Tweet
"CAN THE SON OPENLY ACCEPT HIS FATHER'S MISTAKES?"
June 25 2013
Asks the former OSCE MG co-chair Kazimirov noting that the junior
Aliyev is able to leave default from his father's admonition. - Last
week, in the framework of the "Big Eight" summit in Enniskillen,
the Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries issued a
statement regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by expressing
a "deep regret" that the parties were trying to get one-sided
advantages in the negotiation process. "Application of a military
force, which results in formation of current situation of conflict
and instability, will not resolve the problem. The resumption of
hostilities would have catastrophic consequences for the region and
will lead to losses of life, destruction, growth in the number of
refugees, and a huge financial cost. We strongly urge the leaders
of all the parties to once again reaffirm their commitment to the
Helsinki principles, in particular the non-use of force and exclusion
of threat of using force, territorial integrity, equality and the
right of peoples to self-determination.",- the statement noted. What
can this statement change in Karabakh settlement process? - Hardly it
can change something directly, concretely. But it is an accumulation
of messages, even a warning to Baku hot heads who already irritated
are dreaming about a military revenge. There reluctantly, but in any
case they understand what it means. It is important that the OSCE
leaders who are changing every year to take it into account also,
who continue to idly respond to threats that have become systematic,
which are contrary to the fundamental principles of the pan-European
organization. It's worthy for the OSCE leaders to start thinking about
the borders of the member states, which are selectively treating with
the fundamental principles, especially contempt of such essential
principles as the exclusion of the use of force and threat of using
force. Is it compatible with a series of organization that is designed
to ensure security and cooperation in the European continent? One can
understand discontent of in Baku several concerning the occupation
of a number of regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan, but they no
way want to consider it, they even ignore two factors. The first,
how did they lose the control over those regions, and whether it
was not the result of incorrect calculations made by the leaders of
the Republic of Azerbaijan during the years of war (disagreeing to
terminate hostilities, ceasefire violations, evading the initiatives
of peacekeeping mediators, etc.)? Baku persistently is talking about
occupation, incised form the reasons, it simply makes records on what
had happened, as if the situation fell down from the sky. But every
phenomenon has its reasons. Why don't they want to go deeper into the
question of why it happened? As they say, when you yourself are "not
clean" ... Can the son dare to openly admit his father's mistakes? And
he is able to leave default from his edification. He does not even
say that the conflict should be resolved "exclusively peacefully"
as his father used to say, and not just the opposite. Secondly,
it is just he who extends the occupation to resume hostilities with
its treats. In the modern world, only arrogance and lack of common
sense may motivate to achieve liberation of the territories, with
the help of force and threat. Isn't it clear that under the torrent
of threats the opposite side will rely more on beneficial in terms
of military, long ago established and abandoned Nagorno-Karabakh
positions? - It is known that the Ministers of Foreign Affaires
of Armenia and Azerbaijan Edward Nalbandyan and Elmar Mammadyarov
must meet in end of June to discuss issues related to preparation
in the Sargsyan-Aliyev upcoming meeting. The U.S. Ambassador to
Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar recently said that the Minister of
State John Kerry who accepted the Foreign Ministers Mammadyarov, and
then Nalbandyan in Washington is trying to provide a certain move in
the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and to move the process from
the dead point. Before the presidential elections in Azerbaijan what
do you think will it be possible to move the settlement process from
the dead point, or it will happen at the next presidential meeting? -
The pre-election situation more complicates than facilitates the way
to make a compromise. - Before meeting with the Foreign Minister of
Armenia in Washington, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a
remarkable statement noting that not only to Armenia and Azerbaijan
should take steps for the the settlement, but also other countries
in the territory. "It is extremely important that all parties will
try to find a way out of the deadlock, which constantly keeps the
conflict in sharp and rather dangerous situation," - announced he,
specifically pointing out that saying all parties he is referring
to not only Azerbaijan, but also in Turkey, Russia and Iran. Is it
possible to consider Turkey, RF and Iran as separate interested
parties in the regulation of NK conflict, and if it is so, what
role did they play in the settlement process, especially Russia and
Turkey? - The concept "Party" is very broad. In case of conflicts,
such formulations as "party of conflict" or "a party in the conflict,"
or the "conflicted party" are often used." The term "interested party"
is not a precise term, it may be a side that has a direct interest
in the conflict (lower than the conflicted party), but it may be
a state that outwardly has no direct connection with the conflict,
but interested in the settlement of the conflict. Russia is certainly
interested in settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in compliance
with legitimate rights and interests of all parties. Neighboring Iran
and Turkey also have certain benefits, but different interests, let's
say original, they are incompatible with obvious interests of Russia.
Moscow has long been proved in practice its interest in the
achievements of the settlement, bringing all parties to a cease-fire,
which is already 19 years old (an entire generation of Armenians and
Azerbaijanis has grown up in the course of tensed atmosphere, but still
without bloodshed). It is strange that Kerry did not mention the United
States, which announces about its interests everywhere in the world.
