Tweet
HAS BAKU BECOME THE CAPITAL OF THE UNITED STATES?
By Haroutiun Khachatrian
Noyan Tapan Highlights
30 April, 2007
[The article below is slightly amended/updated by the author,
from the original as published in NT Highlights --AB]
The human rights reports are prepared by the U.S. State Department in
an annual basis, and include the description of the human rights
record as assessed by the American officials based on all kind of
available information. It usually does not go out of the scopes of
human rights, as part of society of each country.
REPORT NOT ONLY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
In the 2006 Human Rights reports for Armenia and Azerbaijan released
on March 6, 2007, the above rule was broken, as an indication of
political nature has appeared, namely, about the problem of Nagorno
Karabakh.
In fact, the previous years, the problems related to the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict did have their place in the respective reports. But
they were strongly limited to the humanitarian issues. For example, in
the 2005 report for Armenia, there were the following two references
to the NK conflict.
Fragment one:
`In contrast to previous years, there were no civilian deaths due to
landmines; however, the government reported six soldiers died from
injuries sustained from landmines. All parties involved in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had laid landmines along the 540-mile border
with Azerbaijan and the line of contact.'
Fragment two:
`The few Muslims who remained in the country after the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict kept a low profile.'
The 2006 report was a striking difference. The Armenia report
contained the following fragment about the Karabakh conflict.
`ARMENIA CONTINUES TO OCCUPY THE AZERBAIJANI TERRITORY OF
NAGORNO-KARABAKH AND SEVEN SURROUNDING AZERBAIJANI TERRITORIES. All
parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have laid landmines along the
540?mile border with Azerbaijan and along the line of contact. During
the year there were reports that a landmine killed one civilian and
unexploded ordnance killed another. `
The fragment about the `low-profile Muslims' was absent in the 2006
report. Maybe they were no low-profile any more.
WASHINGTON CHANGES OPINION THREE TIMES A WEEK
The outlined fragment above caused the natural concerns of the
Armenian government for the obvious reason that it contained an
indication about the possible belonging of the disputed enclave, which
was the subject of the ongoing negotiations. To remind, the
negotiations are mediated by the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk
group, the United States being one of them. Armenian Foreign Minster
Vartan Oskanian declared the mentioned phrase was an error and said he
had the promise of the American officials to correct the error (see,
for example, the Noyan Tapan Highlights, March 26).
And indeed, on April 20, the phrase shown in uppercase in the
above-mentioned fragment was changed to the following on the official
site of the U.S. State Department:
`ARMENIAN FORCES OCCUPY LARGE PORTIONS OF AZERBAIJAN TERRITORY
ADJACENT TO NAGORNO-KARABAKH. ARMENIAN OFFICIALS MAINTAIN THAT THEY DO
NOT "OCCUPY" NAGORNO-KARABAKH ITSELF.' In other words, no indication
as for the part of which country NK was.
Not unexpectedly, this change caused protests of the official Baku as
Azerbaijan claims Nagorno Karabakh to be its part, as it was under the
Soviet rule. These protests were replied by Matthew Bryza, deputy
assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, who is
also in charge as the American representative at the Minsk group.
On April 25, he gave his comments to the Voice of America. Azeri Press
Agency quoted his following words in the interview. "The changes to
the initial 2006 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices are right. The previous variant of the report was wrong. The
situation needed clarifying, because the current stage of negotiations
on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is very delicate,"
According to the APA, Mr Bryza had further said that he respects
Azerbaijan's position but being a mediator he can not support any of
the parties. "The initial variant of the report noted that Nagorno
Karabakh is under Armenia's occupation. This is Azerbaijan's
position. We understand and respect this position. But as mediators we
can not support any of the parties. Armenia's position is that they
have not occupied Nagorno Karabakh. The amendment made to the report
does not mean to support one of the parties. We only stated that
Armenian government says they have not occupied Nagorno Karabakh," he
said.
Finally, according to the APA report, noting that the current stage of
negotiations is promising, Matthew Bryza underlined that the main
topic of discussion is connected with the status of Nagorno
Karabakh. "If our position is a little closer to the position of one
of the sides, we might cast shadow on the results of the
negotiations. The negotiations are being held between the parties to
the conflict, and the US is just a mediator."
