Tweet
WHOM AND WHAT DO THE SUPERPOWERS WANT TO REMIND?
Norayr Hovsepian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231:w hom-and-what-do-the-superpowers-want-to-remind&catid=1:all&Itemid=1
Thursday, 02 June 2011 11:35
We cannot complain of the lack of the international community's
attention. The Karabakh conflict settlement is still in the focus
of attention of influential force centers, and the latters issue
corresponding statements in this regard from time to time. The last of
them was the May 26 joint statement of the leaders of the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairing states - USA, Russia, and France - issued in the
French city of Dovile within the meetings of the Great 8. What has
changed after the similar statement made in the same format in Aquil
and Muskok? Whom and what do the co-chairs wish to remind? AS USUAL
"There is always dual expectation after any statement in a similar
format - we'll either witness another decent, but at the same time,
non-committal appeal or pivotal changes will take place", political
scientist Hrachya Arzumanian doesn't hasten to separate this statement
from similar statements made in a similar format earlier. And, to be
true, similar was also the mood after any statement on this level. The
Artsakh political scientist assures that the Dovile statement didn't
either provide any new formulations. "It was a usual statement with
usual formulations", he said. As usual, the formulations are very
vague and blear. Hrachya Arzumanian singles out the expression
in the Presidents' joint statement that the current situation is
unacceptable. "What is unacceptable for the international community
- the current status quo or Azerbaijan's continuous provocations at
the Karabakh-Azerbaijani contact-line"?
WITHOUT NOTING THE ADDRESSEE Maybe, the formulations are similar,
but the subtext is quite different, believes Chairman of the NKR NA
Standing Committee on Foreign Relations Vahram Atanesian. The first
emphasis is that the mediators do not obviously expect the parties
to resolve the issue.
"The three superpowers' leaders emphasized once again that they
saw only peaceful solution to the issue. This is what Yerevan and
Stepanakert have repeatedly stated on different levels", said Vahram
Atanesian.
This is the foreword. Now, let's speak about the formulations. Vahram
Atanesian recalls the early 90s. After the cease-fire establishment,
Aliev Senior did his utmost to introduce the issue to the international
community as a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And he achieved certain progress, even if on the formulations. The
international community started using the Azerbaijani vocabulary while
characterizing the issue. "Its formulation was as Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict around Nagorno Karabakh". Similar characterization initially
deformed both the process and the existing realities. But, the
situation was different in Dovile. "The mediators used more realistic
expressions - a statement regarding the Karabakh conflict", said
the Deputy.
NOT BETWEEN THE LINES
There are formulations in the statement, in which everything is said
directly and not between the lines. It is the use of force. This
time, the Presidents of the USA, Russia, and France have introduced
more distinct assessments. "The existing situation in the region is
characterized as a result of the use of force", emphasized Vahram
Atanesian. "Besides, in their joint statement, the co-chairing
states' leaders firmly noted that any attempt of the use of force is
unacceptable today", the Deputy said. It isn't difficult to understand
whom the "messages" are addressed. Finally, since 1994 up today,
threats of war have sounded exclusively from one side, that is Baku.
We can also note who threatens with the use of force today. Moreover,
the threats were directed not so much to the Armenian parties as to the
international community. Just a few days before the Dovile statement,
the mediators' warning on withdrawing snipers from the front line
was officially assessed as ridiculous in Baku and corresponding
steps on training snipers are still taken on a "public" level (or,
at least, it is stated about this). This was another threat addressed
to the international community, the representatives of which issued
a response "message", calling upon all the conflicting parties'
leaders to prepare their societies for peace and not for war.
