karabakh can be delayed for uncertain time. We support the
    proposals of Minsk Group co-chairs at present. Results of the conflict
    should be eliminated and Armenia must withdraw its occupant forces
    from the territories outside the administrative borders of Nagorno
    Karabakh as well. We understand that above-ground corridor between
    Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is important for the Armenian side and
    we don't see a problem in this issue. The issues related to Lachin
    corridor can be resolved so usefully that the people living in Nagorno
    Karabakh today and the Azerbaijanis returned there after the solution
    to the conflict will not concern over the communication blockade.

    We approach this issue so that it can be possible to be resolved. The
    restoration of territorial integrity, guarantee for security, return
    of all refugees and displaced persons to their historic homelands in
    Nagorno Karabakh and surrounding territories and making decision in
    future on the status of Nagorno Karabakh acceptable for both sides are
    coordinated in both our and OSCE Minsk Group proposals. There is can't
    be unilateral decision on the status of Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan
    will never participate in the processes considered the mechanisms
    of legal separation of Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan. This is our
    univocal position.

    At the same time, we understand that the people living there should
    feel themselves secure, have self-administration opportunities and
    spend their lives for the solution to the conflict. From this point
    of view we have no domination or interference into their lives. In my
    opinion all theses factors can lead to the progress in the solution
    to the conflict".

    Matthew Bryza's incomprehensible (?) happiness

    The head of state spoke about the local self-administration right of
    Armenians, but not about the self-determination. Most likely Bryza
    mixed up the words "samoupravlenie" and "samoopredelenie". The first
    notion is about the forming of self-administration bodies, the second
    one is about the right of any nation to establish its state. The
    President said "the people living there should feel themselves
    secure, have self-administration opportunities for the solution to
    the conflict". The Matthew Bryza's mistake put forward one of the
    main targets of the OSCE Minsk Group - the recognition of Nagorno
    Karabakh self-determination right by Azerbaijan and they follows
    this goal in long-year negotiations. Otherwise Matthew Bryza, who
    mixed up "samoupravlenie" and "samoopredelenie", wouldn't say that
    "significant step was made toward the preparation of Azerbaijani
    population to the agreement on basic principles". Unfortunately!
Working...
X