Tweet
Mediamax, Armenia
June 12 2013
Matthew Bryza: `We need constructive ambiguity'
The exclusive interview of former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State and former OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-chair Matthew Bryza to
Mediamax
- During a lecture in Baku on June 7 you have reportedly said that
West made a mistake when it decided to separate the Turkish-Armenian
process from the Nagorno Karabakh settlement. This statement created a
lot of heated discussions in Armenian political circles and media.
- Well, actually I said the following - it was a mistake for the
United States government to end the constructive ambiguity stipulating
around whether or not the NK peace process and the Turkey-Armenia
reconciliation process were explicitly linked or de-inked.
By explicitly disconnecting both processes, the U.S. offered one of
the key benefits Armenia hoped to receive from the NK peace process -
reopening the borders with Turkey. Once it was clear, Armenia would
receive this benefit without the need to make compromises on other
issues in the Minsk Group process. Armenia naturally hardened its
negotiating position on NK (and in fact drew off some of the key
concessions it had already made).
At the same time, I also said it would be a mistake to explicitly link
two processes and to say there can only be Turkey-Armenia
normalization if there is a settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
This is an equally destructive position. A much better thing to do is
to recognize the truth, the logical truth, which is to inexplicitly
link these two processes. If you make progress on one that may mean
direct or indirect progress on the other, because progress on one
process will improve the mood and decrease the anger and emotionality.
A better policy, which the U.S. government followed until August 2009,
was to maintain ambiguity regarding the connectivity of the two
processes and to state publicly that progress on one track will
reinforce progress on the other track, even though the two processes
are not directly connected.
So, don't explicitly link or de-link the two processes. Let
constructive ambiguity work to the advantage of the peaceful
settlement.
- When politicians try to link two processes in this or other way,
everybody expects compromises from Armenia and not from Azerbaijan or
Turkey. And if we talk about Turkish-Armenian relations, Yerevan's
position is clear - let's open the border and establish relations
without preconditions. What else do you expect from Armenia?
- I think that it's not a helpful approach. All issues that you have
just described are handled as an organic whole, and each progress, or
each step over that one side gains have to be brought into an
appropriate negotiating process by making a concession on the other
side, let's say - return of territories. And so, at any negotiation
all of the factors are interrelated. And it's not easy for either side
to pull out one set of factors and focus on those.
I think it won't be helpful if, let's say the Azerbaijanis say we are
not going to negotiate any further, unless all the 7 territories are
returned: return the territories and then we will negotiate further,
or return the territories and then we'll accept the Turkey-Armenia
border re-opening.
I think the only way you get to a final settlement is to negotiate all
the aspects of Basic Principles at the same time as part of one big
deal.
- But the Turkish-Armenian process is not part of Basic Principles at all.
- That's right. It's not. It's a negotiation between two countries.
But restoring all the trade links between Armenia and Turkey and
Armenia and Azerbaijan - that is part of the Basic Principles. Armenia
and Turkey have a right to pursue whatever they want to pursue. What I
am saying is that it was a mistake when the United States said
explicitly there is no link between Turkey-Armenia normalization and
NK settlement.
- So, you say that if there is a progress on NK issue, Turkey will be
more interested and motivated to establish relations with Armenia. But
there is another opinion, which was voiced by Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian still in 2001. `If Turkey opened the border
with Armenia or re-established the relations, that would make Yerevan
more constructive on NK issue, because Yerevan would soften a lot of
demands in terms of security', he said then.
- This is another argument that many of us, including myself, has made
during the Minsk process. I myself have made this argument in Baku.
But Baku says `no'.
- Turkey openly took a pro-Azeri position at the very beginning of the
conflict and closed its border with Armenia during the NK war.
Obviously, the Turkish government made a mistake about 20 years ago
and when today you talk about any linkage between the processes, it
looks like you are trying to legitimize that mistake.
- When I was a Minsk Group Co-Chair I was against any attempts to
explicitly link the two processes. And I myself discussed these issues
with Turkey's President, Turkey's opposition leaders and parliamentary
leaders saying `please don't explicitly link the NK process with
Turkey-Armenia normalization'. At the same time, I am saying that it's
also unhelpful explicitly to de-link them. So, it's better just to not
even talk about whether they are linked or de-linked. See the reality,
the logical reality which is at the heart of what Vartan Oskanian was
saying: that if you make progress on one, you'll make progress on the
other one. That's the reality.
