ANSWERS TO THE MASS MEDIA QUESTIONS

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2009-08-13 17:09
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

Head of the NKR MFA Information Department Marsel Petrosian answered
the mass media questions concerning the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair
Matthew Bryza’s recent statements

– How would you comment on the OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-chair’s
assertion that the opinion of the Nagorno Karabakh "population"
is reflected in the negotiation process?

– We would welcome this fact and, in this connection, would like to
remind the mediators that the people of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
have expressed their will at the referenda on independence on December
10, 1991 as well as the NKR Constitution on December 10, 2006. We would
be thankful to the mediators if the will of the NKR people, expressed
at the referenda, would be fully reflected in the negotiation process.

– How would you comment on the OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-chair’s
recent statements, in which he presented the details of the proposed
principles for the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement? Matthew
Bryza also said that a quick settlement to the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict, to his opinion, was advantageous to Armenia, because
otherwise the economic development of the republic would be
complicated, which would in turn create problems in carrying out
democratic reforms.

– First, I would like to stress that a quick settlement to the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict is a priority for the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
as well.

However, this does not mean that we favor a settlement at any cost,
and with unpredictable consequences at that. For us a settlement
is establishment of lasting and enduring peace, which is possible to
achieve only in view of the actual state of affairs. However, Mr. Bryza
links the issue of the conflict settlement to economic development
and democratic reforms. The linkage of these issues into a single
"package" resembles more a bargaining and an attempt to impose an
agreement at all costs.

Unfortunately, recently there has been a tendency to speed up the
negotiations for settling the Nagorno Karabakh conflict based on a
formula that ignores both the essence and history of the conflict and
the existing realities. And Mr. Bryza`s statements, from our point of
view, are in line with this tendency. There is an impression that the
current haste has to do with the announced change of some of the OSCE
Minsk Group Co-chairs, and particularly Mr. Bryza. As we have already
said in a July 15, 2009 statement of the NKR MFA, an unreasonable
speedup of the negotiation process will have a negative outcome and
will lead only to escalation of tension, as the formula proposed by
the mediators is directed to changing the balance of powers underlying
peace and stability in the region.

– According to M. Bryza, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs propose that
the peacekeepers in the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict zone be unarmed,
perform a monitoring function and not be able to force to peace. This,
as the U.S. Co-chair has said, is conditioned by the fact that the
experience from Kosovo and Bosnia show that peacekeepers are not
capable of preventing an armed conflict, if one of the parties does
not want it. Your comment, please.

– By this Mr. Bryza admits, as a matter of fact, that one of the
main principles proposed by the mediators, namely the security of
the Nagorno Karabakh people, cannot be accomplished, and that the
international community cannot guarantee in full the security of
the NKR people in case of implementation of the proposed settlement
formula, as peacekeepers are one of the main tools of controlling
parties to a conflict that the international community has in its
arsenal of maintaining peace in conflict regions. But once tested,
it appears that they are not so effective, if one of the parties does
not want peace.

However, the OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-chair proposes to solve this
issue in the process of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement
by conciliating the aggressor Azerbaijan. History shows that such a
policy does not contribute in any way to establishing peace. On the
contrary, it leads to escalation of tension and war.