Tweet
ROBERT BRADTKE: I DON'T THINK THAT THE PROBLEM OF OUR INABILITY TO REACH A PEACE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN THE FORMAT OF THE MINSK GROUP OR THE FORMAT OF THE CO-CHAIRS
APA
March 21 2012
Azerbaijan
Baku. Viktoriya Dementyeva-APA. 'I don't think that the problem of
our inability to reach a peace agreement has been the format of the
Minsk Group or the format of the co-chairs.
The problem is that these are very difficult questions. The differences
between the sides are very great, and frankly, there's a lack of
trust. Changing the format is not going to address any of those
things'. The OSCE Minsk group Co-chair Robert Bradtke told in an
interview to Radio Liberty, APA reports.
'I feel that we've made a lot of substantive progress in the last
years. Again, I think the outlines of an agreement are there. There are
complications about the sequencing of steps toward a final settlement,
about fleshing out some of the details, and as I say, there's this lack
of trust which makes it much more difficult to reach agreement. So
I think rather than starting over again from some new perspective
with some new format, the sides have told us that they want to work
in this format [and] that they accept this format'- he added.
According to Bradtke for 20 years of its activity the Minsk Group has
done three important things: it has helped be a factor for stability
and helped defuse tensions, be a channel for communication between
and among the parties and could develop a common basis for negotiation.
'We've worked very hard with the parties to try to develop this
framework document. We haven't succeeded yet. But I point to the
statement of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan made when
they were in Sochi in January of this year with [Russian] President
[Dmitry] Medvedev, when they expressed readiness to accelerate work
on this document. I think there's no question we're closer today than
we were 20 years ago. I think the sides understand the basic elements
of what a settlement should look like. They've articulated, and we've
articulated with them, elements that are captured by the presidents in
the joint statements they made at the summits in L'Aquila, in Muskoka,
and last year in Deauville'.
Commenting the questions on the developing a mechanism to investigate
cease-fire violations along the Nagorno-Karabakh line of contact, the
Co-chair said that they have given ideas to the sides on the issue and
discussed them when we were in the region just a couple of weeks ago.
'So we will continue to work on this and try to develop ideas that
the sides can agree upon.'
R. Bradtke welcomed the the idea of people-to-people dialogue. 'It
is important. If you look back from the a 20-year perspective, what
we now see is a generation in Armenia and Azerbaijan growing up that
has really not lived side by side. So people-to-people contacts can
help play a role there, but one of the challenges is to do this in
a way that is constructive [and] to do it in a way that is genuine.
People-to-people contacts don't work if they are used by the sides for
political purposes or are politicized. If they are used to continue
arguments about who was at fault or who did wrong to whom 20 years ago,
that's not going to help move things forward.'
APA
March 21 2012
Azerbaijan
Baku. Viktoriya Dementyeva-APA. 'I don't think that the problem of
our inability to reach a peace agreement has been the format of the
Minsk Group or the format of the co-chairs.
The problem is that these are very difficult questions. The differences
between the sides are very great, and frankly, there's a lack of
trust. Changing the format is not going to address any of those
things'. The OSCE Minsk group Co-chair Robert Bradtke told in an
interview to Radio Liberty, APA reports.
'I feel that we've made a lot of substantive progress in the last
years. Again, I think the outlines of an agreement are there. There are
complications about the sequencing of steps toward a final settlement,
about fleshing out some of the details, and as I say, there's this lack
of trust which makes it much more difficult to reach agreement. So
I think rather than starting over again from some new perspective
with some new format, the sides have told us that they want to work
in this format [and] that they accept this format'- he added.
According to Bradtke for 20 years of its activity the Minsk Group has
done three important things: it has helped be a factor for stability
and helped defuse tensions, be a channel for communication between
and among the parties and could develop a common basis for negotiation.
'We've worked very hard with the parties to try to develop this
framework document. We haven't succeeded yet. But I point to the
statement of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan made when
they were in Sochi in January of this year with [Russian] President
[Dmitry] Medvedev, when they expressed readiness to accelerate work
on this document. I think there's no question we're closer today than
we were 20 years ago. I think the sides understand the basic elements
of what a settlement should look like. They've articulated, and we've
articulated with them, elements that are captured by the presidents in
the joint statements they made at the summits in L'Aquila, in Muskoka,
and last year in Deauville'.
Commenting the questions on the developing a mechanism to investigate
cease-fire violations along the Nagorno-Karabakh line of contact, the
Co-chair said that they have given ideas to the sides on the issue and
discussed them when we were in the region just a couple of weeks ago.
'So we will continue to work on this and try to develop ideas that
the sides can agree upon.'
R. Bradtke welcomed the the idea of people-to-people dialogue. 'It
is important. If you look back from the a 20-year perspective, what
we now see is a generation in Armenia and Azerbaijan growing up that
has really not lived side by side. So people-to-people contacts can
help play a role there, but one of the challenges is to do this in
a way that is constructive [and] to do it in a way that is genuine.
People-to-people contacts don't work if they are used by the sides for
political purposes or are politicized. If they are used to continue
arguments about who was at fault or who did wrong to whom 20 years ago,
that's not going to help move things forward.'