BAKU TO TRY TO DISCREDIT MINSK GROUP
Azg/am
21 July 2004
Azeri Authorities and Mass Media Criticize Co-Chairs’ Last Visit
Both official Baku and the Azeri press are obviously displeased with
Yuri Merzliakov and Steven Mann, Russian and American Co-Chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group. After the negotiations with Mamediarov, foreign
minister, Abiev, defense minister and Aliyev, President, in the course
of the press conference Steven Mann refused to call Armenia aggressor
and Yuri Merzliakov characterized the four formula of the UN Security
Council as “a decision adopted in another reality.”
“We have no judicial plenipotentiaries that would help to decide which
of the sides in conflict has undertaken a fair position,” said the
American diplomat in reply to the question “Do you accept that the
Azeri territories are occupied and who is the occupant?” The Co-Chairs
were in the region on July11-17. The new about this visit was the
fact that the mediators met with the political figures, deputies, NGO
representatives in Baku, Stepanakert and Yerevan, besides the
officials of the sides in conflict.
The Azeri Defense Minister told the Co- Chairs that Nagorno Karabagh
conflict can’t be settled unless the Azeri occupied territories are
liberated. Abiev said that UN Security Council’s four formulae should
be applied and OSCE should take the relevant decision.
Mann contradicted the statement made by Abiev and said that the
Nagorno Karabagh conflict shouldn’t be settled by OSCE. “The Nagorno
Karabagh conflict can be settled by Armenia and Azerbaijan only, while
the Minsk Group can only contribute to that.”
Merzliakov contradicted Abiev too. “We try to find the peaceful
solution to the conflict and help the sides to make the decision. The
four formulae of the UN Security Council were made in the conditions
of other reality and today they can’t be carried out. The deadline of
the commitments has expired and it’s time to find a new variant of
settlement,” said the Russian diplomat.
The UN Security Council has adopted four formulae on Nagorno Karabagh:
# 822, 853, 874 and 884, that clearly state that “the local Armenian
forces” should leave the occupied Azeri territories. Abiev, on his
turn, didn’t agree with Mann and Merzliakov and emphasized that the UN
commitments were complied in Yugoslavia and Iraq and he hoped that the
time will come when the abovementioned four formula will be applied
for the Nagorno Karabagh settlement. President Ilham Aliyev stated
once again that the activities of the Minsk Group had no results.
Aliyev spares no efforts to compromise the Minsk Group, denying the
achievements of the group in the conflict’s settlement. This can mean
that Baku tries to transfer the Nagorno Karabagh conflict settlement
to another framework, for example, to the EU.
The position of the united Europe, particularly that of France, is
worth mentioning. Henry Jackelen said: “If this format (OSCE Minsk
Group) yields no results the mediator’s plenipotentiaries can be
passed to the EU. But I must remind that neither the EU nor the UN
didn’t express readiness to undertake the responsibility.”
Indeed, the EU hasn’t expressed readiness to undertake a mediator’s
role in Karabagh, but, on the other hand, Brussels is discussing the
possibility to participate in the Karabagh settlement. Javier Solana,
the EU Responsible for Foreign Policy Issues, said this after the
meeting with Ilham Aliyev, last May.
The positions of Baku and Brussels concerning Karabagh settlement are
quite close today. Thus, Baku demands the withdrawal of the Armenian
forces from the Azeri regions, the EU demands the same. Azerbaijan
accepts the stage-by-stage version of the settlement, so the EU does.
One shouldn’t exclude that the EU “New Neighbors” initiative (Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia) will become the means to make Brussels feel
more confident in the Caucasus. Solana said: “New Neighbors”
initiative that is suggested to these countries can help the EU
participate in Karabagh settlement on a new level.
The possible involvement of the EU in the settlement process is not
desirable for Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh for other reasons
too. Thus, Solana accepts not only the stage-by-stage settlement of
the problem but also Turkey’ participation in the process.
Besides, Brussels doesn’t find the territorial integrity and the right
for self-determination primary issues. They consider the South
Caucasus a united economic area, where democracy, human rights
protection should be primary issues. The EU care neither for the
basic essence of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict nor for the results of
the war. To be more correct, the results of the Karabagh war are
important for other reasons: the Armenian forces should be withdrawn
from the regions they control against the probable agreement of
Azerbaijan to stop the blockade of Armenia.
Henry Jackelen stated in Stepanakert and Baku that the possibility of
a new war is bigger unless the issue of “the occupied territories”
isn’t solved. While the simple logics prompt that the current
cease-fire is conditioned by the security chain created by the
Armenian armed forces. And on the contrary, in case the Armenian
forces retreat the possibility of a war grows.
By Tatoul Hakobian