Everything looked normal, and according to other reports, Bryza
had made it clear that the State Department's decision about the
change was not subject to further adjustments. However, on the next
day, people was amazed to discover on the State Department site the
old version of the mentioned paragraph, that very version that the
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State had clearly qualified as
MISTAKE. Just on the previous day.
The observers speculated that the reverse changes in the text
were made under the pressure of Baku, which, immediately protested the
April 20 move and later cancelled a planned visit to Washington by a
high-level government delegation which was to hold negotiations on
`security issues.' Of course the American side was quick to deny
this. Radio Liberty said an official at the department's Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs told RFE/RL from Washington on the
condition of anonymity: `We were trying to correct some unclear
language that led to confusion about our policy. We've determined that
our policy has not changed and that we need to stand by the original
human rights report. I think this whole thing from our side was a
mistake in the way that it was handled, and I'm sorry that that
mistake has led to all of this exaggerated press attention and has
been blown out of proportion.'
Anywhere, it was difficult to guess and other reason than the
blackmailing of Baku, which could make the State Department to
humiliate his top representative in the region, Mr Bryza. Evidently,
the decision about the reverse change was made in Baku, rather than in
Washington. It remains to see if Baku will decide to fire Mr Bryza for
his incorrect statements.
ARE THE UNITED STATES A FAIR BROKER FOR THE NAGORNO KARABAKH ISSUE?
I am afraid, the answer is negative. It is not only due to the
surprising weathercock-type behavior of the superpower during the last
week. I see the signs of shift in the Washington's position from
neutral in the very fact of changing its position in preparing its
regular Human Rights Report itself. In fact, as shown above, this year
the State Department has changed its long-term practice and has
included a phrase having no relation to the human rights but touching
upon the sensitive inter-state issue of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Such a
change could not be accidental, rather it was planned to serve as a
leverage to press on the Armenian side. The Bush administration looks
ready to sacrifice its good reputation in the Karabakh process for
some other purpose. For the mentioned `security talks' for example.
By Haroutiun Khachatrian
Noyan Tapan Highlights
30 April, 2007
[The article below is slightly amended/updated by the author,
from the original as published in NT Highlights --AB]
The human rights reports are prepared by the U.S. State Department in
an annual basis, and include the description of the human rights
record as assessed by the American officials based on all kind of
available information. It usually does not go out of the scopes of
human rights, as part of society of each country.
REPORT NOT ONLY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
In the 2006 Human Rights reports for Armenia and Azerbaijan released
on March 6, 2007, the above rule was broken, as an indication of
political nature has appeared, namely, about the problem of Nagorno
Karabakh.
In fact, the previous years, the problems related to the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict did have their place in the respective reports. But
they were strongly limited to the humanitarian issues. For example, in
the 2005 report for Armenia, there were the following two references
to the NK conflict.
Fragment one:
`In contrast to previous years, there were no civilian deaths due to
landmines; however, the government reported six soldiers died from
injuries sustained from landmines. All parties involved in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had laid landmines along the 540-mile border
with Azerbaijan and the line of contact.'
Fragment two:
`The few Muslims who remained in the country after the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict kept a low profile.'
The 2006 report was a striking difference. The Armenia report
contained the following fragment about the Karabakh conflict.
`ARMENIA CONTINUES TO OCCUPY THE AZERBAIJANI TERRITORY OF
NAGORNO-KARABAKH AND SEVEN SURROUNDING AZERBAIJANI TERRITORIES. All
parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have laid landmines along the
540?mile border with Azerbaijan and along the line of contact. During
the year there were reports that a landmine killed one civilian and
unexploded ordnance killed another. `
The fragment about the `low-profile Muslims' was absent in the 2006
report. Maybe they were no low-profile any more.
WASHINGTON CHANGES OPINION THREE TIMES A WEEK
The outlined fragment above caused the natural concerns of the
Armenian government for the obvious reason that it contained an
indication about the possible belonging of the disputed enclave, which
was the subject of the ongoing negotiations. To remind, the
negotiations are mediated by the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk
group, the United States being one of them. Armenian Foreign Minster
Vartan Oskanian declared the mentioned phrase was an error and said he
had the promise of the American officials to correct the error (see,
for example, the Noyan Tapan Highlights, March 26).
