Tweet
WARLICK'S PARADOXES
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1197: warlicks-paradoxes&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Saturday, 28 September 2013 09:48
«No party wishes the resumption of the Karabakh conflict».
This has been stated recently by the U.S. new Co-Chairman of the OSCE
Minsk Group, James Warlick, in an interview to Voice of America radio
station, while sharing his impressions on the recent visit to our
region. Agree, the statement, even if very optimistic, sounds
dissonant against the background of the militaristic rhetoric
permanently voiced from Baku. When appointing James Warlick a
co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, the U.S. President,
Barack Obama, characterized him as a highly experienced diplomat.
We'd like to believe in his professional acumen very much, as the
relentless threats by the Baku regime to unleash a new military
aggression against the NKR maintain the dangerous tension in the
Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict zone. We'd like to, but something is
preventing to believe unconditionally the words of the American
mediator. Of course, we do not intend to question Mr. Warlick's
sincerity. Not at all. The matter just is that the very interview is a
kind of conglomerate of eclectic thoughts entering into conflict with
each other.
Referring to the visit itself, James Warlick noted that its was mainly
of familiarizing nature aimed at "listening to all the parties and
opinions" and assured of his readiness to "work with all the parties."
It should be emphasized that the phrase «all the parties» was
mentioned repeatedly in the interview. The position and intention,
frankly speaking, are commendable, since in accordance to the
documents of the OSCE represented by James Warlick, three entities are
recognized the parties to the conflict - Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh,
and Armenia. But then the U.S. diplomat, as if forgetting about "all
the parties", in different contexts speaks of "working closely with
both Armenia and Azerbaijan", of the fact that the conflict "is not in
the interests of the population of Armenia and Azerbaijan". Maybe, it
should be concluded from this that the conflict ... is in the interest
of Nagorno-Karabakh?
However, we'd not clown about and we'd rather recall Mr. Warlick's key
phrase, which sounds simply as a nonsense: "I met with Aliyev and I
know that he wants a peaceful settlement". We believe that the reader
will come to genuine confusion, if we note that the American diplomat
made such a conclusion, commenting on the last speech of the
Azerbaijani President, in which he called the Armenians "fascists" and
voiced the threats of resolving the conflict by force. Agree, it is
difficult to understand such a flight, or more precisely - a sharp
turn of James Warlick's thoughts. Wasn't the "highly experienced
diplomat" so disarmingly affected by Aliyev's eastern euphony, and he,
succumbing to his false charm, easily bought the outright hypocrisy?
In any case, this speech, which, as recognized by the American
co-chairman, he read, hasn't got the appropriate condemnation. His
conclusion is striking in being amorphous and inert: "All of us should
be worried by such a rhetoric, which, instead of peace, may lead to
the deepening of the conflict". A reasonable question arises - who are
`all of us'? If he meant the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group, so both
Armenian parties, as well as sensible politicians and international
structures have repeatedly drawn their attention to the danger of the
Azerbaijani leadership's belligerent statements. However, there were
only non-binding appeals again addressed to "all the parties", which
even more encouraged the Azerbaijani authorities to tighten their
militaristic rhetoric and to intensify their hostile actions on the
Line of Contact between the parties' armed forces.
By the way, the situation on the contact-line was touched upon also by
Mr. Warlick in the aforementioned interview. "I saw the tension there
and realized how important it was that we were able to do everything
possible to end the hostilities", shared his thoughts the diplomat. We
wonder whether the U.S. mediator thought who is to blame for the
current tension. And the answer is obvious - as has been repeatedly
emphasized, it is Azerbaijan that despite the calls of the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairmen, refuses to withdraw snipers from the front line,
blocks the creation of a mechanism to investigate the incidents in the
contact zone, and continues the sabotage actions. James Warlick, a
highly experienced diplomat, cannot but know this. Similarly, he
cannot but know that Aliyev poisons his own people with hatred towards
Armenians, intensively arms, and makes cynical claims not only for
Nagorno Karabakh. "The Erivan khanate, the Gyoychai and Zangezour
mahals are our historical lands. The time will come and we shall live
there. I believe in this and I am confident of it', stated Aliyev in
the noted speech, which Warlick read, according to himself. Can in
these conditions the American co-chairman imagine any compromises that
he calls for? And how can his assurance of Aliyev's aspiration for
peaceful settlement correlate with the destructive reality created by
Azerbaijan?
Speaking of the prospects of this very peaceful settlement, the Minsk
Group U.S. co-chairman was not original, and following the example of
many mediators, he called upon the parties to display political will,
to prepare their people for peace and not for war, and to use efforts
for achieving lasting peace. The words themselves are great, but to
become real, The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen should also make
efforts, as the main reason of the negotiation process failure is the
uncompromising and toughly ultimatum stance of Azerbaijan. Meanwhile,
Warlick noted in his interview that to make such efforts was not the
co-chairs' duty. Really? Isn't it primarily necessary to force
Azerbaijan to abandon the futile and very dangerous aggressive policy
running counter not only to the norms of international law, but also
to the proposals of the Minsk Group co-chairs? Only in this case,
lasting peace is possible and can be established, which, according to
James Warlick, "will open a new era of prosperity of the Caucasus
region".
