Tweet
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Jan 31 2007
Jonathan Henick: `The Kosovo model shouldn't be taken as an example
for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution'
[ 31 Jan. 2007 15:59 ]
The Head of Public Affairs Department of US embassy in Baku Jonathan
Henick interviewed by the APA
- How will develop the relations between Azerbaijan and USA during
this year?
- Our relations continue to be very strong and continue to develop.
To give you an example, next week we will have an Economic
Partnership Commission meeting here in Baku. We believe that it is
time to take our cooperation and dialogue on economic issues to a
higher level. This new commission will be chaired by Finance Minister
Samir Sharifov and on US side by Assistant Secretary of State on
Economic, Energy, and Business affairs Dan Sullivan. Participants
will include senior officials from a number of different agencies.
The commission meeting will take place next week on February 7th. We
continue working very closely on energy, military and security
issues. There should be some discussions on energy issues as part of
the commission. In coming several weeks we will also have discussions
on military and security issues. And, of course, the US continues to
be very active in working with the Minsk Group of OSCE to find the
resolution to the conflict.
- Is it possible that section 907 will be annuled?
- It is difficult to comment on this issue. The US administration
believes that section 907 is an obstacle to cooperation and bilateral
relations between our countries. And we favor the complete
elimination of section 907. At the same time this is part of US
legislation and so only the US congress can make a decision on
whether to completely repeal 907. I have no information about the new
Congress' intentions on this issue. However, the administration
remains committed to continue to waive the provisions of 907 each
year.
- USA doesn't approve the construction of
Baku-Tbilisi-Axalkalaki-Kars because Armenia is not participating in
it. Did USA offer Armenia that if the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is
solved with Azerbaijan's territory unity condition Armenia could join
the project?
- There are no such discussions that I am aware of. I will repeat
what Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza said the last time he was here
- that the US doesn't oppose the construction of this railroad. In
fact we are taking no measures of any kind to slow down this project.
There was a misunderstanding created by a legislative measure. This
measure was adopted by the Congress and signed by the President as
part of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. What that measure
did was to prohibit any official assistance that the US government
could provide, but this does not mean that the US opposes the
project. Projects like this, for example the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline, are financed by private companies, these are not projects
financed by governments. So if this project is commercially viable
then I see no obstacles to the successful implementation of the
project. But US government will not provide official assistance.
- The co-chairs valued 2006 as a year of solving the Nagrno-Karabakh.
How are the hopes of 2007 valued?
- One of the reasons why there was so much optimism in 2006 is
because this was one of the few years when there were no elections in
either country. Obviously it is now 2007 and there is still no
agreement or visible progress on ground. The responsibility for this
is shared not only by the MG, but by the parties as well. A lot of
progress was made and there is every reason to be optimistic that a
solution is not far away. When such an agreement will be reached is
difficult to say - this is an election year for Armenia - but if both
parties show political will there is no reason not to expect a
resolution in the near future.
- The co-chairs called on the leaders to prepare their population for
compromises...
- This is not the first time that the co-chairs have called the
parties to begin to prepare for compromises. Any solution that can be
reached at a negotiating table will involve difficult compromises on
both sides. It is important that the leaders explain their position
to their populations, so that when the time comes - they will have
the necessary public support. Last June the co-chairs released some
of the basic principles that were being discussed during the
negotiations. That led to a healthy dialogue on general issues. It
would be useful to continue such a dialogue in both countries to
prepare both countries for peace. What specific compromises will be
required depends on the negotiations. It is up to the two presidents
to know what their key interests are and where they can make
compromises. Those are not decisions that the MG Co-Chairs can make.
- But both Azerbaijan and Armenia presidents promised not to change
their oppinions...
- It is very easy to look at public statements and decide there is no
room for compromise. But the two presidents have invested a lot of
time and energy in these negotiations, and that demonstrates that
they believe there is room for compromise. I hope that both the
compromises and the achievements of such negotiations will soon be
presented to the publics.
- Russian co-chair stated that the Kosovo model could be possible for
Karabakh conflict. What does USA think about that?
- I spent two years working on these issues as an adviser to the U.S.
Co-Chair. During that time we looked all over the world at examples
and models that might give us useful ideas for helping to resolve the
Nagorno Karabakh issue. At the same time, we also recognize that
every conflict - whether it is in Palestine or Kosovo or somewhere
else - has unique circumstances. So while you might be able to borrow
specific ideas, it is impossible to take one model and apply it to
another conflict. The Kosovo model might be of some interest, but we
shouldn't assume that it can be used in Nagorno-Karabakh or any other
conflict situation. /APA/
Jan 31 2007
Jonathan Henick: `The Kosovo model shouldn't be taken as an example
for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution'
[ 31 Jan. 2007 15:59 ]
The Head of Public Affairs Department of US embassy in Baku Jonathan
Henick interviewed by the APA
- How will develop the relations between Azerbaijan and USA during
this year?
