Tweet
THREE DIFFERENTIALS OF G20 STATEMENT: MG CO-CHAIRS CRITICIZE AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA, PLAN TO GO FROM PERSUASION TO COERCION.
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow reporter
28.06.12
During the G20 Summit in Los Cabos on June 18 leaders of the United
States, France and Russia adopted a joint statement on the Karabakh
conflict.
The leaders emphasized that "The parties to the conflict should not
further delay making the important decisions necessary to reach a
lasting and peaceful settlement." They also called upon "the leaders of
Armenia and Azerbaijan to fulfill the commitment ... to "accelerate"
reaching agreement on the Basic Principles for a Settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict."
The co-chairs also expressed their "regret that the Presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia did not take the decisive steps that our
countries called for".
Never before had the MG co-chairs' statement been so condemning and
critical; that's the first main differential aspect of their statement,
the second being the rather strict warning to leaders of Azerbaijan
and Armenia emphasizing the importance of making mutual concessions.
"As evidence of their political will, they should refrain from
maximalist positions in the negotiations, respect the 1994 ceasefire
agreement, and abstain from hostile rhetoric that increases tension.
We urge the leaders to be guided by the principles of the Helsinki
Final Act - particularly those relating to the non-use of force or
the threat of force, territorial integrity, and equal rights and
self-determination of peoples."
The third differential is that the co-chairing countries seem to be
laying down their liabilities of warrants guaranteeing non-resumption
of active hostilities: "Military force will not resolve the conflict
...
We call upon them to make full use of the assistance of the Minsk
Group Co-Chairs as mediators. However, peace will depend ultimately
upon the parties' willingness to seek an agreement based on mutual
understanding, rather than one-sided advantage, and a shared vision
of the benefits that peace will bring to all their peoples and to
future generations."
Within the framework of Security Days conference held in Vienna,
OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier touched upon the issue on
June 26, expressing his concerns over the lack of progress in the
negotiation process.
"There is an increasing concern there, because the frustration seems to
be increasing.There have been very robust efforts, political efforts
to really try to move things forward. The sides have been very close
to agree to a set of common principles on the basis of which they
could build a solution... But it's not moving," he said.
Like the MG co-chairs Zannier, too, criticized the positions of both
presidents - Armenia and Azerbaijan.
"There are reasons for concerns. We tried to apply mechanisms, but for
whatever reasons one of the sides always blocks those initiatives. If
one of the parties agrees, the other regards it as a bad initiative...
It is really one of those issues where you wonder whether it's
about the [OSCE conflict mediation] mechanism or whether the sides
are not ready to take steps and make decisions that involve certain
compromises," he said.
In the meantime, (the same day when the OSCE leader voiced his
concerns) the Azeri president made another radical statement in Baku
while addressing the Highest Military College graduates.
"Azerbaijan is ready to liberate its lands from under occupation, and
that's the main task of our country," he said. "Over the past few years
our military expenses have increased twenty times, currently totaling
to $3.6 billion, which exceeds all of Armenia's state expenses by 50
percent. Our lands are under occupation. That occupation is ongoing
and has to be put an end to."
More than 20 factories and military manufacturing entities have been
founded in Azerbaijan, presently producing 665 types of military items.
"Economically Azerbaijan is ten times stronger than Armenia. Our
state budget is ten times bigger, so are our military expenses. I
am convinced that due to all these factors we will achieve our goal,
right the wrong, and restore Azerbaijan's sovereignty. Nagorno Karabakh
is Azerbaijan's inseparable part," said Aliyev.
On June 27 the Armenian president stated in response: "Azerbaijan's
policy led over the past one year, militaristic statements and
ungrounded self-confidence create tensions both on the line of contact
and on the Azeri-Armenian border."
He also reminded that the Los Cabos statement calls to settle the
issue based on three principles:
"Azerbaijan shows maximalist approach and in reality accepts only
one of the three principles, that is of territorial integrity,
excluding equal rights and self-determination of peoples and the
peaceful settlement of the conflict," said Sargsyan.
All of the recent developments "on the democratic front" indicate
that international structures intend to change their approach to
the settlement process and go from "persuasion" to "coercion" of the
sides to peaceful settlement.
