Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Semneby's response to NEWS.am article

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

  • Semneby's response to NEWS.am article

    news.am, Armenia
    Nov 7 2009


    Semneby's response to NEWS.am article

    16:44 / 11/07/2009The office of EU Special Representative for the
    South Caucasus Peter Semneby responded to the Nov. 3 NEWS.am article
    on the statements by the European politician in the interview with
    Russian paper `Vremya Novostei'. Mr. Semneby told journalists, that
    `As regards the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides' readiness for
    concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, Semneby pointed out
    that the Madrid Principles, which became known after the G8 meeting,
    contain rather clear definitions,' NEWS.am article reads.

    At that, EU Special Representative underlined that `the most serious
    problems are in details, but general principles for both the sides to
    make concessions are clear. The most complicated issues, namely the
    ones related to Nagorno-Karabakh's status, are postponed for an
    indefinite period.'

    Commenting on the critics voiced by RA Deputy Foreign Minister
    Shavarsh Kocharyan as well as in the article by political expert Ivan
    Gharibyan, Mr. Semneby's Political Advisor Andrei Didenko says,
    `News.am carried an unsigned article on 3 November, which
    misinterpreted and criticized me for statements I made in an interview
    to the Russian newspaper Vremya Novostei on 2 November. I would like
    to make the following clarifications.

    My statement on the determination of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh
    reflects the statement of Presidents Obama, Medvedev, and Sarkozy at
    the G20 summit in Italy on 10 July 2009. This document states that the
    Basic Principles call for future determination of the final legal
    status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of
    will.

    In the Vremya Novostei interview, the reporter asked a deliberately
    provocative question asserting, inter alia, that the result of the
    vote may be negative for Armenia. The written text could give the
    impression that I share all assumptions of the journalist, which is
    not the case. I merely acknowledged that this is a difficult issue for
    Yerevan.'

    The message was signed `Peter Semneby, The EU Special Representative
    for South Caucasus'.

    Although the letter was sent by Andrei Didenko, it spoke on behalf of
    Mr. Semneby. We would like to let the European Diplomat know that Mr.
    Ivan Gharbyan is the author of the article which says his name in the
    original text (in Russian).

    It is apparent that neither the author, nor the Agency knew of the
    `provocative' nature of the Vremya Novostei reporter's question (also
    even post factum there seems to be nothing provocative), and published
    the article based on the context of Mr. Semneby's replies solely.

    For some reason the EU diplomat reckons that it is easier for Yerevan
    to make concessions, than for Baku. Meanwhile he concealed of
    Azerbaijan's unacceptability to escalate warlike rhetoric in the
    current situation. This rhetoric in the strained situation sounds more
    provocative, than the reporter's questions. Referring to the
    statements by Russian, U.S., and French Presidents, Peter Semneby
    fails to mention that Obama, Medvedev and Sarkozy insist that the
    conflict should be resolved peacefully observing all norms of the
    international law ` including the one on nations' right for
    self-determination. And intentionally protract or accelerate the day
    of this right's triumph ` is a blemish job, as Karabakhi people
    already exercised their right in the course of the war forced upon
    them and without accounting for the opinion of various European and
    other officials.
Working...
X