Respectable international structures and politicians estimate the subversive actions of recent days on Armenia-Azerbaijan border and escalation of tension. U.S. State Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki, his statement said. “There can be no military solution to this conflict. Retaliation and further violence will only make it more difficult to bring about a peaceful settlement.” The Spokesman of the United Kingdom (UK) Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said, “The UK applies to both sides, Armenia and Azerbaijan, to promptly exercise actions on reducing the tension and to adhere to the ceasefire agreement signed in 1994.”
We see the following in the French Foreign Ministry spokesman’s statement, “Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved only through negotiations. France calls on the parties to respect the ceasefire regime and promptly undertake actions to reduce the tension and to avoid new incidents.” The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, the Swiss Foreign Minister, Didier Burkhalter, and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Igor Popov, James Warlick and Pierre Andrieu also expressed concern over the escalation of violence on the “Contact line and Armenia-Azerbaijan border, which resulted in numerous victims in recent days.”
The official Moscow has also expressed its concern over the “drastic increase of tension” on Karabakh-Azerbaijan Contact line. Aravot.am asked the expert for the “Political International Research Center”, Ruben Mehrabyan, whether the response by the international community is equivalent to the border situation. He replied, “The fact of respond by the international community is already positive in itself. Today, the international community tends to the position that Karabakh conflict does not have military solution and can be resolved through peaceful negotiations. However, we see less passive participation by Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkey trying to make to neutralize the efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group and lead the solution of the issue to the account of the interest by Armenia, which took place in 1920 and 1921. Therefore, currently, any international effort and authoritative format trying to resolve the conflict from the prospect of political realism clashes against different types of counteractions by these three countries.”
According to Ruben Mehrabyan, if the Aliyev regime is being criticized by the international community, then the Azerbaijani number one defense is Putin’s Russia at the international platforms. To our question of Turkey’s desire is understood, and now what official Moscow wants, Mr. Mehrabyan replied, “Russia needs the whole region. And this conflict has always been and remains his favorite conflict and the most important lever of influence in the South Caucasus.” To the question of whether the respond by the international community is a guarantee that the border situation would not be further escalated, Mr. Mehrabyan replied, “The estimate is positive, but not satisfactory. There is a triangle, Moscow, Baku, and Ankara, which endangers the region and the international security. In fact, Ilham Aliyev acts the role of the main provider of Putin’s policy in our region, and Turkey helps him in this matter.
Read also
All of this should deserve estimation by the NATO, European Union, the USA, and MG co-chairs. The guilty should be pointed out, because I have no doubt that Moscow stands behind all of this, and he did that with the help of Ilham Aliyev.” Pursuant to Ruben Mehrabyan, if Russians get from Armenians in Sochi what they want, then Azerbaijan will be provoked again to destabilize the situation. According to Mehrabyan, all who do not see military solution to the issue are allies to Armenia. Ruben Mehrabyan criticized the RA Foreign Ministry. “Today, we do not have a Foreign Ministry. If we had placed a wooden bench instead, the result would be the same. Should the Foreign Ministry had committed its duties by at least 10 percent of what the Defense Ministry had accomplished, we would have quite a different picture. First of all, a démarche was supposed to be done against Russia for selling weapons. Generally, our Foreign Ministry is subject to disqualification. They are not in their places.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
