Tweet
NEIGHBORS-ENEMIES
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=888:n eighbors-enemies-&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Monday, 24 December 2012 16:09
The Dublin statement is not worth a brass farthing under the militant
position of Baku
As you know, on December 6-7, the 19th meeting of the OSCE Foreign
Ministers' Council took place in Dublin, at which the heads of the
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing states' delegations - Foreign Minister
of Russia Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
and Minister-Delegate for European Affairs of France Bernard Kazenev
- issued a statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It called on
the parties to demonstrate a political will for achieving a peaceful
settlement of the conflict. "We call on the parties to refrain from
actions and statements that may promote the feelings of enmity among
the population and have been a source of tension for the recent
months. The leaders of the parties should prepare their societies
for the day that they will again live as neighbors and not enemies
", the statement emphasized.
And what was the reaction of the parties to the appeal of the mediators
for pacifism? It was quite predictable. The Armenian party, in the
person of Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, welcomed the statement
of the representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing states,
noting the compliance of its provisions with Armenia's position. As for
Azerbaijan, it did not fall out of its determined militaristic canvas
and once again ignored the appeal of the mediators for achieving an
exclusively peaceful solution to the conflict. Hardly had the echoes
of the Dublin meeting of the OSCE Foreign Ministers calmed down,
Baku resumed its talks about the possibility of a military solution
to the problem.
Just ten days after Dublin, Director of the Center for Strategic
Studies under the President of Azerbaijan Farhad Mamedov stated at a
briefing on the results of the year that "the war in Nagorno-Karabakh
can resume any moment". He grounded his idea, which is worn for
official Baku, with the "lack of the third physical obstacle between
the parties to the conflict, which could prevent the resumption
of hostilities". This is with respect to the so-called technical
ground of the mamedov viewpoint. As for the legal aspect, the Azeri
"central strategist" found it necessary to appeal to international law:
"It is the right of every sovereign state to use weapons to protect
its territorial integrity". Note that the threat of war is not voiced
by one of the Azerbaijani deputies who, in contrast to the domestic
issues, are free in their utterances concerning the Karabakh conflict.
It isn't either voiced by an opposition leader who is free of any
power and, consequently, of any responsibility. The author of the
threats is an official from the Azerbaijani President's team, and
for this reason, the international mediators should not indifferently
brush aside this statement.
Drawing attention to another fact of official Baku's militaristic
rhetoric, we are not going to impress with this the international
structures involved in the Karabakh conflict settlement. Surely
not, because Azerbaijan has blackmailed, for a long period and at
the highest level, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the
international community with the threat of war resumption, and the
statement of the head of the Center for Strategic Studies is just a
paraphrase of the numerous militant statements by President Aliyev.
Nagorno-Karabakh is got used to the verbal exercises of the Azerbaijani
party's militant rhetoric. We just want to draw the attention of
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the trends in the foreign policy
of Azerbaijan in the context of the Karabakh settlement, and to be
more precise - to their immutability.
The conflict settlement experience has convincingly proved that
Azerbaijan cannot be taken as a compulsory party to the negotiations,
because it either undermined the achieved agreements or merely ignored
them. At the same time Baku is behaving hypocritically, declaring its
interest in a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the auspices
of the Minsk Group, but actually undermining the negotiation process
and continuing the militarization of the country. The hypocrisy lies
also in the fact that Azerbaijan tries to disguise its pan-Turkic
policy with international law, using it for justifying its new armed
aggression against the independent NKR. Speculating with the principle
of territorial integrity and representing itself as a victim of
armed aggression, it tries to draw a legitimate basis for its openly
revanchist concept of military solutions to the conflict. Meanwhile,
the facts testify to the contrary - it was Nagorno-Karabakh that
became a victim of the Azerbaijani military aggression and used its
his right to self-defense. And it is important to note that official
Stepanakert doesn't avoid the discussion of issues related to the
elimination of the consequences of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan.
Rejecting the direct negotiations with Nagorno Karabakh, the
Azerbaijani leadership demonstrates a clear lack of interest in
addressing these issues.