NON-AZERBAIJANI VOCABULARY Besides consolidation of stability in
the region, Vahram Atanesian draws our attention to the formulation
"all the parties to the conflict". "If the text had been written
with Azerbaijani logic, the co-chairing states' leaders would have
addressed the appeal to Armenia and Azerbaijan. But, the mediators used
the formulation "all the parties to the conflict" The formulations
and messages comprised in the joint statement create a prospect for
some changes in the current negotiation process. The analysis of the
text of the co-chairing states' leaders' joint statement leads to the
general impression that the issue of making Nagorno Karabakh an equal
party to the negotiations is again put on the agenda". However, it
isn't an issue of the nearest future. So, during the coming meeting,
just the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will negotiate, probably,
with the participation of the Russian President. Other sources note
the place and date of the regular trilateral meeting - Kazan, June
25. The co-chairing states' leaders realize that just at this meeting,
Yerevan and Baku will confirm their positions on the latest option
of the Madrid document. In this regard, the Artsakh expert has his
initial considerations. "They speak of new and improved options. If
they should decrease the current possibilities of Artsakh and impose
any commitments, basing on any principles elaborated without the
participation of Stepanakert, so they are initially unacceptable for
us", considers political scientist Hrachya Arzumanian. Vahram Atanesian
hasn't either any special expectation from the coming meeting. Instead,
it can provide a new field of activity for the Armenian parties. "I
think the Azerbaijani President will again demonstrate his destructive
position. After this, the Armenian diplomacy will have an additional
ground for raising the issue of the NagornoKarabakhRepublic recognition
before the international community.
AFTERWORD
Yerevan promptly responded to the Dovile statement. In particular,
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian noted, "Armenia has always supported
an exclusively peaceful settlement of the conflict between Azerbaijan
and Nagorno Karabakh and has repeatedly proven this in practice;
so, it is clear whom the message, comprised in the statement in this
regard, is addressed".
Now, about the response of the addressee. Azerbaijan, via its foreign
ministry, hasted to comment on the Dovile statement, estimating it as
no less than a call to withdraw the Armenian forces from the so-called
occupied and former autonomous oblast's territories.
As they say, tastes differ. But, in this context, there is no even far
hope for the achievement of any agreement at the June meeting. And even
if anything has changed in the international sphere, which is also
disputable, the negotiating parties' positions are still unchanged
and incompatible.
Norayr Hovsepian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231:w hom-and-what-do-the-superpowers-want-to-remind&catid=1:all&Itemid=1
Thursday, 02 June 2011 11:35
We cannot complain of the lack of the international community's
attention. The Karabakh conflict settlement is still in the focus
of attention of influential force centers, and the latters issue
corresponding statements in this regard from time to time. The last of
them was the May 26 joint statement of the leaders of the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairing states - USA, Russia, and France - issued in the
French city of Dovile within the meetings of the Great 8. What has
changed after the similar statement made in the same format in Aquil
and Muskok? Whom and what do the co-chairs wish to remind? AS USUAL
"There is always dual expectation after any statement in a similar
format - we'll either witness another decent, but at the same time,
non-committal appeal or pivotal changes will take place", political
scientist Hrachya Arzumanian doesn't hasten to separate this statement
from similar statements made in a similar format earlier. And, to be
true, similar was also the mood after any statement on this level. The
Artsakh political scientist assures that the Dovile statement didn't
either provide any new formulations. "It was a usual statement with
usual formulations", he said. As usual, the formulations are very
vague and blear. Hrachya Arzumanian singles out the expression
in the Presidents' joint statement that the current situation is
unacceptable. "What is unacceptable for the international community
- the current status quo or Azerbaijan's continuous provocations at
the Karabakh-Azerbaijani contact-line"?
WITHOUT NOTING THE ADDRESSEE Maybe, the formulations are similar,
but the subtext is quite different, believes Chairman of the NKR NA
Standing Committee on Foreign Relations Vahram Atanesian. The first
emphasis is that the mediators do not obviously expect the parties
to resolve the issue.
"The three superpowers' leaders emphasized once again that they
saw only peaceful solution to the issue. This is what Yerevan and
Stepanakert have repeatedly stated on different levels", said Vahram
Atanesian.
