Tweet
A JUBILEE SERIES OF CRITICAL REMARKS
Leonid Martirossian
Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599:a-jubilee-series-of-critical-remarks&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Tuesday, 27 March 2012 05:38
March 24 marked 20 years of the official request for mediation in
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. On this day in 1992, the
Foreign Ministers of the states - participants of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, which in 1994 was reorganized
into Organization - OSCE) decided to convene a Conference under its
auspices in Minsk for the issue's peaceful resolution.
Convening of the Minsk Conference has not taken place so far, but the
capital of Belarus became a kind of "godfather", giving its name both
to the entire settlement process and the international cooperation of
mediators from 11 states that went down in history as the OSCE Minsk
Group. In 1994, an institute of the Minsk Group co-chairmanship was
set up, currently represented by Russia, the USA, and France.
This is what concerns the form. Now let's turn to the content. It
is quite natural that the Minsk process jubilee leads to certain
reflections, which, however, are far from being jubilee. And the
matter is not that the subject of study and discussion of the OSCE
Minsk Group is bleak in itself - that is an ethno-political conflict,
which has not been exhausted yet and continues to bring sufferings
to the people involved in it. The thing is that even after 20 years
there is no "light at the end of the tunnel".
If we analyze the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group for the past
20 years, its assets, perhaps, can include the maintenance of the
cease-fire, which is known to have been achieved in May of 1994,
primarily with the efforts of Russia. Since then, the mediators have
offered to the parties various proposals to achieve a final settlement
of the conflict, but they have not been realized so far. But, can we
blame the co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group for this? We hardly can.
It cannot be accused of the lack of efforts for bringing closer
the positions of the parties to the Karabakh conflict and ensuring
a breakthrough in the settlement process. The main reason is that
these positions are diametrically opposite, mainly because of the
destructiveness of Azerbaijan, which does not give up the policy of a
military solution to the problem, openly disregards international law,
and avoids direct negotiations with representatives of the NKR.
It should be noted that the differences between Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh on the one hand, and Azerbaijan - on the other hand
are also in the estimation of the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group
itself. It can be noted that, despite some criticism, the Armenian
party evaluates its activities as generally positive, which cannot be
said about the Azerbaijani party, which has repeatedly exposed the
OSCE MG co-chairs to obstruction, accusing them of the lack of any
results, and admitted the possibility of changing the negotiations'
format. The irony is that official Baku, which initiated the military
aggression against Nagorno Karabakh and is responsible both for its
impact and for the current situation in the settlement process,
tries to blame the Armenian party for all the wrongs and to gain
international pressure on it.
Due to the similar behavior of Azerbaijan, or more precisely, the
tolerant attitude to it by the OSCE Minsk Group, we'd also like
to express some claims to it within the above-mentioned "critical
remarks". First, it appears that the co-chairs do not want to notice
the counterproductive actions of Azerbaijan, in particular, the
permanent threats to resume the war, which clearly demonstrate its
unwillingness to resolve the conflict, basing on the international
principles, and continue the non-binding calls for peace.
Second, also, in connection with the 20th anniversary of the Minsk
process, the Foreign Ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair-states
made â~@~Kâ~@~Ka statement on March 22, urging the conflicting
parties to display political will for achieving a lasting and peaceful
settlement. There is nothing new in it, imperatively demanding that
Azerbaijan, as the carrier of the threat to regional stability,
abandons its harsh rhetoric and preparations for a war. Meanwhile,
the co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group, taking into account the
stubborn intractability of official Baku, which actually torpedoes the
negotiation process and has driven it into a hopeless deadlock, has to
reconsider its approaches to the conflict resolution and to transfer
the settlement from the current political arena to the legal one.
Finally, the mediators should recognize that the so-called Madrid
Principles, proposed by them, are anachronistic in a sense and far from
the reality, because they do not fully reflect either the legal aspects
of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict or the current trends of the world
development. In other words, there is a need to raise and resolve the
issue of international recognition of the NKR independence. Only in
this case a glimmer of light can be seen at the end of the tunnel.