And indeed, on April 20, the phrase shown in uppercase in the
above-mentioned fragment was changed to the following on the official
site of the U.S. State Department:
`ARMENIAN FORCES OCCUPY LARGE PORTIONS OF AZERBAIJAN TERRITORY
ADJACENT TO NAGORNO-KARABAKH. ARMENIAN OFFICIALS MAINTAIN THAT THEY DO
NOT "OCCUPY" NAGORNO-KARABAKH ITSELF.' In other words, no indication
as for the part of which country NK was.
Not unexpectedly, this change caused protests of the official Baku as
Azerbaijan claims Nagorno Karabakh to be its part, as it was under the
Soviet rule. These protests were replied by Matthew Bryza, deputy
assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, who is
also in charge as the American representative at the Minsk group.
On April 25, he gave his comments to the Voice of America. Azeri Press
Agency quoted his following words in the interview. "The changes to
the initial 2006 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices are right. The previous variant of the report was wrong. The
situation needed clarifying, because the current stage of negotiations
on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is very delicate,"
According to the APA, Mr Bryza had further said that he respects
Azerbaijan's position but being a mediator he can not support any of
the parties. "The initial variant of the report noted that Nagorno
Karabakh is under Armenia's occupation. This is Azerbaijan's
position. We understand and respect this position. But as mediators we
can not support any of the parties. Armenia's position is that they
have not occupied Nagorno Karabakh. The amendment made to the report
does not mean to support one of the parties. We only stated that
Armenian government says they have not occupied Nagorno Karabakh," he
said.
Finally, according to the APA report, noting that the current stage of
negotiations is promising, Matthew Bryza underlined that the main
topic of discussion is connected with the status of Nagorno
Karabakh. "If our position is a little closer to the position of one
of the sides, we might cast shadow on the results of the
negotiations. The negotiations are being held between the parties to
the conflict, and the US is just a mediator."
Everything looked normal, and according to other reports, Bryza
had made it clear that the State Department's decision about the
change was not subject to further adjustments. However, on the next
day, people was amazed to discover on the State Department site the
old version of the mentioned paragraph, that very version that the
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State had clearly qualified as
MISTAKE. Just on the previous day.
The observers speculated that the reverse changes in the text
were made under the pressure of Baku, which, immediately protested the
April 20 move and later cancelled a planned visit to Washington by a
high-level government delegation which was to hold negotiations on
`security issues.' Of course the American side was quick to deny
this. Radio Liberty said an official at the department's Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs told RFE/RL from Washington on the
condition of anonymity: `We were trying to correct some unclear
language that led to confusion about our policy. We've determined that
our policy has not changed and that we need to stand by the original
human rights report. I think this whole thing from our side was a
mistake in the way that it was handled, and I'm sorry that that
mistake has led to all of this exaggerated press attention and has
been blown out of proportion.'
Anywhere, it was difficult to guess and other reason than the
blackmailing of Baku, which could make the State Department to
humiliate his top representative in the region, Mr Bryza. Evidently,
the decision about the reverse change was made in Baku, rather than in
Washington. It remains to see if Baku will decide to fire Mr Bryza for
his incorrect statements.
ARE THE UNITED STATES A FAIR BROKER FOR THE NAGORNO KARABAKH ISSUE?
I am afraid, the answer is negative. It is not only due to the
surprising weathercock-type behavior of the superpower during the last
week. I see the signs of shift in the Washington's position from
neutral in the very fact of changing its position in preparing its
regular Human Rights Report itself. In fact, as shown above, this year
the State Department has changed its long-term practice and has
included a phrase having no relation to the human rights but touching
upon the sensitive inter-state issue of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Such a
change could not be accidental, rather it was planned to serve as a
leverage to press on the Armenian side. The Bush administration looks
ready to sacrifice its good reputation in the Karabakh process for
some other purpose. For the mentioned `security talks' for example.