This is the foreword. Now, let's speak about the formulations. Vahram
Atanesian recalls the early 90s. After the cease-fire establishment,
Aliev Senior did his utmost to introduce the issue to the international
community as a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And he achieved certain progress, even if on the formulations. The
international community started using the Azerbaijani vocabulary while
characterizing the issue. "Its formulation was as Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict around Nagorno Karabakh". Similar characterization initially
deformed both the process and the existing realities. But, the
situation was different in Dovile. "The mediators used more realistic
expressions - a statement regarding the Karabakh conflict", said
the Deputy.
NOT BETWEEN THE LINES
There are formulations in the statement, in which everything is said
directly and not between the lines. It is the use of force. This
time, the Presidents of the USA, Russia, and France have introduced
more distinct assessments. "The existing situation in the region is
characterized as a result of the use of force", emphasized Vahram
Atanesian. "Besides, in their joint statement, the co-chairing
states' leaders firmly noted that any attempt of the use of force is
unacceptable today", the Deputy said. It isn't difficult to understand
whom the "messages" are addressed. Finally, since 1994 up today,
threats of war have sounded exclusively from one side, that is Baku.
We can also note who threatens with the use of force today. Moreover,
the threats were directed not so much to the Armenian parties as to the
international community. Just a few days before the Dovile statement,
the mediators' warning on withdrawing snipers from the front line
was officially assessed as ridiculous in Baku and corresponding
steps on training snipers are still taken on a "public" level (or,
at least, it is stated about this). This was another threat addressed
to the international community, the representatives of which issued
a response "message", calling upon all the conflicting parties'
leaders to prepare their societies for peace and not for war.
NON-AZERBAIJANI VOCABULARY Besides consolidation of stability in
the region, Vahram Atanesian draws our attention to the formulation
"all the parties to the conflict". "If the text had been written
with Azerbaijani logic, the co-chairing states' leaders would have
addressed the appeal to Armenia and Azerbaijan. But, the mediators used
the formulation "all the parties to the conflict" The formulations
and messages comprised in the joint statement create a prospect for
some changes in the current negotiation process. The analysis of the
text of the co-chairing states' leaders' joint statement leads to the
general impression that the issue of making Nagorno Karabakh an equal
party to the negotiations is again put on the agenda". However, it
isn't an issue of the nearest future. So, during the coming meeting,
just the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will negotiate, probably,
with the participation of the Russian President. Other sources note
the place and date of the regular trilateral meeting - Kazan, June
25. The co-chairing states' leaders realize that just at this meeting,
Yerevan and Baku will confirm their positions on the latest option
of the Madrid document. In this regard, the Artsakh expert has his
initial considerations. "They speak of new and improved options. If
they should decrease the current possibilities of Artsakh and impose
any commitments, basing on any principles elaborated without the
participation of Stepanakert, so they are initially unacceptable for
us", considers political scientist Hrachya Arzumanian. Vahram Atanesian
hasn't either any special expectation from the coming meeting. Instead,
it can provide a new field of activity for the Armenian parties. "I
think the Azerbaijani President will again demonstrate his destructive
position. After this, the Armenian diplomacy will have an additional
ground for raising the issue of the NagornoKarabakhRepublic recognition
before the international community.
AFTERWORD
Yerevan promptly responded to the Dovile statement. In particular,
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian noted, "Armenia has always supported
an exclusively peaceful settlement of the conflict between Azerbaijan
and Nagorno Karabakh and has repeatedly proven this in practice;
so, it is clear whom the message, comprised in the statement in this
regard, is addressed".
Now, about the response of the addressee. Azerbaijan, via its foreign
ministry, hasted to comment on the Dovile statement, estimating it as
no less than a call to withdraw the Armenian forces from the so-called
occupied and former autonomous oblast's territories.
As they say, tastes differ. But, in this context, there is no even far
hope for the achievement of any agreement at the June meeting. And even
if anything has changed in the international sphere, which is also
disputable, the negotiating parties' positions are still unchanged
and incompatible.