Tweet
ANYTHING NEW IN PARIS?
James Hakobyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26589.html
Published: 11:12:51 - 19/06/2012
In the morning of June 18, when the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers were preparing for their scheduled meeting mediated by the
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, an Armenian soldier was killed by the
Azerbaijani sniper.
It is difficult to tell whether the co-chairs and the ministers had
learnt about the incident when the meeting started. Anyway, there was
no word on the death of the soldier in their final statement. On the
contrary, the statement dwelt on the necessity to develop mechanisms
to investigate border incidents and activate humanitarian contacts.
Are they the new proposals about which the U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton had stated?
They are not new and there was nothing new in the Paris statement.
What have the parties been proposed? Was there anything the ministers
need to agree on with the presidents of the countries and to go on
to make it known to the public?
The announced visit of the Co-Chairs to the region in the next few
weeks proves that they will come to learn about the reaction of
the sides.
Once new proposals were made known to public before the reaction
of the states when after a meeting initiated by Russia the co-chairs
announced that the parties were given two weeks to issue their position
on the new principles. Then Armenia rejected the new proposals stating
that everything was already there in the principles of Madrid, while
Azerbaijan accepted the new proposals.
This contradictory picture placed the co-chairs in an awkward
situation, especially Russia, which was active as a mediator in that
stage. Apparently, after having learnt this lesson, nothing is said
about the new proposals until Sargsyan's and Aliyev's reaction.
However, in this case, they place Hillary Clinton in an awkward
situation who has already stated about some new proposals to be
introduced in Paris. If Aliyev and Sargsyan reject these proposals
and nothing is said about them, it will become clear that no new
proposals existed. Although, perhaps, Clinton who will soon leave
politics does not care for the possible inconveniency. Apparently,
Hillary Clinton is just trying to mark her regional visit through
the advertisement of the Paris meeting.
In general, the Paris meeting seemed to be sudden, since Clinton's
message was the first, and had not been preceded by any leak on this
meeting in the Armenian or Azeri press.
The meeting in Paris was certainly initiated by the U.S. when Clinton's
visit was "shot" in the region. Consequently, the important thing for
the U.S. is not the proposals but the meeting itself. It is noteable
that Paris helped Washington to organize the meeting, and Moscow had
nothing else to do but to agree.
By the way, it is interesting that there was no word on a possible
statement by the presidents of the U.S., France and Russia Obama,
Hollande and Putin at the G 20 summit but it happened. It contained
nothing new, it was just an appeal to the parties to accelerate the
Framework Agreement, as well as to reject use of force.
Apparently, the actors involved in the settlement of the Karabakh issue
tend to keep intact whatever is there and not to propose anything new.
James Hakobyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26589.html
Published: 11:12:51 - 19/06/2012
In the morning of June 18, when the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers were preparing for their scheduled meeting mediated by the
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, an Armenian soldier was killed by the
Azerbaijani sniper.
It is difficult to tell whether the co-chairs and the ministers had
learnt about the incident when the meeting started. Anyway, there was
no word on the death of the soldier in their final statement. On the
contrary, the statement dwelt on the necessity to develop mechanisms
to investigate border incidents and activate humanitarian contacts.
Are they the new proposals about which the U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton had stated?
They are not new and there was nothing new in the Paris statement.
What have the parties been proposed? Was there anything the ministers
need to agree on with the presidents of the countries and to go on
to make it known to the public?
The announced visit of the Co-Chairs to the region in the next few
weeks proves that they will come to learn about the reaction of
the sides.
Once new proposals were made known to public before the reaction
of the states when after a meeting initiated by Russia the co-chairs
announced that the parties were given two weeks to issue their position
on the new principles. Then Armenia rejected the new proposals stating
that everything was already there in the principles of Madrid, while
Azerbaijan accepted the new proposals.
This contradictory picture placed the co-chairs in an awkward
situation, especially Russia, which was active as a mediator in that
stage. Apparently, after having learnt this lesson, nothing is said
about the new proposals until Sargsyan's and Aliyev's reaction.
However, in this case, they place Hillary Clinton in an awkward
situation who has already stated about some new proposals to be
introduced in Paris. If Aliyev and Sargsyan reject these proposals
and nothing is said about them, it will become clear that no new
proposals existed. Although, perhaps, Clinton who will soon leave
politics does not care for the possible inconveniency. Apparently,
Hillary Clinton is just trying to mark her regional visit through
the advertisement of the Paris meeting.
In general, the Paris meeting seemed to be sudden, since Clinton's
message was the first, and had not been preceded by any leak on this
meeting in the Armenian or Azeri press.
The meeting in Paris was certainly initiated by the U.S. when Clinton's
visit was "shot" in the region. Consequently, the important thing for
the U.S. is not the proposals but the meeting itself. It is noteable
that Paris helped Washington to organize the meeting, and Moscow had
nothing else to do but to agree.
By the way, it is interesting that there was no word on a possible
statement by the presidents of the U.S., France and Russia Obama,
Hollande and Putin at the G 20 summit but it happened. It contained
nothing new, it was just an appeal to the parties to accelerate the
Framework Agreement, as well as to reject use of force.
Apparently, the actors involved in the settlement of the Karabakh issue
tend to keep intact whatever is there and not to propose anything new.