Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Reaction of United States to Latest Sabotage Against Artsakh

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Reaction of United States to Latest Sabotage Against Artsakh

    New Reaction of United States to Latest Sabotage Against Artsakh

    Haikazn Ghahriyan, Editor-in-Chief
    Comments - 06 January 2015, 00:33


    The American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group James Warlick twitted:
    "2015 should be a year for NK peace and a lasting settlement. Renewed
    violence is not the answer."

    Note that on January 3 Azerbaijan attacked in two directions, killing
    two Armenian soldiers and injuring one. According to the Armenian
    side, Azerbaijan also had losses.

    Since his appointment James Warlick has been quite active and makes
    interesting tweets, responding to developments in the conflict area.
    He thus differs from Russian and French co-chairs who do not have such
    practice. In addition, he differs positively because sometimes he
    makes "preventive" statements. Warlick often makes transparent hints
    in his tweets which are not typical of the non-transparent activities
    of the Minsk Group.

    For example, after the downing of the Armenian helicopter in November
    he announced that there is not a neutral area in the Karabakh conflict
    but a territory which does not belong to anyone and which divides the
    armed forces. Note that the Armenian side announced that the
    helicopter fell in the neutral territory while in international law
    "neutral territory" means legal and political recognition of sides.

    At the same time, however, the United States announced that they were
    following the actions of the Armenian side for recovering the crew and
    remnants of the helicopter and admitted these actions.

    Earlier in September 2014 Warlick announced that it is time for the
    negotiations for the Karabakh settlement reach another level. This was
    followed by the war in August and the victory of the Armenian side
    when it was clear that Azerbaijan and Russia were acting according to
    a certain agreement aimed at deployment of Russian troops in Karabakh.

    In fact, the Armenian army thwarted this plan, and the U.S. co-chair
    hinted at the necessity to change the level of negotiations and
    involve Artsakh.

    Earlier Warlick announced that the issue of Artsakh is a black stain
    on the track of sustainable and peaceful Europe and the United States
    wants to see a free, intact and peaceful Europe by a peace settlement
    of the Issue of Artsakh. In other words, Artsakh was actually meant as
    part of Europe in this statement.

    Earlier Warlick "provoked" an interesting incident in Berdzor,
    Artsakh. Before leaving for Artsakh he made some statements and by the
    time the co-chairs arrived there, there was an action of protest
    against his statements. In this regard, Warlick said that people have
    the right to know about the problem and express their agreement or
    disagreement. Warlick said they could expect similar actions in any
    territory of Artsakh, adding that he was looking forward to the other
    visits.

    In fact, Warlick thus got people of Artsakh up to their feet, urging
    them to care for their own destiny and be aware of the settlement
    diplomacy which is, in fact, against the interests of Artsakh.

    In this respect, Warlick's response to the attacks sounds trivial.
    However, considering that the Russian-Azerbaijani alliance is already
    in place, sudden aggravation of the U.S.-Azerbaijani relations and the
    end of the Russian-Armenian "strategic partnership" which was marked
    by the EEU summit of December 23 in Moscow, this statement becomes
    interesting. Who and what is Warlick hinting when he announces that
    "renewed violence is not the answer"? Who wants renewal of violence,
    who is provoking renewal and who is he addressing?

    Warlick's fast responses and activity demonstrates that the Karabakh
    "settlement" is always at the focus of the United States, and
    single-handed decisions are ruled out. Of course, if the Armenian side
    is able to be adequate to this setting.

    http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33377

Working...
X