COMPROMISES ARE DEMANDED ONLY FROM AZERBAIJAN
by R. Orudzhev

Source: Echo (Baku), April 27, 2007, p. EV
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 2, 2007 Wednesday

Elmar Mamedyarov, Vardan Oskanyan and domestic experts comment on
statements of Mathew Braiza

Comments On Statements Of Mathew Braiza, Co-Chair Of The Minsk Osce
Group On The Course Of Negotiations On Nagorno-Karabakh Regulation;

For the second time during the period of his participation in work of
the Minsk OSCE group, American co-chair Mathew Braiza reveals some
details of ongoing negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh regulation
to the public.

For the second time during the period of his participation in work of
the Minsk OSCE group, American co-chair Mathew Braiza reveals some
details of ongoing negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh regulation
to the public.

In his interview with Voice of America, Braiza said that negotiations
on a peaceful resolving of the conflict were close to an agreement
on the basis of principles proposed by the Minsk group in 2006.

Braiza pointed out that "these principles will constitute the basis for
a formal agreement. I hope that in the next few months the presidents
will approve these principles and then will come a stage of intensive
negotiations for the signing of a final peace treaty.

The diplomat disclosed the essence of the principles discussed in
the court of negotiations. The parties negotiate on the immediate
withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from five districts around
Nagorno-Karabakh and return of these districts of Azerbaijan, the
deployment of peacekeeping forces there and the return of refugees.

Negotiations on the terms for the return of Kelbadzhar and Lachin
continue. Braiza summed up: "Even in this aspect we are close to
achieving an agreement."

Another principle is the provision of a corridor connecting
Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia for trading and civilian purposes.

Negotiations will be continued further and the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh will be determined at a certain stage through
"common voting." The Azerbaijani party is against the use of the word
"referendum" because the conduction of a referendum contradicts
the constitution of the country and that is why, in his words,
"we discuss the organization of voting at a later stage."

In turn, commenting on the statement of Braiza, Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Elmar Mamedyarov has said that Azerbaijan first of all
advocates the complete withdrawal of Armenian forces from the
occupied territories. Mamedyarov emphasizes that Armenian forces
should "definitely" be withdrawn from Kelbadzhar and Lachin but evades
answering the question about the withdrawal of Armenian armed forces
from Nagorno-Karabakh.

Mamedyarov states without any further clarification that "if
Nagorno-Karabakh receives the highest status of autonomy within
Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani community should have the possibility to
return. After the restoration of a normal coexistence, we will settle
the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan. We
will also continue a discussion dedicated to organization of the
referendum."

According to Mamedyarov, if an agreement on any of the principles
is not achieved, the remaining principles will also be considered
rejected.

Recent statements of Armenian Foreign Minister, Vardan Oskanyan, in
his interview with Austrian newspaper Der Standard look interesting
against this background. Commenting on the proposals of Azerbaijan
regarding the joint use of the Lachin corridor, Oskanyan says that
this issue "is not discussed. The corridor is a guarantee of the free
and unopposed communication between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

However, it should be viewed as a part of Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Azerbaijani party recently tried to promote the idea of its common
use but this had never been a subject of negotiations. International
intermediaries refused this new idea at once too." Oskanyan confesses
that Yerevan is seeking a formula where the status of Nagorno-Karabakh
is settled for Azerbaijanis at the very end and for Armenia at the
very beginning: "We should have a clear notion about the future
attitude on the issue of status. This is a central element of a
treaty. We speak about referendums and the self-determination of
residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. All the rest is secondary. People who
have lived in Nagorno-Karabakh before the beginning of the conflict
should have a right to take part in the referendum too. The question
is if they should return to Nagorno-Karabakh at the moment of voting
and this question belongs to the issues to which it is possible to
return later." One way or the other, how likely is it that Baku will
finally agree to observe all the conditions outlined by Braiza?

Political scientist Rasim Agaev says that "there is nothing new yet
in the statement of the American diplomats if we proceed from the
final goal of achievement of a mutually acceptable compromise.

Bilateral consent on the withdrawal of troops from some occupied
territories was achieved in the past and the parties spoke about
this many times. A novelty is an attempt to substitute the word
"referendum" with the term "voting" or plebiscite. At any rate, the
essence does not change because of this. Every time, the co-chairs
and the West give us the rotten fruits of their work in glossy
packaging. There is an obvious attempt to give independence to a
self-proclaimed republic separated by force and finally to merge
it with Armenia. This is what is meant. Everything what Braiza and
other intermediaries say now about an achieved rapprochement and the
discovery of a certain formula shows that they are preparing Azerbaijan
for certain forced compromises. Along with this, I do not think that
this will move Azerbaijani authorities closer to making any kind of
decision. If intermediaries could manage to force Armenia to agree
with certain compromises acceptable for us, simultaneously a treaty
would possibly be achieved. So far, I do not see any concessions on
the part of Armenia."

Elkhan Mekhtiev, head of the center of peace and the resolving
of conflicts, comments: "I think that changing the wording from
"referendum" to "voting" does not change anything in the essence of
the issue. The fact that Azerbaijani authorities have already agreed
with a referendum is clear to me. But on which terms? This is not
clear. I mean that the parties have not agreed on the issues to be
settled by people during the referendum. The Armenian party interprets
this as a referendum about the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh
and Baku believes that people will have to choose if they agree
for autonomy within Azerbaijan. I think that in speaking about the
referendum, intermediaries mean the exclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh from
Azerbaijan. This issue is put on the agenda according to the insistence
of the Armenian party. As to the liberation of five districts and the
settlement of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh after that, Azerbaijan
agreed with this back during the presidency of G. Aliev when such a
proposal was voiced by the European Union. Now Ilkham Aliev does not
wish to agree with the same terms without the coordination of all
follow-up steps because Armenians have already agreed to withdraw
their forces from Kelbadzhar and Lachin only after the determination
of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status in their favor. This means that we should
determine the agenda of the referendum now."