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1197: warlicks-paradoxes&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Saturday, 28 September 2013 09:48
«No party wishes the resumption of the Karabakh conflict».
This has been stated recently by the U.S. new Co-Chairman of the OSCE
Minsk Group, James Warlick, in an interview to Voice of America radio
station, while sharing his impressions on the recent visit to our
region. Agree, the statement, even if very optimistic, sounds
dissonant against the background of the militaristic rhetoric
permanently voiced from Baku. When appointing James Warlick a
co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, the U.S. President,
Barack Obama, characterized him as a highly experienced diplomat.
We'd like to believe in his professional acumen very much, as the
relentless threats by the Baku regime to unleash a new military
aggression against the NKR maintain the dangerous tension in the
Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict zone. We'd like to, but something is
preventing to believe unconditionally the words of the American
mediator. Of course, we do not intend to question Mr. Warlick's
sincerity. Not at all. The matter just is that the very interview is a
kind of conglomerate of eclectic thoughts entering into conflict with
each other.
Referring to the visit itself, James Warlick noted that its was mainly
of familiarizing nature aimed at "listening to all the parties and
opinions" and assured of his readiness to "work with all the parties."
It should be emphasized that the phrase «all the parties» was
mentioned repeatedly in the interview. The position and intention,
frankly speaking, are commendable, since in accordance to the
documents of the OSCE represented by James Warlick, three entities are
recognized the parties to the conflict - Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh,
and Armenia. But then the U.S. diplomat, as if forgetting about "all
the parties", in different contexts speaks of "working closely with
both Armenia and Azerbaijan", of the fact that the conflict "is not in
the interests of the population of Armenia and Azerbaijan". Maybe, it
should be concluded from this that the conflict ... is in the interest
of Nagorno-Karabakh?
However, we'd not clown about and we'd rather recall Mr. Warlick's key
phrase, which sounds simply as a nonsense: "I met with Aliyev and I
know that he wants a peaceful settlement". We believe that the reader
will come to genuine confusion, if we note that the American diplomat
made such a conclusion, commenting on the last speech of the
Azerbaijani President, in which he called the Armenians "fascists" and
voiced the threats of resolving the conflict by force. Agree, it is
difficult to understand such a flight, or more precisely - a sharp
turn of James Warlick's thoughts. Wasn't the "highly experienced
diplomat" so disarmingly affected by Aliyev's eastern euphony, and he,
succumbing to his false charm, easily bought the outright hypocrisy?
In any case, this speech, which, as recognized by the American
co-chairman, he read, hasn't got the appropriate condemnation. His
conclusion is striking in being amorphous and inert: "All of us should
be worried by such a rhetoric, which, instead of peace, may lead to
the deepening of the conflict". A reasonable question arises - who are
`all of us'? If he meant the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group, so both
Armenian parties, as well as sensible politicians and international
structures have repeatedly drawn their attention to the danger of the
Azerbaijani leadership's belligerent statements. However, there were
only non-binding appeals again addressed to "all the parties", which
even more encouraged the Azerbaijani authorities to tighten their
militaristic rhetoric and to intensify their hostile actions on the
Line of Contact between the parties' armed forces.
By the way, the situation on the contact-line was touched upon also by
Mr. Warlick in the aforementioned interview. "I saw the tension there
and realized how important it was that we were able to do everything
possible to end the hostilities", shared his thoughts the diplomat. We
wonder whether the U.S. mediator thought who is to blame for the
current tension. And the answer is obvious - as has been repeatedly
emphasized, it is Azerbaijan that despite the calls of the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairmen, refuses to withdraw snipers from the front line,
blocks the creation of a mechanism to investigate the incidents in the
contact zone, and continues the sabotage actions. James Warlick, a
highly experienced diplomat, cannot but know this. Similarly, he
cannot but know that Aliyev poisons his own people with hatred towards
Armenians, intensively arms, and makes cynical claims not only for
Nagorno Karabakh. "The Erivan khanate, the Gyoychai and Zangezour
mahals are our historical lands. The time will come and we shall live
there. I believe in this and I am confident of it', stated Aliyev in
the noted speech, which Warlick read, according to himself. Can in
these conditions the American co-chairman imagine any compromises that
he calls for? And how can his assurance of Aliyev's aspiration for
peaceful settlement correlate with the destructive reality created by
Azerbaijan?
Speaking of the prospects of this very peaceful settlement, the Minsk
Group U.S. co-chairman was not original, and following the example of
many mediators, he called upon the parties to display political will,
to prepare their people for peace and not for war, and to use efforts
for achieving lasting peace. The words themselves are great, but to
become real, The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen should also make
efforts, as the main reason of the negotiation process failure is the
uncompromising and toughly ultimatum stance of Azerbaijan. Meanwhile,
Warlick noted in his interview that to make such efforts was not the
co-chairs' duty. Really? Isn't it primarily necessary to force
Azerbaijan to abandon the futile and very dangerous aggressive policy
running counter not only to the norms of international law, but also
to the proposals of the Minsk Group co-chairs? Only in this case,
lasting peace is possible and can be established, which, according to
James Warlick, "will open a new era of prosperity of the Caucasus
region".
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper