WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PREVIOUS ONE?
JAMES HAKOBYAN
LRAGIR.AM
11:50:56 – 08/06/2009
After the regular meeting of Serge Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev, which
took place in St. Petersburg, the OSCE Minks group Co-Chairs issued
their regular statement, the interesting thing with the which is
that it runs that the presidents decided to open a new topic, which
is the main, as the Co-Chairs stated.
But, what happened to the topic, which has been discussed so far? If
they dwell on a new topic, this means that there was an old one
too. Consequently, it is interesting to know, what happened to the old
one. First of all, what was that old topic. Besides, it is interesting
to know whether the presidents ended the previous topic. If they ended
so in what state is it? Did they reach agreement over that topic? Or,
perhaps, they closed the topic as they did not want to waste time on
it, since they were sure that they would never reach any agreement. Or
maybe the Co-Chairs were annoyed of the old topic and opened a new
one to create some fresh atmosphere in the process of the negotiations.
Besides, the connection between the old and the new topics is
interesting to know, if one stemmed from the others, or the one
is the continuation of the other. The questions are numerous and
various. It is interesting to know how the negotiation is formed,
considering that the presidents decided to dwell on the main question
only now. Maybe, they needed to discuss the main question just from
the beginning. Or, for whom that topic is primary? Do Armenia and
Azerbaijan consider that topic a primary one for the both of the
sides? What does Nagorno-Karabakh think about it?
Or, do the sides and the mediators accept that the content of
the negotiation was wrong so far, which was the reason for it
ineffectiveness. Until there are no answers to these and many other
questions, the Minsk group statement is difficult to be treated
seriously. But, it is obvious that the sides and the mediators
will try to represent this statement as a very serious one. It is
obvious that there will also be serious expert observations in this
connection. They have always been and there will always be, because
the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations, like any other negotiation,
always have expert sponsorship, which is conducted alongside with
the informational sponsorship.
And the reality, as usual, hides behind this sponsorships. Or these
sponsorships hide the real emptiness.