Mediamax news agency, Yerevan, in English
14 Sep 06
US MEDIATOR DETAILS CURRENT STATE OF NAGORNYY KARABAKH TALKS –
ARMENIAN AGENCY
The US mediator of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict has said that it is
still possible to resolve the conflict in 2006, although neither
Azerbaijan, nor Armenia have agreed on the set of basic principles
proposed by the international mediators. The mediators seek to build
trust between the sides in the conflict in order to make progress on
issues such as the return of the occupied territories to Azerbaijan
or a self-determination vote in Nagornyy Karabakh , the US
co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, told Armenia’s
Mediamax news agency. He also said that Armenia’s account with the
Millennium Challenge Corporation may be closed if the 2007
parliamentary election is "deeply problematic". The following is the
text of Matthew Bryza’s exclusive interview with Mediamax in English;
subheadings have been inserted editorially:
[Correspondent] Is the existing "window of opportunities" to resolve
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict this year still open, or it is going to
shut down very soon?
[Bryza] As the election campaign approaches in Armenia, the window of
opportunities will begin to narrow, but it is definitely open right
now. There is a lot of room now for creativity on the both sides, and
we see this by the example of the Azerbaijani sponsored resolution in
the United Nations regarding the joint efforts to address the
problems created by fires.
Basic principles of settlement
[Correspondent] Are you going to discuss some new ideas or elements
with the sides to make the settlement possible?
[Bryza] The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have proposed a set of
basic principles and we are still waiting to hear what the presidents
of Armenia and Azerbaijan will have to say. It is really up to the
presidents themselves as to whether they would like to change those
basic principles.
[Correspondent] After the Kocharian-Aliyev meeting in Bucharest in
early June the Armenian side is constantly urging Azerbaijan to
return to the proposal that is on the negotiation table. Does it mean
that one of the sides has refused the previously agreed principles?
[Bryza] It is clear to every observer that neither side agrees to the
basic principles. If they did, both sides would stand up, or one side
would stand up and say – "we fully accept these basic principles".
Nobody is saying that. Some people are saying – "we have problems
with the principles", some people say – "well, in principle we accept
them, but we have a few minor changes". Nobody is saying – we accept
them.
[Correspondent] One of the main principles is related to holding a
referendum in Nagorno Karabakh. Do you believe that Azerbaijan is
really ready to accept the idea of a referendum?
[Bryza] I think they are sincere about pursuing the concept of what
they don’t just call a "referendum vote". I mean in the document,
containing the basic principles, phrasing is the following –
"referendum vote/population vote". So, the Azerbaijani side is saying
that it is talking not about a referendum vote, but a population
vote. And this is because of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, which
requires that if there is referendum, then all citizens of Azerbaijan
must participate in it.
I guess, maybe the Armenian side really doesn’t want to see that sort
of a vote that covers the entire population of Azerbaijan. So we have
to find a clever way to devise the voting process that addresses the
interests of both Azerbaijan and Armenia.
[Correspondent] But it seems that the Armenian side doesn’t believe
that Azerbaijan is sincere in its readiness to hold a referendum and
that’s why the Armenians decide to keep the Kalbacar region as a
"deposit".
[Bryza] You identified properly one of the key questions. Yes, the
Azerbaijani side would like to make sure that all seven territories
are returned. It is hard for me to predict how quickly or whether
that particular question could be fixed. My job as the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chair is to be creative and optimistic and always looking
for a way forward. If I believed that the process was hopeless I
wouldn’t be wasting my time.
[Bryza] I think that the issue of when Kalbacar will be returned
depends on how quickly the two sides will begin building trust in
each other. I don’t know when this will happen, but the whole essence
of the confidence building measures we are talking about now with
regard to the fires is to begin building that very trust.
When a climate is created in which some degree of trust is
reestablished, it will be absolutely realistic to talk about the
return of Kalbacar to Azerbaijan in return for other elements like
the referendum vote/population vote or guarantees on Lachin corridor
that Armenia seeks.
Destruction of monuments
[Correspondent] This March in Yerevan you called a "tragedy" the
destruction of an ancient Armenian cemetery in Nakhichevan,
Azerbaijan. Don’t you think that absence of a strong and consolidated
international reaction towards such barbaric actions seriously
hinders the confidence building between the sides?
[Bryza] The destruction of those thumb stones was truly a tragedy.
But I think that proper channel to address such cases is not the
United States government, or the OSCE Minsk Group. The proper channel
in such cases is UNESCO. So we would like to see Armenia and
Azerbaijan with regard to its claims of cultural heritage being
violated, appeal to the proper channel, which is UNESCO. And we would
be very supportive in that process.
