Tweet
AZERBAIJAN FAILS THE PROCESS TRYING TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY
Panorama
July 19 2010
Armenia
Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers met in the capital city of
Kazakhstan Almaty on July 17. The mediators also attended the meeting.
The lack of positive assessments on the meeting results indicates that
the sides did not come to an agreement. And to all appearances, the
lack of agreement was caused by Bakuâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance. This
is not merely a supposition, but a conclusion drawn from confrontation
of facts and events preceding and following the meeting.
We had touched upon the issue before the meeting, specifically,
speaking about Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys approaches to the negotiation process
and main elements of conflict resolution.
We had shown clearly that by accepting some of the elements and
rejecting others Official Baku, in essence, rejects them. Thus Baku
uses the whole set of diplomatic instruments to leave responsibility
for process failure on the Armenian side. However, Baku fails to do it,
and it is confirmed by the statements following the meeting. First
we will view mediatorsâ~@~Y statements. OSCE co-chairing countries
Foreign Ministers issued a statement mentioning that international
communityâ~@~Ys attention is focused on Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys policy,
and use of propaganda and diplomatic tricks gave no results since
the mediators committed no mistake.
Thus, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov (as well as a bunch of other state officials and court
experts) for several months had been speaking about â~@~\accepting
Madrid Principles with some reservationsâ~@~] enumerating what they
accept and what not. Therefore, the mediators had to remind them of
the danger approaches of the kind pose.
â~@~\These elements are developed as a whole, and any attempt
to selectively single out some elements makes balanced resolution
impossible,â~@~] Sergey Lavrov, Bernard Kouchner and James Steinberg
warned when speaking about the well-known 6 elements.
Next, though Official Baku has repeatedly assumed the commitment to
resolve the conflict peacefully, it never ceased to make bellicose
statements and even provoked an armed clash on the contact line in
June, 2010. It did not slip mediatorsâ~@~Y attention, either. However,
they did not call for being restrained, neither they reminded of
sidesâ~@~Y commitments but clearly warned in this connection:
â~@~\The current situation is consequence of use of force, and its
recurrence will only lead to sufferings and destructions and will
hand down conflict and hostility to the next generations.â~@~]
And lastly, Azerbaijan had organized a long-lasting
political-informational campaign to misrepresent the conflict essence
and to use international community resources on that basis to solve
the conflict in favor of it.
Particularly, Azerbaijan attempted to show that the conflict is
a territorial argument between Azerbaijan and Armenia disregarding
Nagorno Karabakh populationâ~@~Ys rights. While co-chairing countries
representatives statement indicates that these efforts of Baku were
also vain.
â~@~\The heads of co-chairing countries delegations reaffirmed their
support to the sides in the issue of achieving peaceful agreement,
meanwhile mentioned that Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders are most
responsible for ending the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.â~@~]
Pay attention to the fact that they speak not about Armenian and
Azerbaijani authorities but Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders; the
international community has no doubt that no stable and fair problem
resolution is possible without NKR representatives.
Now letâ~@~Ys touch upon the statements of the sides. Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyanâ~@~Ys assessment is more than clear:
â~@~\The pentalateral meeting was useful, though there was no
possibility to issue a pentalateral statement, certainly, because of
Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance.â~@~]
No comments are needed: Armenian Foreign Minister explains lack of
agreement by the opposite sideâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance.
And what is Elmar Mammadyarovâ~@~Ys response?
â~@~\Personally, I formed the opinion that Armenia does not wish
progress in the negotiations,â~@~] Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
declared.
At first sight it may seem that it is a mirror statement of blaming
the Armenian side for being unconstructive, however, with a difference
that Elmar Mammadyarovâ~@~Ys statement rather related to his personal
impressions.
If Elmar Mammadyarov were Azerbaijani media correspondent and issued
a statement based on his impressions, perhaps his assessment would be
valuable. However, since he is Minister and personally took part in
the negotiations, his assessments should have been more exact. Since
his statements are not exact, it means he avoids calling things by
their name. Thus, a matter of responsibility is supposed to be here.
To all appearances, Elmar Mammadyarov and his leaders avoid
responsibility for failing the process. Because, if he confesses his
fault in the lack of agreement, he will have to give explanations
not only to the world but also in his own country.