We'd like to believe that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and other
international structures will not limit with general, and therefore,
ineffective calls and will ultimately give a strict and adequate
assessment to the dangerous actions of the Azerbaijani authorities. In
order that the thesis proposed in Dublin to the leaders of the parties
on the necessity "to prepare their societies for the day that they
will again live as neighbors and not enemies" comes true.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
From: Baghdasarian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=888:n eighbors-enemies-&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Monday, 24 December 2012 16:09
The Dublin statement is not worth a brass farthing under the militant
position of Baku
As you know, on December 6-7, the 19th meeting of the OSCE Foreign
Ministers' Council took place in Dublin, at which the heads of the
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing states' delegations - Foreign Minister
of Russia Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
and Minister-Delegate for European Affairs of France Bernard Kazenev
- issued a statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It called on
the parties to demonstrate a political will for achieving a peaceful
settlement of the conflict. "We call on the parties to refrain from
actions and statements that may promote the feelings of enmity among
the population and have been a source of tension for the recent
months. The leaders of the parties should prepare their societies
for the day that they will again live as neighbors and not enemies
", the statement emphasized.
And what was the reaction of the parties to the appeal of the mediators
for pacifism? It was quite predictable. The Armenian party, in the
person of Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, welcomed the statement
of the representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing states,
noting the compliance of its provisions with Armenia's position. As for
Azerbaijan, it did not fall out of its determined militaristic canvas
and once again ignored the appeal of the mediators for achieving an
exclusively peaceful solution to the conflict. Hardly had the echoes
of the Dublin meeting of the OSCE Foreign Ministers calmed down,
Baku resumed its talks about the possibility of a military solution
to the problem.
Just ten days after Dublin, Director of the Center for Strategic
Studies under the President of Azerbaijan Farhad Mamedov stated at a
briefing on the results of the year that "the war in Nagorno-Karabakh
can resume any moment". He grounded his idea, which is worn for
official Baku, with the "lack of the third physical obstacle between
the parties to the conflict, which could prevent the resumption
of hostilities". This is with respect to the so-called technical
ground of the mamedov viewpoint. As for the legal aspect, the Azeri
"central strategist" found it necessary to appeal to international law:
"It is the right of every sovereign state to use weapons to protect
its territorial integrity". Note that the threat of war is not voiced
by one of the Azerbaijani deputies who, in contrast to the domestic
issues, are free in their utterances concerning the Karabakh conflict.
It isn't either voiced by an opposition leader who is free of any
power and, consequently, of any responsibility. The author of the
threats is an official from the Azerbaijani President's team, and
for this reason, the international mediators should not indifferently
brush aside this statement.
Drawing attention to another fact of official Baku's militaristic
rhetoric, we are not going to impress with this the international
structures involved in the Karabakh conflict settlement. Surely
not, because Azerbaijan has blackmailed, for a long period and at
the highest level, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the
international community with the threat of war resumption, and the
statement of the head of the Center for Strategic Studies is just a
paraphrase of the numerous militant statements by President Aliyev.
Nagorno-Karabakh is got used to the verbal exercises of the Azerbaijani
party's militant rhetoric. We just want to draw the attention of
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the trends in the foreign policy
of Azerbaijan in the context of the Karabakh settlement, and to be
more precise - to their immutability.
The conflict settlement experience has convincingly proved that
Azerbaijan cannot be taken as a compulsory party to the negotiations,
because it either undermined the achieved agreements or merely ignored
them. At the same time Baku is behaving hypocritically, declaring its
interest in a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the auspices
of the Minsk Group, but actually undermining the negotiation process
and continuing the militarization of the country. The hypocrisy lies
also in the fact that Azerbaijan tries to disguise its pan-Turkic
policy with international law, using it for justifying its new armed
aggression against the independent NKR. Speculating with the principle
of territorial integrity and representing itself as a victim of
armed aggression, it tries to draw a legitimate basis for its openly
revanchist concept of military solutions to the conflict. Meanwhile,
the facts testify to the contrary - it was Nagorno-Karabakh that
became a victim of the Azerbaijani military aggression and used its
his right to self-defense. And it is important to note that official
Stepanakert doesn't avoid the discussion of issues related to the
elimination of the consequences of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan.
Rejecting the direct negotiations with Nagorno Karabakh, the
Azerbaijani leadership demonstrates a clear lack of interest in
addressing these issues.
We'd like to believe that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and other
international structures will not limit with general, and therefore,
ineffective calls and will ultimately give a strict and adequate
assessment to the dangerous actions of the Azerbaijani authorities. In
order that the thesis proposed in Dublin to the leaders of the parties
on the necessity "to prepare their societies for the day that they
will again live as neighbors and not enemies" comes true.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
From: Baghdasarian