Tweet
"THE "WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY" IS NOT YET SHUT "
(The exclusive interview of the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Co-Chair for the OSCE
Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza to Mediamax news agency, December 2006)
- What is your assessment to the Nagorno Karabakh peace process in
2006?
- As you know, Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev met three times during
2006: at Rambouillet in February, in Bucharest in June, and most
recently in Minsk a couple weeks ago.
You are also undoubtedly aware that many people were hoping the
Presidents would emerge from those first two sets of talks with an
agreement on the principles for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Unfortunately, the Presidents were not ready to reach such
an agreement.
You know very well how the Co-Chairs responded: we issued a joint
statement on July 3 revealing the essence of the basic principles that
my predecessor, Amb. Mann, and my fellow Co-Chairs had discussed with
the two sides in the weeks and months leading up to the Bucharest
summit. Publicizing the essence of those basic principles was an
important step by the Co-Chairs, because we wanted to encourage the
leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia to engage their publics in a
difficult but necessary public dialogue about the resolution of the
conflict. I hope that this public dialogue continues in productive
ways in both countries. I'm convinced it's necessary to help the two
sides embrace a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
After the sides took a pause from negotiations during the summer, the
two Foreign Ministers have been actively engaged over the past few
months in continuing negotiations based on these basic principles.
Most recently, the two Presidents met in Minsk and gave a green light
for their Foreign Ministers to continue negotiations in 2007. This is
important, because it means that the "window of opportunity" that we
talked about in 2006 is not yet shut. The Co-Chairs will continue to
work with the two sides, even as campaign season begins for the 2007
parliamentary elections in Armenia. We will work together quietly, but
we hope to continue making progress on the details of the basic
principles that the two sides still need to agree upon.
The sides are engaging with each other actively and creatively to come
up with an set of basic principles that are mutually agreeable to
them. It is not my place to comment more specifically on where things
stand at this very moment in the negotiations. As Co-Chairs, we gave
you the essence of our basic principles back in July. Those basic
principles remain on the table as the basis for discussions between
the two sides.
- The representatives of the Armenian leadership have been recently
more actively talking about the fact that in the final stage of the
negotiations the participation of the Nagorno-Karabakhi
representatives in them will become necessary. What is your opinion in
this respect?
- The Minsk Group Co-Chairs - with our OSCE mandate - are charged with
helping the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan negotiate a peaceful
settlement of the NK conflict. While talks continue on a political
level as part of the Minsk Group process, it is important for the two
sides to find ways to build confidence between their societies.
It will undoubtedly be important for the populations of the region to
play a role in finding ways to co-exist peacefully with each other. I
think it's safe to say that representatives of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh will need to be involved in this process as we get
closer to a comprehensive peace agreement.
- Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated in September that
Yerevan will not look at the outcome of Kosovo as a precedent, but
`on the other hand, a Kosovo decision cannot and should not
result in the creation of obstacles to self-determination for others
in order to pre-empt the accusation of precedence'. It is
obvious that the decision on Kosovo will be made in 2007. Despite the
fact that the USA refuses to take Kosovo's any outcome as a
precedent, do you agree with the opinion that it will have serious
influence on the process of the settlement of other conflicts?
- The U.S. position on this is clear: the outcome of the Kosovo talks
will not establish a precedent for the resolution of other
conflicts. Each conflict is unique, with unique historical
underpinnings and unique structures and frameworks that have evolved
over time - and, indeed, that continue to evolve - to help the sides
reach the ultimate goal: a peaceful and lasting resolution of their
conflict.
- There is an impression that the U.S., being a Co-chair state of the
Minsk Group, puts a strict differentiation between the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and the efforts to settle the conflicts
in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
- It just so happens that the framework that the sides agree works
best in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh is the mediation process
facilitated by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. I'm happy to report
that the U.S., Russia, and France are cooperating quite well among
ourselves and with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. There is
momentum in the talks right now, and we remain hopeful that the sides
will continue to move closer toward a peaceful settlement of the
conflict.
For better or for worse, there is no OSCE Minsk Group for the
unresolved conflicts in Georgia and Moldova. We are trying to play a
constructive role in those conflicts by finding ways to promote direct
dialogue and build confidence between the sides. This happens in
different ways for each of those conflicts. I work directly on the
conflicts in Georgia, and one of my colleagues is the U.S.
representative in the talks for Moldova's Transnistria conflict. The
sad fact is that we are not seeing progress in the resolution of those
conflicts like we're seeing in the Minsk Group process for
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nonetheless, we continue to try to work with all interested parties to
find new ways to build confidence and make progress toward peaceful
settlements for all of the unresolved conflicts in the Caucasus and
Moldova.
- Do you think it is possible to improve the Turkish-Armenian
relations before the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
- We strongly encourage Turkey and Armenia to take steps to resolve
their differences, including by responding positively to opportunities
for dialogue. We realize there are a number of issues to address, and
we believe that with goodwill on both sides, progress can be made on
these issues even as we work toward the peaceful settlement of the NK
conflict. Obviously, Turkey will have an important role to play in
regional support for a just and lasting settlement of the conflict.
More generally, we are convinced that regional integration - including
open borders and the restoration of trade, transportation,
communication, cultural, and other links across the South Caucasus -
would be beneficial for the security and stability of the entire
region. Progress on resolving the NK conflict can move us closer
toward those goals.
