ARE CO-CHAIRS LAYING THE CARDS ON THE TABLE?

PanARMENIAN.Net
02.08.2008 GMT+04:00

Bryza’s statement can hardly be assessed as a diplomatic slipup. Most
likely it is an intentional "pour-out" in anticipation of response
from the conflicting parties, namely Baku and Stepanakert.

After the meeting between the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers
in Moscow, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Co-Chair of
the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza issued a really sensational
statement. "Nagorno-Karabakh residents will decide for themselves
whether the republic will return under the Azeri control or it will be
recognized independent. There will be held a referendum for the people
of Nagorno-Karabakh to express their will," Bryza told the journalists.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The fact that Bryza made this statement neither
in Yerevan nor in Baku, but in Moscow especially, suggests that
the Co-Chairs are already fed up with the endless repetition of one
and the same line of events and they have decided to put the cards
on the table. In spite of his modest position Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State has rather an influential role in the State
Department and, as a rule, he says what neither Condoleezza Rice
nor Daniel Fried can speak of. It is quite probable that before
the Presidential Elections of Azerbaijan the mediators, as well as
all the parties concerned should be stirred from the dead point of
conflict settlement. Roughly speaking, Ilham Aliyev will have to
sign a certain document. In exchange he may be promised absence of
criticism on the elections, which, irrespective of energy supply,
cannot be considered free and democratic. But here a question rises:
"What will Armenia be faced with?"

Naturally the problem of 5 or 7 regions and return of refugees
will come to the fore. However, in reply Armenia can demand back
the regions of Shahumian and Getashen, as well as Artsvashen that
was disgracefully conveyed to Azerbaijan in 1993. Thus, territorial
claims of Nagorno-Karabakh are rather many.

Baku’s reaction to the U.S. diplomat’s statement was not something
unexpected. "The referendum on defining the Nagorno-Karabakh status
in the territory of the Azerbaijani Republic is possible only in 15-20
years’ time. These processes can be implemented only after liberation
of the seven occupied regions and after return of the Azeri refugees
and forcedly displaced people to their permanent residence," declared
Novruz Mammadov, Head of President’s administration international
relations department. Note that Bryza made no mention of refugees, but
the Azeri agitation and propaganda department could not do without it.

However we should not forget that the U.S. policy towards Azerbaijan
has changed, especially since the beginning of the year. The Republican
Party may lose in the elections and democrat Barack Obama may be
elected a new U.S. president, who, preserving the main priorities,
would treat foreign developments more sufficiently. It concerns the
Caucasus too, not to mention Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. In fact,
Matthew Bryza has nothing to lose – it is almost unlikely that under
a new administration he will remain in the Department of State, but
who knows? As for Azerbaijani energy supply, Europe needs it more
than America does. However, Europe decides almost nothing in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict regulation. The issues of Azerbaijani oil
and gas are rather problematic too. For years official conferences
have been held on defining the status of the Caspian, from where Baku
has been drawing oil. The status not defined, Turkmenistan and Iran
have been repeatedly accusing Baku of appropriating the oil stations.

And what if everyone is bored with the warlike statements of Ilham
Aliyev, with blackmail and threats against the world community? After
all, the states of the Southern Caucasus are not so powerful as to
dictate the world what to do and how to do. They are too dependent
on dozens of external factors: Azerbaijan – on oil price, Georgia –
on NATO, Armenia – on her neighbours and isolation risk. Even Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, which boast much more oil than Baku does, are
unable to impose their will on the world powers. The only exceptions
are Iran and Libya, with some stipulations though. However, the thing
is not even in the dictatorship of world powers but in the reality;
the potential of state stability has never been dependent on oil. The
latter is not a minor factor, but it is among many others, such as
faithfulness to authentic human values and democracy. It is what
Azerbaijan presently lacks and the time for its acquisition is still
a question.

Bryza’s statement can hardly be assessed as a diplomatic slipup. Most
likely it is an intentional "pour-out" in anticipation of response
from the conflicting parties, namely Baku and Stepanakert. In the
current phase observations of Official Yerevan are superfluous.