Tweet
E. MAMEDYAROV AND V. DRANNIKOV - SUSPICIOUS TANDEM
Azat Artsakh - Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Sept 26 2005
The article entitled "Mountain Rebuke" by V. Drannikov was published in
the Russian Newsweek, which touched upon the public political situation
in Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the prospects of resolution of the
Karabakh conflict. In my opinion, the article contained information
which, intended or not, forms a distorted picture of several aspects
of the Karabakh issue in the minds of the Russian readers. Thus,
having read the article, one might start thinking that in the course of
events of 1988-1994 in Nagorno Karabakh and around it there were only
Azerbaijani refugees; moreover, the author points out the existence
of 30 thousand Azerbaijani refugees. The Azerbaijani foreign minister
almost shares this opinion, considering the return of refugees to their
former places of residence as an essential element of the talks. At
least, it seems strange that it did not occur to the author of the
article to doubt Mamedyarov in reference to the Armenian refugees,
for the number of refugees from only the capital city Baku was several
times as much as the abovementioned number. However, even a starting
journalist should realize that completely ignoring the interests of one
of the sides cannot benefit the resolution of the problem which has
equal importance for both sides. V. Drannikov should also be worried
about the issue of stationing peacemaking forces in the conflict area,
raised by E. Mamedyarov. The thing is that the sides have maintained
the ceasefire for over 11 years, and the particular cases of breaking
the armistice have a local character. And this situation is supposed
to continue until the resolution of the conflict. Therefore, we may
suppose that through the proposal of stationing peacemakers in the
conflict area the Azerbaijani side is trying to dispose of the NKR
armed forces which have become one of the important arguments in the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict, as well as the guarantor of the
security of the security of the people of Nagorno Karabakh through
someone else. E. Mamedyarov considers the future status of Nagorno
Karabakh as one of the essential arguments in the negotiations. By
using the word "future", he probably means to remind that the former
status of the region, i.e. an autonomous region in Azerbaijan SSR, was
eliminated by the unilateral decision of the Azerbaijani government,
and that granting a similar status to Nagorno Karabakh would be a
great favour to it.
Good reason, however, prompts that in the current situation it
would be appropriate to consider neither the former nor the future
status of Nagorno Karabakh but its present status, i.e. the sovereign
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, which formed in accordance with the law
on the secession from the USSR, similarly to independent Republic of
Azerbaijan. In this state of things only the issue of recognition of
the country which has existed for 14 years now can become a subject
of negotiations. Now about the issue holding "a pride of place" in the
talks. It is notable that the title of the article and the judgements
of E. Mamedyarov suit each other. But the author of the article did
not pay attention to the biased character of the judgements of the
foreign minister of Azerbaijan. I wonder if V.
Drannikov does not know that the armed forces of Azerbaijan occupied
a considerable area of NKR. Maybe this cannot be compared to the
Azerbaijani territory controlled by our troops but for us an Armenian
village is more valuable than an Azerbaijani region. Touching
upon the issue of liberation of the occupied territories, the
author of the article cites the following words of Mamedyarov,
"The liberation of these regions should be the first step towards
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict." First of all, all the
Azerbaijani regions controlled by our armed forces forming a neutral
zone around NKR are meant here. However, there is not a single word
about the simultaneous liberation of our territories. Second, the
word "liberation" has a clear and unambiguous meaning here, whereas
the notion of "resolution" is void of a particular meaning. Thus,
a great number of issues are up in the air. Such a standpoint of the
Azerbaijani foreign ministry does not confirm the words of the foreign
minister of Armenia Vartan Oskanian that the latest meeting of the
presidents of Azerbaijan assured the peace process. The impression
is that either E. Mamedyarov is not well-aware of the content of the
talks between the tow presidents or V. Oskanian offers the desirable
instead of the real. Both are dangerous for the sides in reaching an
acceptable resolution, which requires clarifying the standpoints of
the sides. This article, unfortunately, does not benefit this, and
we addressed a message to the magazine. Realizing that the article
may be a propagandist action initiated by the Azerbaijani side,
hopefully the official bodies of NKR and Armenia will express their
attitude towards it.