(The exclusive interview of the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Co-Chair for the OSCE
Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza to Mediamax news agency, December 2006)
- What is your assessment to the Nagorno Karabakh peace process in
2006?
- As you know, Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev met three times during
2006: at Rambouillet in February, in Bucharest in June, and most
recently in Minsk a couple weeks ago.
You are also undoubtedly aware that many people were hoping the
Presidents would emerge from those first two sets of talks with an
agreement on the principles for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Unfortunately, the Presidents were not ready to reach such
an agreement.
You know very well how the Co-Chairs responded: we issued a joint
statement on July 3 revealing the essence of the basic principles that
my predecessor, Amb. Mann, and my fellow Co-Chairs had discussed with
the two sides in the weeks and months leading up to the Bucharest
summit. Publicizing the essence of those basic principles was an
important step by the Co-Chairs, because we wanted to encourage the
leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia to engage their publics in a
difficult but necessary public dialogue about the resolution of the
conflict. I hope that this public dialogue continues in productive
ways in both countries. I'm convinced it's necessary to help the two
sides embrace a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
After the sides took a pause from negotiations during the summer, the
two Foreign Ministers have been actively engaged over the past few
months in continuing negotiations based on these basic principles.
Most recently, the two Presidents met in Minsk and gave a green light
for their Foreign Ministers to continue negotiations in 2007. This is
important, because it means that the "window of opportunity" that we
talked about in 2006 is not yet shut. The Co-Chairs will continue to
work with the two sides, even as campaign season begins for the 2007
parliamentary elections in Armenia. We will work together quietly, but
we hope to continue making progress on the details of the basic
principles that the two sides still need to agree upon.
The sides are engaging with each other actively and creatively to come
up with an set of basic principles that are mutually agreeable to
them. It is not my place to comment more specifically on where things
stand at this very moment in the negotiations. As Co-Chairs, we gave
you the essence of our basic principles back in July. Those basic
principles remain on the table as the basis for discussions between
the two sides.
- The representatives of the Armenian leadership have been recently
more actively talking about the fact that in the final stage of the
negotiations the participation of the Nagorno-Karabakhi
representatives in them will become necessary. What is your opinion in
this respect?
- The Minsk Group Co-Chairs - with our OSCE mandate - are charged with
helping the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan negotiate a peaceful
settlement of the NK conflict. While talks continue on a political
level as part of the Minsk Group process, it is important for the two
sides to find ways to build confidence between their societies.
It will undoubtedly be important for the populations of the region to
play a role in finding ways to co-exist peacefully with each other. I
think it's safe to say that representatives of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh will need to be involved in this process as we get
closer to a comprehensive peace agreement.
- Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated in September that
Yerevan will not look at the outcome of Kosovo as a precedent, but
`on the other hand, a Kosovo decision cannot and should not
result in the creation of obstacles to self-determination for others
in order to pre-empt the accusation of precedence'. It is
obvious that the decision on Kosovo will be made in 2007. Despite the
fact that the USA refuses to take Kosovo's any outcome as a
precedent, do you agree with the opinion that it will have serious
influence on the process of the settlement of other conflicts?
- The U.S. position on this is clear: the outcome of the Kosovo talks
will not establish a precedent for the resolution of other
conflicts. Each conflict is unique, with unique historical
underpinnings and unique structures and frameworks that have evolved
over time - and, indeed, that continue to evolve - to help the sides
reach the ultimate goal: a peaceful and lasting resolution of their
conflict.
- There is an impression that the U.S., being a Co-chair state of the
Minsk Group, puts a strict differentiation between the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and the efforts to settle the conflicts
in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
- It just so happens that the framework that the sides agree works
best in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh is the mediation process
facilitated by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. I'm happy to report
that the U.S., Russia, and France are cooperating quite well among
ourselves and with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. There is
momentum in the talks right now, and we remain hopeful that the sides
will continue to move closer toward a peaceful settlement of the
conflict.
For better or for worse, there is no OSCE Minsk Group for the
unresolved conflicts in Georgia and Moldova. We are trying to play a
constructive role in those conflicts by finding ways to promote direct
dialogue and build confidence between the sides. This happens in
different ways for each of those conflicts. I work directly on the
conflicts in Georgia, and one of my colleagues is the U.S.
representative in the talks for Moldova's Transnistria conflict. The
sad fact is that we are not seeing progress in the resolution of those
conflicts like we're seeing in the Minsk Group process for
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nonetheless, we continue to try to work with all interested parties to
find new ways to build confidence and make progress toward peaceful
settlements for all of the unresolved conflicts in the Caucasus and
Moldova.
- Do you think it is possible to improve the Turkish-Armenian
relations before the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
- We strongly encourage Turkey and Armenia to take steps to resolve
their differences, including by responding positively to opportunities
for dialogue. We realize there are a number of issues to address, and
we believe that with goodwill on both sides, progress can be made on
these issues even as we work toward the peaceful settlement of the NK
conflict. Obviously, Turkey will have an important role to play in
regional support for a just and lasting settlement of the conflict.
More generally, we are convinced that regional integration - including
open borders and the restoration of trade, transportation,
communication, cultural, and other links across the South Caucasus -
would be beneficial for the security and stability of the entire
region. Progress on resolving the NK conflict can move us closer
toward those goals.