- Our relations continue to be very strong and continue to develop.
To give you an example, next week we will have an Economic
Partnership Commission meeting here in Baku. We believe that it is
time to take our cooperation and dialogue on economic issues to a
higher level. This new commission will be chaired by Finance Minister
Samir Sharifov and on US side by Assistant Secretary of State on
Economic, Energy, and Business affairs Dan Sullivan. Participants
will include senior officials from a number of different agencies.
The commission meeting will take place next week on February 7th. We
continue working very closely on energy, military and security
issues. There should be some discussions on energy issues as part of
the commission. In coming several weeks we will also have discussions
on military and security issues. And, of course, the US continues to
be very active in working with the Minsk Group of OSCE to find the
resolution to the conflict.
- Is it possible that section 907 will be annuled?
- It is difficult to comment on this issue. The US administration
believes that section 907 is an obstacle to cooperation and bilateral
relations between our countries. And we favor the complete
elimination of section 907. At the same time this is part of US
legislation and so only the US congress can make a decision on
whether to completely repeal 907. I have no information about the new
Congress' intentions on this issue. However, the administration
remains committed to continue to waive the provisions of 907 each
year.
- USA doesn't approve the construction of
Baku-Tbilisi-Axalkalaki-Kars because Armenia is not participating in
it. Did USA offer Armenia that if the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is
solved with Azerbaijan's territory unity condition Armenia could join
the project?
- There are no such discussions that I am aware of. I will repeat
what Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza said the last time he was here
- that the US doesn't oppose the construction of this railroad. In
fact we are taking no measures of any kind to slow down this project.
There was a misunderstanding created by a legislative measure. This
measure was adopted by the Congress and signed by the President as
part of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. What that measure
did was to prohibit any official assistance that the US government
could provide, but this does not mean that the US opposes the
project. Projects like this, for example the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline, are financed by private companies, these are not projects
financed by governments. So if this project is commercially viable
then I see no obstacles to the successful implementation of the
project. But US government will not provide official assistance.
- The co-chairs valued 2006 as a year of solving the Nagrno-Karabakh.
How are the hopes of 2007 valued?
- One of the reasons why there was so much optimism in 2006 is
because this was one of the few years when there were no elections in
either country. Obviously it is now 2007 and there is still no
agreement or visible progress on ground. The responsibility for this
is shared not only by the MG, but by the parties as well. A lot of
progress was made and there is every reason to be optimistic that a
solution is not far away. When such an agreement will be reached is
difficult to say - this is an election year for Armenia - but if both
parties show political will there is no reason not to expect a
resolution in the near future.
- The co-chairs called on the leaders to prepare their population for
compromises...
- This is not the first time that the co-chairs have called the
parties to begin to prepare for compromises. Any solution that can be
reached at a negotiating table will involve difficult compromises on
both sides. It is important that the leaders explain their position
to their populations, so that when the time comes - they will have
the necessary public support. Last June the co-chairs released some
of the basic principles that were being discussed during the
negotiations. That led to a healthy dialogue on general issues. It
would be useful to continue such a dialogue in both countries to
prepare both countries for peace. What specific compromises will be
required depends on the negotiations. It is up to the two presidents
to know what their key interests are and where they can make
compromises. Those are not decisions that the MG Co-Chairs can make.
- But both Azerbaijan and Armenia presidents promised not to change
their oppinions...
- It is very easy to look at public statements and decide there is no
room for compromise. But the two presidents have invested a lot of
time and energy in these negotiations, and that demonstrates that
they believe there is room for compromise. I hope that both the
compromises and the achievements of such negotiations will soon be
presented to the publics.
- Russian co-chair stated that the Kosovo model could be possible for
Karabakh conflict. What does USA think about that?
- I spent two years working on these issues as an adviser to the U.S.
Co-Chair. During that time we looked all over the world at examples
and models that might give us useful ideas for helping to resolve the
Nagorno Karabakh issue. At the same time, we also recognize that
every conflict - whether it is in Palestine or Kosovo or somewhere
else - has unique circumstances. So while you might be able to borrow
specific ideas, it is impossible to take one model and apply it to
another conflict. The Kosovo model might be of some interest, but we
shouldn't assume that it can be used in Nagorno-Karabakh or any other
conflict situation. /APA/