How exactly it might be done is still a question even for the mediators
themselves.
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow reporter
28.06.12
During the G20 Summit in Los Cabos on June 18 leaders of the United
States, France and Russia adopted a joint statement on the Karabakh
conflict.
The leaders emphasized that "The parties to the conflict should not
further delay making the important decisions necessary to reach a
lasting and peaceful settlement." They also called upon "the leaders of
Armenia and Azerbaijan to fulfill the commitment ... to "accelerate"
reaching agreement on the Basic Principles for a Settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict."
The co-chairs also expressed their "regret that the Presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia did not take the decisive steps that our
countries called for".
Never before had the MG co-chairs' statement been so condemning and
critical; that's the first main differential aspect of their statement,
the second being the rather strict warning to leaders of Azerbaijan
and Armenia emphasizing the importance of making mutual concessions.
"As evidence of their political will, they should refrain from
maximalist positions in the negotiations, respect the 1994 ceasefire
agreement, and abstain from hostile rhetoric that increases tension.
We urge the leaders to be guided by the principles of the Helsinki
Final Act - particularly those relating to the non-use of force or
the threat of force, territorial integrity, and equal rights and
self-determination of peoples."
The third differential is that the co-chairing countries seem to be
laying down their liabilities of warrants guaranteeing non-resumption
of active hostilities: "Military force will not resolve the conflict
...
We call upon them to make full use of the assistance of the Minsk
Group Co-Chairs as mediators. However, peace will depend ultimately
upon the parties' willingness to seek an agreement based on mutual
understanding, rather than one-sided advantage, and a shared vision
of the benefits that peace will bring to all their peoples and to
future generations."
Within the framework of Security Days conference held in Vienna,
OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier touched upon the issue on
June 26, expressing his concerns over the lack of progress in the
negotiation process.
"There is an increasing concern there, because the frustration seems to
be increasing.There have been very robust efforts, political efforts
to really try to move things forward. The sides have been very close
to agree to a set of common principles on the basis of which they
could build a solution... But it's not moving," he said.
Like the MG co-chairs Zannier, too, criticized the positions of both
presidents - Armenia and Azerbaijan.
"There are reasons for concerns. We tried to apply mechanisms, but for
whatever reasons one of the sides always blocks those initiatives. If
one of the parties agrees, the other regards it as a bad initiative...
It is really one of those issues where you wonder whether it's
about the [OSCE conflict mediation] mechanism or whether the sides
are not ready to take steps and make decisions that involve certain
compromises," he said.
In the meantime, (the same day when the OSCE leader voiced his
concerns) the Azeri president made another radical statement in Baku
while addressing the Highest Military College graduates.
"Azerbaijan is ready to liberate its lands from under occupation, and
that's the main task of our country," he said. "Over the past few years
our military expenses have increased twenty times, currently totaling
to $3.6 billion, which exceeds all of Armenia's state expenses by 50
percent. Our lands are under occupation. That occupation is ongoing
and has to be put an end to."
More than 20 factories and military manufacturing entities have been
founded in Azerbaijan, presently producing 665 types of military items.
"Economically Azerbaijan is ten times stronger than Armenia. Our
state budget is ten times bigger, so are our military expenses. I
am convinced that due to all these factors we will achieve our goal,
right the wrong, and restore Azerbaijan's sovereignty. Nagorno Karabakh
is Azerbaijan's inseparable part," said Aliyev.
On June 27 the Armenian president stated in response: "Azerbaijan's
policy led over the past one year, militaristic statements and
ungrounded self-confidence create tensions both on the line of contact
and on the Azeri-Armenian border."
He also reminded that the Los Cabos statement calls to settle the
issue based on three principles:
"Azerbaijan shows maximalist approach and in reality accepts only
one of the three principles, that is of territorial integrity,
excluding equal rights and self-determination of peoples and the
peaceful settlement of the conflict," said Sargsyan.
All of the recent developments "on the democratic front" indicate
that international structures intend to change their approach to
the settlement process and go from "persuasion" to "coercion" of the
sides to peaceful settlement.
How exactly it might be done is still a question even for the mediators
themselves.