Tweet
ON WHOSE BEHALF BRYZA SPEAKS
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics25116.html
Published: 13:46:59 - 13/02/2012
Mathew Bryza was not appointed Ambassador in Azerbaijan, but
according to him, this is related to the upcoming elections in the
U.S. rather than the Armenian lobby. Bryza did not go into details
of how his appointment could be connected with the elections,
though he hinted that he was engaged in the Karabakh issue during
the Bush administrations and then this issue was a more important
priority than the Armenian and Turkish relations supported by the
Obama administration.
Bryza gave an interesting interview to the Turkish Hurriyet in which
he warned the current U.S. administration that the "artificial"
affirmation that there are no ties between the Karabakh issue and the
Armenian and Turkish normalization condemns to death the prospects
of settlement of the conflict "since it makes any compromises by the
Armenian party impossible. Actually Armenia will receive great benefit
from the opening of the borders with Turkey without any compromise
in the Karabakh issue", said Bryza.
Such sincerity by the American diplomat evidences that, being the U.S.
Ambassador for one year in Baku, he did everything for the Karabakh
issue to hinder the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish
relations. He did it in spite of his administration which has
numerously stated there is no connection between these two issues.
Perhaps, Bryza meant this when speaking of his appointment. It is
not ruled out that the State Dept. blames Bryza of the collapse of
the Armenian and Turkish process because the main obstacle to the
normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey was Baku,
where Bryza worked as Ambassador.
Anyway, Mathew Bryza, who worked as the American Co-Chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group, does not hide that he would prefer the settlement of the
conflict in favor of Azerbaijan. "For Armenia it is more important
to eliminate the risk of war and have a fair and stable settlement in
Nagorno Karabakh then direct trade links with Turkey. The U.S. needs
to focus on the progress in the Karabakh issue which is achievable.
The framework law on the peace settlement would be a progress"
thinks Bryza. At the same time, he calls on the U.S. and France to
repress Armenia and Azerbaijan. "There are a couple of fundamental,
key details that could be agreed if the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan adopted the hard and risky political decision. They won't
do that if they don't feel political support by the U.S. and France",
says Bryza.
On whose behalf is Bryza making these speeches? Are the
Turkish-Azerbaijani forces behind him or the U.S. is? But if he
represents the U.S. then not surely the current administration. Or
is the current administration going to listen to Bryza and change
its policy?
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics25116.html
Published: 13:46:59 - 13/02/2012
Mathew Bryza was not appointed Ambassador in Azerbaijan, but
according to him, this is related to the upcoming elections in the
U.S. rather than the Armenian lobby. Bryza did not go into details
of how his appointment could be connected with the elections,
though he hinted that he was engaged in the Karabakh issue during
the Bush administrations and then this issue was a more important
priority than the Armenian and Turkish relations supported by the
Obama administration.
Bryza gave an interesting interview to the Turkish Hurriyet in which
he warned the current U.S. administration that the "artificial"
affirmation that there are no ties between the Karabakh issue and the
Armenian and Turkish normalization condemns to death the prospects
of settlement of the conflict "since it makes any compromises by the
Armenian party impossible. Actually Armenia will receive great benefit
from the opening of the borders with Turkey without any compromise
in the Karabakh issue", said Bryza.
Such sincerity by the American diplomat evidences that, being the U.S.
Ambassador for one year in Baku, he did everything for the Karabakh
issue to hinder the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish
relations. He did it in spite of his administration which has
numerously stated there is no connection between these two issues.
Perhaps, Bryza meant this when speaking of his appointment. It is
not ruled out that the State Dept. blames Bryza of the collapse of
the Armenian and Turkish process because the main obstacle to the
normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey was Baku,
where Bryza worked as Ambassador.
Anyway, Mathew Bryza, who worked as the American Co-Chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group, does not hide that he would prefer the settlement of the
conflict in favor of Azerbaijan. "For Armenia it is more important
to eliminate the risk of war and have a fair and stable settlement in
Nagorno Karabakh then direct trade links with Turkey. The U.S. needs
to focus on the progress in the Karabakh issue which is achievable.
The framework law on the peace settlement would be a progress"
thinks Bryza. At the same time, he calls on the U.S. and France to
repress Armenia and Azerbaijan. "There are a couple of fundamental,
key details that could be agreed if the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan adopted the hard and risky political decision. They won't
do that if they don't feel political support by the U.S. and France",
says Bryza.
On whose behalf is Bryza making these speeches? Are the
Turkish-Azerbaijani forces behind him or the U.S. is? But if he
represents the U.S. then not surely the current administration. Or
is the current administration going to listen to Bryza and change
its policy?