From: A. Papazian
Panorama
July 19 2010
Armenia
Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers met in the capital city of
Kazakhstan Almaty on July 17. The mediators also attended the meeting.
The lack of positive assessments on the meeting results indicates that
the sides did not come to an agreement. And to all appearances, the
lack of agreement was caused by Bakuâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance. This
is not merely a supposition, but a conclusion drawn from confrontation
of facts and events preceding and following the meeting.
We had touched upon the issue before the meeting, specifically,
speaking about Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys approaches to the negotiation process
and main elements of conflict resolution.
We had shown clearly that by accepting some of the elements and
rejecting others Official Baku, in essence, rejects them. Thus Baku
uses the whole set of diplomatic instruments to leave responsibility
for process failure on the Armenian side. However, Baku fails to do it,
and it is confirmed by the statements following the meeting. First
we will view mediatorsâ~@~Y statements. OSCE co-chairing countries
Foreign Ministers issued a statement mentioning that international
communityâ~@~Ys attention is focused on Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys policy,
and use of propaganda and diplomatic tricks gave no results since
the mediators committed no mistake.
Thus, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov (as well as a bunch of other state officials and court
experts) for several months had been speaking about â~@~\accepting
Madrid Principles with some reservationsâ~@~] enumerating what they
accept and what not. Therefore, the mediators had to remind them of
the danger approaches of the kind pose.
â~@~\These elements are developed as a whole, and any attempt
to selectively single out some elements makes balanced resolution
impossible,â~@~] Sergey Lavrov, Bernard Kouchner and James Steinberg
warned when speaking about the well-known 6 elements.
Next, though Official Baku has repeatedly assumed the commitment to
resolve the conflict peacefully, it never ceased to make bellicose
statements and even provoked an armed clash on the contact line in
June, 2010. It did not slip mediatorsâ~@~Y attention, either. However,
they did not call for being restrained, neither they reminded of
sidesâ~@~Y commitments but clearly warned in this connection:
â~@~\The current situation is consequence of use of force, and its
recurrence will only lead to sufferings and destructions and will
hand down conflict and hostility to the next generations.â~@~]
And lastly, Azerbaijan had organized a long-lasting
political-informational campaign to misrepresent the conflict essence
and to use international community resources on that basis to solve
the conflict in favor of it.
Particularly, Azerbaijan attempted to show that the conflict is
a territorial argument between Azerbaijan and Armenia disregarding
Nagorno Karabakh populationâ~@~Ys rights. While co-chairing countries
representatives statement indicates that these efforts of Baku were
also vain.
â~@~\The heads of co-chairing countries delegations reaffirmed their
support to the sides in the issue of achieving peaceful agreement,
meanwhile mentioned that Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders are most
responsible for ending the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.â~@~]
Pay attention to the fact that they speak not about Armenian and
Azerbaijani authorities but Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders; the
international community has no doubt that no stable and fair problem
resolution is possible without NKR representatives.
Now letâ~@~Ys touch upon the statements of the sides. Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyanâ~@~Ys assessment is more than clear:
â~@~\The pentalateral meeting was useful, though there was no
possibility to issue a pentalateral statement, certainly, because of
Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance.â~@~]
No comments are needed: Armenian Foreign Minister explains lack of
agreement by the opposite sideâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance.
And what is Elmar Mammadyarovâ~@~Ys response?
â~@~\Personally, I formed the opinion that Armenia does not wish
progress in the negotiations,â~@~] Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
declared.
At first sight it may seem that it is a mirror statement of blaming
the Armenian side for being unconstructive, however, with a difference
that Elmar Mammadyarovâ~@~Ys statement rather related to his personal
impressions.
If Elmar Mammadyarov were Azerbaijani media correspondent and issued
a statement based on his impressions, perhaps his assessment would be
valuable. However, since he is Minister and personally took part in
the negotiations, his assessments should have been more exact. Since
his statements are not exact, it means he avoids calling things by
their name. Thus, a matter of responsibility is supposed to be here.
To all appearances, Elmar Mammadyarov and his leaders avoid
responsibility for failing the process. Because, if he confesses his
fault in the lack of agreement, he will have to give explanations
not only to the world but also in his own country.
From: A. Papazian