HASTE IN THE PEACE PROCESS WILL HAVE NEGATIVE OUTCOME
n-the-peace-process-will-have-negative-outcome/
Au g 13th, 2009
STEPANAKERT-The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Foreign Ministry
spokesperson Marcel Petrosyan Thursday responded to inquiries about
recent statements made by the US Co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group
Matthew Bryza. Below is the translated text of the press conference.
Question: How would you comment on the OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-chair’s
statement that the position of the Nagorno-Karabakh "population"
is reflected in the negotiation process?
Marcel Petrosyan: We would welcome this fact and, in this regard,
we would like to remind the mediators that the people of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic have expressed their will at the
referendum on independence on December 10, 1991 as well as the
Constitution referendum on December 10, 2006. We would be grateful
to the mediators if the will of the people of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic, as expressed at the referenda, would be fully reflected in
the negotiation process.
Question: How would you comment on the OSCE MG U.S. Co-chair’s
recent statements, where Bryza 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.
M.P.: First, I would like to stress that a quick resolution 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 resolution is the 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 resolution
to economic development and democratic reforms. The correlation into
a single "package"is an attempt to impose an agreement at all costs.
Unfortunately, recently there has been a tendency to speed up the
negotiations for resolving 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 apparoach. 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, an unreasonable
speeding up 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 toward changing the balance of powers
underlying peace and stability in the region.
Question: According to Bryza, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs propose
that peacekeepers in the Azeri-Karabakh conflict zone be unarmed,
perform monitoring functions and not be able to use force. This,
as the U.S. Co-chair 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. Please comment.
M.P.: By saying this Bryza admits 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 fully guarantee the security of Karabakh people in case of
implementation of the proposed settlement formula, as peacekeepers
are one of the main elements 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 Azeri-Karabakh conflict resolution by
appeasing the aggressor, Azerbaijan. History has shown that such a
policy does not contribute in any way to establishing peace. On the
contrary, it leads to escalation of tension and war.