Speaking about the problem in a broader context, we need to make sure
that the rhetoric coming out from the region is completely free of
hatred and threats to use force, because there is simply no military
solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict now and it won’t be in ten,
fifteen, thirty or fifty years.
[Correspondent] If there is no progress achieved this year, how do
the mediators plan to work in 2007, which is an election year in
Armenia?
[Bryza] The mediators issued a statement this summer saying that the
OSCE Minsk Group will reconsider how active the mediators would be
depending upon the response they received from the presidents. So far
we haven’t received the formal response. So if we go to the election
period and the parties say that they would like the mediators to
continue their efforts, then of course we will continue.
Bryza surprised by Nagorno Karabakh "constructive stance"
[Correspondent] You have visited Nagorno Karabakh for the first time
recently. What are your impressions?
[Bryza] It is hard to have an accurate impression about the Nagorno
Karabakh before you go there. It is a breath-taking beautiful and
gorgeous place.
The thing that didn’t surprise me was the attitude of people and the
leadership of Nagorno Karabakh with their deep pride and the sense of
having arrived at what they deeply believe will be a final position.
I was pleasantly surprised by their sober and constructive stance,
their willingness to talk and to think together with us how to move
the peace process. I felt myself very comfortable and welcomed there
and it was a nice feeling.
[Correspondent] Do you think it is correct to compare the Nagorno
Karabakh with other frozen conflicts?
[Bryza] I believe that each conflict is a unique. We categorically
reject any notion that there is a universal precedent that could be
set in Kosovo, or anywhere else. Each conflict has its unique
elements and Nagorno Karabakh is definitely different.
[Correspondent] How do you access the cooperation between the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group?
[Bryza] Although I am new in the Minsk Group, but I can already say
that the level of the cooperation is among the highest that I’ve
experienced in my nearly 20 years in diplomacy. Even if we had begun
the process of discussion from different prospective, based upon our
governments’ views, we have been able to come up with a shared
position so far every time.
Armenia’s energy problems
[Correspondent] Earlier this year you and U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State Daniel Fried indicated the interest of the United States
towards the issues of providing Armenia’s energy security. In
particular, Daniel Fried said that Armenia’s desire to have a new
nuclear power station will be examined in Washington. Did you already
have some discussions regarding this topic? And do you believe that
Armenia might have some involvement in the Trans-Caspian pipeline
project?
[Bryza] Armenia indeed finds itself in a difficult geographic
position when it comes to energy. We have talked a bit in Washington
about the ambitions expressed by Armenia to develop a new nuclear
power plant. That is something we don’t oppose and we certainly want
to help Armenia to find investors and the right technologies. And it
would be great if the power generated by this plant will be exported,
especially to Georgia and, after the resolution of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict, also to other countries of the region.
With regard to the pipelines, our ambition and our hope is to have
some sort of a link of a gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to Armenia.
Such a link will demonstrate that the serious conflict is over. That
is definitely something we would like to see.
[Correspondent] You often meet Turkish officials. Do you discuss the
issue of Turkish-Armenian relations with them and do you see any
opportunities to mark some progress?
[Bryza] I always discuss Turkish-Armenian relations with my
counterparts in Ankara.Yes, I see some room for improvement. There is
a set of proposals on the table for these committees to begin talks –
one about the history and the horrors of 1915 and one to talk about
the practical diplomatic and economic cooperation. United States
would really like to see both of those committees begin functioning –
to address both historical and moral questions as well as the
practical issues of diplomacy and commerce.
[Correspondent] Do you mean that the second committee might be formed
on the intergovernmental level?
[Bryza] Yes, that’s right, the intergovernmental committee. The first
one could be broader – involving historians, philosophers, academics,
etc.
US aid and Armenian election
[Correspondent] Armenia will be having parliamentary elections in
2007. Earlier this year there were talks that the Millennium
Challenge Compact might be suspended if the elections fail to meet
the international standards. Does this mean that for this time the
U.S. is not going to accept the outcome of the elections if they are
not free and fair?
[Bryza] Democratic reform is on the top of our agenda not only with
Armenia, but also with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Russia and
Central Asia. I can’t predict what will happen in Armenia, but we are
working hard through our Embassy in Yerevan with the Armenian
government and the civil society to do whatever we can to ensure that
the upcoming elections will be as free and fair as possible.
I am not going to make any threats about the Millennium Challenge
Account, but the reality is that we don’t decide who is in and out of
the program. There are indicators provided by the World Bank and by
the Freedom House, and it is theoretically possible that if the
elections are deeply problematic, those indicators will change and
Armenia could no longer meet the criteria of Millennium Challenge
Account and in such a case we will be obligated to suspend the
program. But it’s not a threat on my part, I am just stating a fact.
Our goal is to do everything we can with Armenia to avoid any chance
of that happening.