Tweet
ARMENIA 'WANTS TO REJECT' KARABAKH PEACE PRINCIPLES
news.az
March 29 2010
Azerbaijan
Rasim Musabeyov News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist
Rasim Musabeyov.
The OSCE Minsk Group, which was set up to mediate a settlement to
the Karabakh conflict, recently turned 18. What can you say about
the work of the group?
Its work has produced no effect. In terms of results, the Minsk
Group's efforts can be considered fruitless, but it would also be
wrong to say that the group has not worked. It has put in effort,
it has presented at least three proposals and a round of talks on the
Madrid principles is under way. On the whole, the Minsk Group is the
most influential mediation structure as far as it is possible.
Can the Minsk Group be expected to make achievements in the settlement
process?
By saying Minsk Group, we mean not the officials that are represented
there, but the countries participating in it. If the three Minsk
Group co-chairing countries - the United States, France and Russia -
show willingness to promote the process, their political resource
will be enough for this.
The lack of results in the settlement process used to be linked to
discrepancies in position among the mediating countries. Now they
say they have no differences and hold the same position. Does this
guarantee rapid progress on a settlement?
Certainly, there are areas in which they adhere to the same position.
They do not want hostilities here and, on the whole, they do not want
to offend Armenia - on this they hold the same position. The Minsk
Group co-chairs do not want to put strong pressure on Armenia. But
each of the co-chairing countries hopes to persuade Azerbaijan to make
concessions in order to take both countries under their control. In
addition, every co-chairing country wants to gain dividends for
itself. However, they want to gain dividends only from Azerbaijan
because they can take nothing from Armenia. Here, we see the illusion
because, on the one hand, they do not want to put pressure on Armenia
and do not want war and on the other hand they want to gain something
from Azerbaijan if progress is made. However, their tactics have not
been effective yet.
If Azerbaijan's position is justified in terms of international law,
why do the co-chairs find it difficult to make Armenia more compliant
during negotiations?
If there are definite interests, there are definite sympathies and
these sympathies are on the side of the Armenians. There are strong
Armenian lobby organizations and a large Armenian diaspora in all of
the three mediating countries. Naturally, this makes its mark on the
policy of these countries. But international law is in Azerbaijan's
favour. And the interest of these countries in Azerbaijan is real,
not just emotional as it is with Armenia. International law sets the
framework but cannot ensure compliance. What the sides agree on will
comply with international law. Azerbaijan cannot be forced to give
part of its land to Armenia, but attempts are being made to persuade
it to do so.
What can you say about the Armenian president's appeal to Azerbaijan
to sign a document on the non-use of force?
This is absurd and a provincial attempt to deceive public opinion. A
specific document presented by the mediators is on the table and the
attitude towards it must be defined. The document also contains the
subject of Sargsyan's appeal, that is, the subject of the non-use
of force. This document encompasses everything. Instead of defining
their attitude towards the definite document on the table which is
the result of six years of negotiations, Sargsyan suddenly started
to make some absurd proposals out of context. In fact, this means
that he does not want to accept the Madrid principles in the form in
which they have been presented and wants to start the discussion of
the problem according to his own rules. This is completely absurd.
Does this mean that Armenia is trying to protract the negotiations
again?
It means that the Armenian side in fact wants to reject the Madrid
principles but in a way that would allow it to present itself as a
peace-loving country.
news.az
March 29 2010
Azerbaijan
Rasim Musabeyov News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist
Rasim Musabeyov.
The OSCE Minsk Group, which was set up to mediate a settlement to
the Karabakh conflict, recently turned 18. What can you say about
the work of the group?
Its work has produced no effect. In terms of results, the Minsk
Group's efforts can be considered fruitless, but it would also be
wrong to say that the group has not worked. It has put in effort,
it has presented at least three proposals and a round of talks on the
Madrid principles is under way. On the whole, the Minsk Group is the
most influential mediation structure as far as it is possible.
Can the Minsk Group be expected to make achievements in the settlement
process?
By saying Minsk Group, we mean not the officials that are represented
there, but the countries participating in it. If the three Minsk
Group co-chairing countries - the United States, France and Russia -
show willingness to promote the process, their political resource
will be enough for this.
The lack of results in the settlement process used to be linked to
discrepancies in position among the mediating countries. Now they
say they have no differences and hold the same position. Does this
guarantee rapid progress on a settlement?
Certainly, there are areas in which they adhere to the same position.
They do not want hostilities here and, on the whole, they do not want
to offend Armenia - on this they hold the same position. The Minsk
Group co-chairs do not want to put strong pressure on Armenia. But
each of the co-chairing countries hopes to persuade Azerbaijan to make
concessions in order to take both countries under their control. In
addition, every co-chairing country wants to gain dividends for
itself. However, they want to gain dividends only from Azerbaijan
because they can take nothing from Armenia. Here, we see the illusion
because, on the one hand, they do not want to put pressure on Armenia
and do not want war and on the other hand they want to gain something
from Azerbaijan if progress is made. However, their tactics have not
been effective yet.
If Azerbaijan's position is justified in terms of international law,
why do the co-chairs find it difficult to make Armenia more compliant
during negotiations?
If there are definite interests, there are definite sympathies and
these sympathies are on the side of the Armenians. There are strong
Armenian lobby organizations and a large Armenian diaspora in all of
the three mediating countries. Naturally, this makes its mark on the
policy of these countries. But international law is in Azerbaijan's
favour. And the interest of these countries in Azerbaijan is real,
not just emotional as it is with Armenia. International law sets the
framework but cannot ensure compliance. What the sides agree on will
comply with international law. Azerbaijan cannot be forced to give
part of its land to Armenia, but attempts are being made to persuade
it to do so.
What can you say about the Armenian president's appeal to Azerbaijan
to sign a document on the non-use of force?
This is absurd and a provincial attempt to deceive public opinion. A
specific document presented by the mediators is on the table and the
attitude towards it must be defined. The document also contains the
subject of Sargsyan's appeal, that is, the subject of the non-use
of force. This document encompasses everything. Instead of defining
their attitude towards the definite document on the table which is
the result of six years of negotiations, Sargsyan suddenly started
to make some absurd proposals out of context. In fact, this means
that he does not want to accept the Madrid principles in the form in
which they have been presented and wants to start the discussion of
the problem according to his own rules. This is completely absurd.
Does this mean that Armenia is trying to protract the negotiations
again?
It means that the Armenian side in fact wants to reject the Madrid
principles but in a way that would allow it to present itself as a
peace-loving country.