Yeni Musavat, Azerbaijan
Aug 3 2008

Matthew Bryza has unveiled the target of the mediation mission `to
grab Nagornyy Karabakh from Azerbaijan’

It has been confirmed once again following the talks between the
Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Moscow yesterday [2
August] that those who mediate these talks have only one aim: to grab
Nagornyy Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Giving us the ground to say so is
US co-chairman [of the OSCE Minsk Group] Matthew Bryza, who grows more
active after meetings between the presidents or foreign ministers and
makes statements that help journalists identify the gist of the talks.

Referendum

The assistant to the US Secretary of State told journalists in Moscow
that the population of Nagornyy Karabakh would determine its future
status: "Those people who live there will decide on it through
voting. I mean residents of Karabakh. Our proposals are that the
Armenian forces should be withdrawn from the seven districts around
Karabakh, international peace keeping forces should be deployed there
and conditions should be created for the return of refugees and
internally displaced persons. Also, a corridor should be opened to
connect Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh and finally a vote should be
conducted to determine the future status of Nagornyy Karabakh," Bryza
said. He also added that they do not know when all this will happen.

Of course, there is nothing new in the statement of the US
diplomat. The talks have been under way on the basis of the principles
he mentioned for more than three years and the sides were very close
to achieve agreement several times as the mediators put it. Taking
into account the provision in the Azerbaijani constitution that it is
impossible to hold a referendum in one part of the country, Bryza uses
the term "". But the essence does not change at all. The ultimate goal
of the talks mediated by him and another two co-chairmen [from Russia
and France] is to make Nagornyy Karabakh’s independence official in a
vote.

If the talk is about a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh, its outcome is
clear both for now and for a period of 10-15 years from now. The
Armenians will have the majority even in the ideal option when all the
ethnic Azerbaijanis of Nagornyy Karabakh return there. Bryza, the
negotiating foreign ministers and the presidents know what those
Armenians will decide.

Territorial integrity?

What is use continuing the talks on the basis of these proposals,
which seriously question Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and are
considered as a time bomb to separate Nagornyy Karabakh? Why have not
the Azerbaijani leadership officially refused these proposals and are
negotiating on their basis, saying in every opportunity that the talks
are being conducted on the basis of the territorial integrity of the
country?

When commenting on Bryza’s statement, officials in Baku say that the
Azerbaijani constitution does not allow the conduct of a separate
referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh. From this viewpoint the statement
about the determination of the status of Nagornyy Karabakh in a
referendum is wrong. However, this position does not alleviate
concerns because it will not be difficult for the Azerbaijani
authorities to make any amendment they wish to the constitution. Votes
of people do not decide anything in this country in any case.

"Scandalous statement maker"

It should be noted that Bryza is noted for making scandalous
statements and then denying them. Such cases have occurred more than
once in the mediation practice of the US diplomat. For example, it is
common for him to speak in one way in Yerevan and say in Baku that
journalists actually distorted his words. It is not ruled out that
Bryza may deny or otherwise interpret what he said in Moscow when he
comes to Baku. However, the essence does not change again. This is the
gist of the talks and perhaps it is worth thanking the US diplomat for
announcing it. Otherwise, the Azerbaijani public would have to be
confined to the statement of the country’s officials that "the talks
are being held within the principle of territorial integrity" and
would be unaware of the true essence of the talks.

"Hypocrite US policy"

Nevertheless, it becomes clear from the position of the US diplomat
how hypocrite his country’s policy is. For example, he says that the
status of Nagornyy Karabakh should be determined in a referendum, but
refers to another principle exceptionally that of territorial
integrity when it comes to the conflicts around Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Bryza said that the USA’s aim and national interest are
having these conflicts resolved within the framework of Georgia’s
territorial integrity. But who will believe the mediation of his
country after hearing from him conflicting positions on two sets of
separatist conflicts? The leader of Abkhaz separatists, Sergey
Bagapsh, did not conceal yesterday [2 August] that he was encouraged
by Bryza’s statement. Bagapsh said that he welcomes the position of
the US diplomat on a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh and at the same
time believes that the USA should recognize the outcomes of
referendums on independence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Bagapsh’s statement is quite logical. How fair and sincere is it for
the USA to speak about territorial integrity concerning the conflicts
in Georgia at a time when it believes that a referendum is important
in Nagornyy Karabakh? So, as can be seen here, Bryza has encouraged
separatists with his statement in Moscow. Earlier, the USA questioned
one of the crucial principles of international law by recognizing
Kosovo’s independence in the Balkans. In response, Russia gained quite
a strong argument to support separatists in the former Soviet
republics.

The USA and its embassy in Baku declare on every occasion that the USA
recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and does not view
Nagornyy Karabakh as an independent state. But Bryza’s statement casts
doubts on the announcements of the USA that it recognizes Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity.

Perhaps, the position of the USA is as declared, but will change
following a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh. It seems that every time
the USA issues statements recognizing Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity it accidentally misses a phrase that the future status of
Nagornyy Karabakh is a topic of the talks.

[translated from Azeri]