Emma GABRIELYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/06/25/155052/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
June 25 2013
Asks the former OSCE MG co-chair Kazimirov noting that the junior
Aliyev is able to leave default from his father's admonition. - Last
week, in the framework of the "Big Eight" summit in Enniskillen,
the Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries issued a
statement regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by expressing
a "deep regret" that the parties were trying to get one-sided
advantages in the negotiation process. "Application of a military
force, which results in formation of current situation of conflict
and instability, will not resolve the problem. The resumption of
hostilities would have catastrophic consequences for the region and
will lead to losses of life, destruction, growth in the number of
refugees, and a huge financial cost. We strongly urge the leaders
of all the parties to once again reaffirm their commitment to the
Helsinki principles, in particular the non-use of force and exclusion
of threat of using force, territorial integrity, equality and the
right of peoples to self-determination.",- the statement noted. What
can this statement change in Karabakh settlement process? - Hardly it
can change something directly, concretely. But it is an accumulation
of messages, even a warning to Baku hot heads who already irritated
are dreaming about a military revenge. There reluctantly, but in any
case they understand what it means. It is important that the OSCE
leaders who are changing every year to take it into account also,
who continue to idly respond to threats that have become systematic,
which are contrary to the fundamental principles of the pan-European
organization. It's worthy for the OSCE leaders to start thinking about
the borders of the member states, which are selectively treating with
the fundamental principles, especially contempt of such essential
principles as the exclusion of the use of force and threat of using
force. Is it compatible with a series of organization that is designed
to ensure security and cooperation in the European continent? One can
understand discontent of in Baku several concerning the occupation
of a number of regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan, but they no
way want to consider it, they even ignore two factors. The first,
how did they lose the control over those regions, and whether it
was not the result of incorrect calculations made by the leaders of
the Republic of Azerbaijan during the years of war (disagreeing to
terminate hostilities, ceasefire violations, evading the initiatives
of peacekeeping mediators, etc.)? Baku persistently is talking about
occupation, incised form the reasons, it simply makes records on what
had happened, as if the situation fell down from the sky. But every
phenomenon has its reasons. Why don't they want to go deeper into the
question of why it happened? As they say, when you yourself are "not
clean" ... Can the son dare to openly admit his father's mistakes? And
he is able to leave default from his edification. He does not even
say that the conflict should be resolved "exclusively peacefully"
as his father used to say, and not just the opposite. Secondly,
it is just he who extends the occupation to resume hostilities with
its treats. In the modern world, only arrogance and lack of common
sense may motivate to achieve liberation of the territories, with
the help of force and threat. Isn't it clear that under the torrent
of threats the opposite side will rely more on beneficial in terms
of military, long ago established and abandoned Nagorno-Karabakh
positions? - It is known that the Ministers of Foreign Affaires
of Armenia and Azerbaijan Edward Nalbandyan and Elmar Mammadyarov
must meet in end of June to discuss issues related to preparation
in the Sargsyan-Aliyev upcoming meeting. The U.S. Ambassador to
Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar recently said that the Minister of
State John Kerry who accepted the Foreign Ministers Mammadyarov, and
then Nalbandyan in Washington is trying to provide a certain move in
the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and to move the process from
the dead point. Before the presidential elections in Azerbaijan what
do you think will it be possible to move the settlement process from
the dead point, or it will happen at the next presidential meeting? -
The pre-election situation more complicates than facilitates the way
to make a compromise. - Before meeting with the Foreign Minister of
Armenia in Washington, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a
remarkable statement noting that not only to Armenia and Azerbaijan
should take steps for the the settlement, but also other countries
in the territory. "It is extremely important that all parties will
try to find a way out of the deadlock, which constantly keeps the
conflict in sharp and rather dangerous situation," - announced he,
specifically pointing out that saying all parties he is referring
to not only Azerbaijan, but also in Turkey, Russia and Iran. Is it
possible to consider Turkey, RF and Iran as separate interested
parties in the regulation of NK conflict, and if it is so, what
role did they play in the settlement process, especially Russia and
Turkey? - The concept "Party" is very broad. In case of conflicts,
such formulations as "party of conflict" or "a party in the conflict,"
or the "conflicted party" are often used." The term "interested party"
is not a precise term, it may be a side that has a direct interest
in the conflict (lower than the conflicted party), but it may be
a state that outwardly has no direct connection with the conflict,
but interested in the settlement of the conflict. Russia is certainly
interested in settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in compliance
with legitimate rights and interests of all parties. Neighboring Iran
and Turkey also have certain benefits, but different interests, let's
say original, they are incompatible with obvious interests of Russia.
Moscow has long been proved in practice its interest in the
achievements of the settlement, bringing all parties to a cease-fire,
which is already 19 years old (an entire generation of Armenians and
Azerbaijanis has grown up in the course of tensed atmosphere, but still
without bloodshed). It is strange that Kerry did not mention the United
States, which announces about its interests everywhere in the world.
Emma GABRIELYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/06/25/155052/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia