Tweet
ASTRAKHAN TRILATERAL MEETING: PROGRESS OR...?
Panorama
Oct 28 2010
Armenia
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a statement following the
trilateral meeting of the Armenian, Russian and Azerbaijani Presidents
in Astrakhan October 27, saying: ~SI consider these meetings useful.
First, because the talks are always better than the active phase of the
conflict, second, this cannot be only termed as talks but advance.~T
>>From the first sight, Russian President~Rs statement comes to
hint Astrakhan meeting holds some progress. In fact, the sides
agreed to exchange war prisoners and bodies of those killed. Yet,
can it be called progress? Perhaps, though, it depends what we take
as a start-point.
If it is the situation created by the Azerbaijani side lately (regular
cease-fire violations, subversive activities, violent assassination
of lost people and captives) that we take as a start-point, we can
say the agreement to exchange captives and bodies is progress, indeed.
Moreover, it~Rs very significant advance as this agreement and its
implementation assumes that the lives of civilians and soldiers
near the line of contact are less endangered than they were before
Astrakhan agreement. On the other hand, one can only wonder why a
statement was needed, moreover, why the sides needed to negotiate
to agree on it when all the prescribed provisions derive from the
direct obligations of the states they have assumed in the frames of
the international humanitarian law. However, at least here the sides
were able to make a positive advance and this can only be hailed.
As regards the effect of the statement on the conflict in general,
here there is some progress reached as well. Eventually, it~Rs not
a secret that the increase of tension lately was mainly conditioned
by this very humanitarian factor. The analysis of the development
of the course of events allows to say the tension was a result of
practicing ~Sresponse steps~T. Hopefully, Astrakhan agreement will
break the closed cycle and will ease the current tension.
To take the issue from a wider point of view, we can say Astrakhan
meeting registered no substantial changes. Noting that the settlement
of the conflict has never been bypassed at any meeting and voicing a
hope that the basic principles of settlement of the conflict could be
coordinated within a month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev added:
~SThere are still lots of issues, but there is also will from both
sides to reach agreement on yet non-agreed, textual controversies. I
think, results are possible to achieve. This seems somehow optimistic.
Yet, the essential part of the work is still to come.~T
This statement inspires no optimism. The term ~Stextual controversy~T
is a kind of euphemism and it would be confusing to think this is the
only reason the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides cannot reach agreement.
In fact, the discord is quite deep while it becomes textual only
around a negotiating table. Consequently, the sides will not manage
to overcome these within a month and the presidents well realize this.
To sum up, we can say that Astrakhan meeting, like the previous
trilateral meetings, recorded no progress in terms of the conflict
resolution. The meetings are more aimed at making the conflict more
managible, and controlled, while ~Qthe general settlement issue~R is
merely not bypassed.
From: A. Papazian
Panorama
Oct 28 2010
Armenia
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a statement following the
trilateral meeting of the Armenian, Russian and Azerbaijani Presidents
in Astrakhan October 27, saying: ~SI consider these meetings useful.
First, because the talks are always better than the active phase of the
conflict, second, this cannot be only termed as talks but advance.~T
>>From the first sight, Russian President~Rs statement comes to
hint Astrakhan meeting holds some progress. In fact, the sides
agreed to exchange war prisoners and bodies of those killed. Yet,
can it be called progress? Perhaps, though, it depends what we take
as a start-point.
If it is the situation created by the Azerbaijani side lately (regular
cease-fire violations, subversive activities, violent assassination
of lost people and captives) that we take as a start-point, we can
say the agreement to exchange captives and bodies is progress, indeed.
Moreover, it~Rs very significant advance as this agreement and its
implementation assumes that the lives of civilians and soldiers
near the line of contact are less endangered than they were before
Astrakhan agreement. On the other hand, one can only wonder why a
statement was needed, moreover, why the sides needed to negotiate
to agree on it when all the prescribed provisions derive from the
direct obligations of the states they have assumed in the frames of
the international humanitarian law. However, at least here the sides
were able to make a positive advance and this can only be hailed.
As regards the effect of the statement on the conflict in general,
here there is some progress reached as well. Eventually, it~Rs not
a secret that the increase of tension lately was mainly conditioned
by this very humanitarian factor. The analysis of the development
of the course of events allows to say the tension was a result of
practicing ~Sresponse steps~T. Hopefully, Astrakhan agreement will
break the closed cycle and will ease the current tension.
To take the issue from a wider point of view, we can say Astrakhan
meeting registered no substantial changes. Noting that the settlement
of the conflict has never been bypassed at any meeting and voicing a
hope that the basic principles of settlement of the conflict could be
coordinated within a month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev added:
~SThere are still lots of issues, but there is also will from both
sides to reach agreement on yet non-agreed, textual controversies. I
think, results are possible to achieve. This seems somehow optimistic.
Yet, the essential part of the work is still to come.~T
This statement inspires no optimism. The term ~Stextual controversy~T
is a kind of euphemism and it would be confusing to think this is the
only reason the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides cannot reach agreement.
In fact, the discord is quite deep while it becomes textual only
around a negotiating table. Consequently, the sides will not manage
to overcome these within a month and the presidents well realize this.
To sum up, we can say that Astrakhan meeting, like the previous
trilateral meetings, recorded no progress in terms of the conflict
resolution. The meetings are more aimed at making the conflict more
managible, and controlled, while ~Qthe general settlement issue~R is
merely not bypassed.
From: A. Papazian