From: Baghdasarian
Leonid Martirossian
Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599:a-jubilee-series-of-critical-remarks&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Tuesday, 27 March 2012 05:38
March 24 marked 20 years of the official request for mediation in
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. On this day in 1992, the
Foreign Ministers of the states - participants of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, which in 1994 was reorganized
into Organization - OSCE) decided to convene a Conference under its
auspices in Minsk for the issue's peaceful resolution.
Convening of the Minsk Conference has not taken place so far, but the
capital of Belarus became a kind of "godfather", giving its name both
to the entire settlement process and the international cooperation of
mediators from 11 states that went down in history as the OSCE Minsk
Group. In 1994, an institute of the Minsk Group co-chairmanship was
set up, currently represented by Russia, the USA, and France.
This is what concerns the form. Now let's turn to the content. It
is quite natural that the Minsk process jubilee leads to certain
reflections, which, however, are far from being jubilee. And the
matter is not that the subject of study and discussion of the OSCE
Minsk Group is bleak in itself - that is an ethno-political conflict,
which has not been exhausted yet and continues to bring sufferings
to the people involved in it. The thing is that even after 20 years
there is no "light at the end of the tunnel".
If we analyze the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group for the past
20 years, its assets, perhaps, can include the maintenance of the
cease-fire, which is known to have been achieved in May of 1994,
primarily with the efforts of Russia. Since then, the mediators have
offered to the parties various proposals to achieve a final settlement
of the conflict, but they have not been realized so far. But, can we
blame the co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group for this? We hardly can.
It cannot be accused of the lack of efforts for bringing closer
the positions of the parties to the Karabakh conflict and ensuring
a breakthrough in the settlement process. The main reason is that
these positions are diametrically opposite, mainly because of the
destructiveness of Azerbaijan, which does not give up the policy of a
military solution to the problem, openly disregards international law,
and avoids direct negotiations with representatives of the NKR.
It should be noted that the differences between Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh on the one hand, and Azerbaijan - on the other hand
are also in the estimation of the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group
itself. It can be noted that, despite some criticism, the Armenian
party evaluates its activities as generally positive, which cannot be
said about the Azerbaijani party, which has repeatedly exposed the
OSCE MG co-chairs to obstruction, accusing them of the lack of any
results, and admitted the possibility of changing the negotiations'
format. The irony is that official Baku, which initiated the military
aggression against Nagorno Karabakh and is responsible both for its
impact and for the current situation in the settlement process,
tries to blame the Armenian party for all the wrongs and to gain
international pressure on it.
Due to the similar behavior of Azerbaijan, or more precisely, the
tolerant attitude to it by the OSCE Minsk Group, we'd also like
to express some claims to it within the above-mentioned "critical
remarks". First, it appears that the co-chairs do not want to notice
the counterproductive actions of Azerbaijan, in particular, the
permanent threats to resume the war, which clearly demonstrate its
unwillingness to resolve the conflict, basing on the international
principles, and continue the non-binding calls for peace.
Second, also, in connection with the 20th anniversary of the Minsk
process, the Foreign Ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair-states
made â~@~Kâ~@~Ka statement on March 22, urging the conflicting
parties to display political will for achieving a lasting and peaceful
settlement. There is nothing new in it, imperatively demanding that
Azerbaijan, as the carrier of the threat to regional stability,
abandons its harsh rhetoric and preparations for a war. Meanwhile,
the co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group, taking into account the
stubborn intractability of official Baku, which actually torpedoes the
negotiation process and has driven it into a hopeless deadlock, has to
reconsider its approaches to the conflict resolution and to transfer
the settlement from the current political arena to the legal one.
Finally, the mediators should recognize that the so-called Madrid
Principles, proposed by them, are anachronistic in a sense and far from
the reality, because they do not fully reflect either the legal aspects
of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict or the current trends of the world
development. In other words, there is a need to raise and resolve the
issue of international recognition of the NKR independence. Only in
this case a glimmer of light can be seen at the end of the tunnel.
From: Baghdasarian