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.
Read also
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