Azat Artsakh - Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Sept 26 2005
The article entitled "Mountain Rebuke" by V. Drannikov was published in
the Russian Newsweek, which touched upon the public political situation
in Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the prospects of resolution of the
Karabakh conflict. In my opinion, the article contained information
which, intended or not, forms a distorted picture of several aspects
of the Karabakh issue in the minds of the Russian readers. Thus,
having read the article, one might start thinking that in the course of
events of 1988-1994 in Nagorno Karabakh and around it there were only
Azerbaijani refugees; moreover, the author points out the existence
of 30 thousand Azerbaijani refugees. The Azerbaijani foreign minister
almost shares this opinion, considering the return of refugees to their
former places of residence as an essential element of the talks. At
least, it seems strange that it did not occur to the author of the
article to doubt Mamedyarov in reference to the Armenian refugees,
for the number of refugees from only the capital city Baku was several
times as much as the abovementioned number. However, even a starting
journalist should realize that completely ignoring the interests of one
of the sides cannot benefit the resolution of the problem which has
equal importance for both sides. V. Drannikov should also be worried
about the issue of stationing peacemaking forces in the conflict area,
raised by E. Mamedyarov. The thing is that the sides have maintained
the ceasefire for over 11 years, and the particular cases of breaking
the armistice have a local character. And this situation is supposed
to continue until the resolution of the conflict. Therefore, we may
suppose that through the proposal of stationing peacemakers in the
conflict area the Azerbaijani side is trying to dispose of the NKR
armed forces which have become one of the important arguments in the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict, as well as the guarantor of the
security of the security of the people of Nagorno Karabakh through
someone else. E. Mamedyarov considers the future status of Nagorno
Karabakh as one of the essential arguments in the negotiations. By
using the word "future", he probably means to remind that the former
status of the region, i.e. an autonomous region in Azerbaijan SSR, was
eliminated by the unilateral decision of the Azerbaijani government,
and that granting a similar status to Nagorno Karabakh would be a
great favour to it.
Good reason, however, prompts that in the current situation it
would be appropriate to consider neither the former nor the future
status of Nagorno Karabakh but its present status, i.e. the sovereign
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, which formed in accordance with the law
on the secession from the USSR, similarly to independent Republic of
Azerbaijan. In this state of things only the issue of recognition of
the country which has existed for 14 years now can become a subject
of negotiations. Now about the issue holding "a pride of place" in the
talks. It is notable that the title of the article and the judgements
of E. Mamedyarov suit each other. But the author of the article did
not pay attention to the biased character of the judgements of the
foreign minister of Azerbaijan. I wonder if V.
Drannikov does not know that the armed forces of Azerbaijan occupied
a considerable area of NKR. Maybe this cannot be compared to the
Azerbaijani territory controlled by our troops but for us an Armenian
village is more valuable than an Azerbaijani region. Touching
upon the issue of liberation of the occupied territories, the
author of the article cites the following words of Mamedyarov,
"The liberation of these regions should be the first step towards
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict." First of all, all the
Azerbaijani regions controlled by our armed forces forming a neutral
zone around NKR are meant here. However, there is not a single word
about the simultaneous liberation of our territories. Second, the
word "liberation" has a clear and unambiguous meaning here, whereas
the notion of "resolution" is void of a particular meaning. Thus,
a great number of issues are up in the air. Such a standpoint of the
Azerbaijani foreign ministry does not confirm the words of the foreign
minister of Armenia Vartan Oskanian that the latest meeting of the
presidents of Azerbaijan assured the peace process. The impression
is that either E. Mamedyarov is not well-aware of the content of the
talks between the tow presidents or V. Oskanian offers the desirable
instead of the real. Both are dangerous for the sides in reaching an
acceptable resolution, which requires clarifying the standpoints of
the sides. This article, unfortunately, does not benefit this, and
we addressed a message to the magazine. Realizing that the article
may be a propagandist action initiated by the Azerbaijani side,
hopefully the official bodies of NKR and Armenia will express their
attitude towards it.