- Do you think that Turkish-Armenian protocols signed in 2009 are
still alive, or one day Armenia or Turkey will formally withdraw from
this process?
- I think neither Armenia nor Turkey will withdraw from that process.
There was a very difficult constructive negotiation between the
Armenian and Turkish sides, and in the end it was Prime Minister
Erdogan who himself came out in the end and said that these two
processes must be explicitly linked, and the Turkish parliament agreed
with him.
I hope and I believe that as focus is restored over the Nagorno
Karabakh peace process, we will see the political mood in Turkey
change, and I hope for Armenia's perspective to improve, so that we'll
get to a point when we see those protocols ratified. But the political
reality right now in Turkey is that unless there is progress on NK,
the mood is going to remain negative. So, what we have to do is to
keep working and re-invigorate the Karabakh peace process.
- In your remarks you stressed that there will never be an NK
settlement as long as Azerbaijanis treat Armenians, and Azerbaijanis
who engage with Armenians, as enemies. Don't you think that the
problem is that nobody is telling this to Ilham Aliyev publicly - I
mean officials from EU and U.S. As a result, we have the Ramil Safarov
case, the Aykram Aylisli case and we have a generation growing in
Azerbaijan, which is every day being fed with anti-Armenian
propaganda.
- Certainly I agree with that. As long as the Azerbaijanis can't even
perceive Armenians as a friend there is no way to resolve the
conflict. And the reality is that the President of Azerbaijan, I
believe, has gone quite a bit further in negotiations with the
President of Armenia than the society is ready for in Azerbaijan.
Let's say there are other political forces in Azerbaijan, who are not
ready to go as far as the President of Azerbaijan.
- But it was the President of Azerbaijan who personally pardoned Ramil
Safarov and made him a hero. Don't you think that this is a bad
example for the young generation in Azerbaijan to make a hero of
someone who has killed an Armenian?
- This case has actually really upset the Armenians. I think now is
really the time for the leadership of both countries, but more in
Azerbaijan of course, to come forward. And if we are serious about
having a negotiated settlement we have to talk to each other. There
will be results if the two Presidents trust each other and take
actions not to treat each other as enemies.
Ara Tadevosyan talked to Matthew Bryza.
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/7578/
June 12 2013
Matthew Bryza: `We need constructive ambiguity'
The exclusive interview of former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State and former OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-chair Matthew Bryza to
Mediamax
- During a lecture in Baku on June 7 you have reportedly said that
West made a mistake when it decided to separate the Turkish-Armenian
process from the Nagorno Karabakh settlement. This statement created a
lot of heated discussions in Armenian political circles and media.
- Well, actually I said the following - it was a mistake for the
United States government to end the constructive ambiguity stipulating
around whether or not the NK peace process and the Turkey-Armenia
reconciliation process were explicitly linked or de-inked.
By explicitly disconnecting both processes, the U.S. offered one of
the key benefits Armenia hoped to receive from the NK peace process -
reopening the borders with Turkey. Once it was clear, Armenia would
receive this benefit without the need to make compromises on other
issues in the Minsk Group process. Armenia naturally hardened its
negotiating position on NK (and in fact drew off some of the key
concessions it had already made).
At the same time, I also said it would be a mistake to explicitly link
two processes and to say there can only be Turkey-Armenia
normalization if there is a settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
This is an equally destructive position. A much better thing to do is
to recognize the truth, the logical truth, which is to inexplicitly
link these two processes. If you make progress on one that may mean
direct or indirect progress on the other, because progress on one
process will improve the mood and decrease the anger and emotionality.
A better policy, which the U.S. government followed until August 2009,
was to maintain ambiguity regarding the connectivity of the two
processes and to state publicly that progress on one track will
reinforce progress on the other track, even though the two processes
are not directly connected.
So, don't explicitly link or de-link the two processes. Let
constructive ambiguity work to the advantage of the peaceful
settlement.
- When politicians try to link two processes in this or other way,
everybody expects compromises from Armenia and not from Azerbaijan or
Turkey. And if we talk about Turkish-Armenian relations, Yerevan's
position is clear - let's open the border and establish relations
without preconditions. What else do you expect from Armenia?
- I think that it's not a helpful approach. All issues that you have
just described are handled as an organic whole, and each progress, or
each step over that one side gains have to be brought into an
appropriate negotiating process by making a concession on the other
side, let's say - return of territories. And so, at any negotiation
all of the factors are interrelated. And it's not easy for either side
to pull out one set of factors and focus on those.
I think it won't be helpful if, let's say the Azerbaijanis say we are
not going to negotiate any further, unless all the 7 territories are
returned: return the territories and then we will negotiate further,
or return the territories and then we'll accept the Turkey-Armenia
border re-opening.
I think the only way you get to a final settlement is to negotiate all
the aspects of Basic Principles at the same time as part of one big
deal.
- But the Turkish-Armenian process is not part of Basic Principles at all.
- That's right. It's not. It's a negotiation between two countries.
But restoring all the trade links between Armenia and Turkey and
Armenia and Azerbaijan - that is part of the Basic Principles. Armenia
and Turkey have a right to pursue whatever they want to pursue. What I
am saying is that it was a mistake when the United States said
explicitly there is no link between Turkey-Armenia normalization and
NK settlement.
- So, you say that if there is a progress on NK issue, Turkey will be
more interested and motivated to establish relations with Armenia. But
there is another opinion, which was voiced by Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian still in 2001. `If Turkey opened the border
with Armenia or re-established the relations, that would make Yerevan
more constructive on NK issue, because Yerevan would soften a lot of
demands in terms of security', he said then.
- This is another argument that many of us, including myself, has made
during the Minsk process. I myself have made this argument in Baku.
But Baku says `no'.
- Turkey openly took a pro-Azeri position at the very beginning of the
conflict and closed its border with Armenia during the NK war.
Obviously, the Turkish government made a mistake about 20 years ago
and when today you talk about any linkage between the processes, it
looks like you are trying to legitimize that mistake.
- When I was a Minsk Group Co-Chair I was against any attempts to
explicitly link the two processes. And I myself discussed these issues
with Turkey's President, Turkey's opposition leaders and parliamentary
leaders saying `please don't explicitly link the NK process with
Turkey-Armenia normalization'. At the same time, I am saying that it's
also unhelpful explicitly to de-link them. So, it's better just to not
even talk about whether they are linked or de-linked. See the reality,
the logical reality which is at the heart of what Vartan Oskanian was
saying: that if you make progress on one, you'll make progress on the
other one. That's the reality.
- Do you think that Turkish-Armenian protocols signed in 2009 are
still alive, or one day Armenia or Turkey will formally withdraw from
this process?
- I think neither Armenia nor Turkey will withdraw from that process.
There was a very difficult constructive negotiation between the
Armenian and Turkish sides, and in the end it was Prime Minister
Erdogan who himself came out in the end and said that these two
processes must be explicitly linked, and the Turkish parliament agreed
with him.
I hope and I believe that as focus is restored over the Nagorno
Karabakh peace process, we will see the political mood in Turkey
change, and I hope for Armenia's perspective to improve, so that we'll
get to a point when we see those protocols ratified. But the political
reality right now in Turkey is that unless there is progress on NK,
the mood is going to remain negative. So, what we have to do is to
keep working and re-invigorate the Karabakh peace process.
- In your remarks you stressed that there will never be an NK
settlement as long as Azerbaijanis treat Armenians, and Azerbaijanis
who engage with Armenians, as enemies. Don't you think that the
problem is that nobody is telling this to Ilham Aliyev publicly - I
mean officials from EU and U.S. As a result, we have the Ramil Safarov
case, the Aykram Aylisli case and we have a generation growing in
Azerbaijan, which is every day being fed with anti-Armenian
propaganda.
- Certainly I agree with that. As long as the Azerbaijanis can't even
perceive Armenians as a friend there is no way to resolve the
conflict. And the reality is that the President of Azerbaijan, I
believe, has gone quite a bit further in negotiations with the
President of Armenia than the society is ready for in Azerbaijan.
Let's say there are other political forces in Azerbaijan, who are not
ready to go as far as the President of Azerbaijan.
- But it was the President of Azerbaijan who personally pardoned Ramil
Safarov and made him a hero. Don't you think that this is a bad
example for the young generation in Azerbaijan to make a hero of
someone who has killed an Armenian?
- This case has actually really upset the Armenians. I think now is
really the time for the leadership of both countries, but more in
Azerbaijan of course, to come forward. And if we are serious about
having a negotiated settlement we have to talk to each other. There
will be results if the two Presidents trust each other and take
actions not to treat each other as enemies.
Ara Tadevosyan talked to Matthew Bryza.
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/7578/