MATTHEW BRYZA’S MISTAKE "SAMOOPREDELENIE": DELIBERATE OR UNDELIBERATE? – ANALYSIS
APA
May 8 2009
Azerbaijan
Prague talks showed that Turkey-Armenia rapprochement had more negative
influence on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict
Baku. Vugar Masimoglu – APA. The presidents’ Prague meeting that
had been expected to play the decisive role in the settlement of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict did not give the expected results. The most
interesting is that for the first time the statements on the outcomes
of the meeting differed from one another distinctly.
-The co-chairing country confirms the Prague meeting took place in
an uneasy manner
Both the statements of the co-chairs at the press conference after
the meeting, and American co-chair Matthew Bryza’s interview to Radio
Liberty showed that the talks were held in constructive manner,
the sides agreed on the ideas of the basic principles. But these
optimistic statements contradict the information given by diplomatic
sources. According to the source, the talks took place in an uneasy
manner, Armenia again tried to put into discussion a formula it had
proposed two years ago. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner’s
assessment of the meeting also confirmed the information given by
the diplomatic source. Mr. Kouchner said in his interview to Ekho
Moskvi radio station that the meeting was held in an uneasy manner,
there were still many divergences between the sides. Contradictions
in the assessments confirm that the Prague meeting did not produce
expected results.
-Why Armenia puts into discussion the proposals made two years ago?
Armenia’s attempts to put into discussion the proposals debated
before the Madrid process, mean that the views that agreement will
be reached soon on the basic principles of the settlement are not
convincing. Actually, official Yerevan’s attempts to change the
direction of the dialogue have objective reasons. Putting into
discussion the proposals made before the Madrid process means that
Armenia deviates from the settlement proposal that is on the table
(though while coordinating the presidents’ meeting, the issues to be
discussed are also coordinated accurately between the sides). There
had been such an assumption before the Prague meeting, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said after meeting with the
U.S. Secretary of State "Armenia still has hesitations over the
settlement of the conflict and it will be known in the Prague meeting
whether the process, which began with great hopes, will produce
results or not." Prague meeting indeed showed that official Yerevan
was not ready for the process of settlement and had hesitations,
there is no other explanation to President Serzh Sargsyan’s refusing
the settlement formula on the table and putting into discussion the
proposals debated and not coordinated two years.
Three objective reasons of Yerevan’s hesitations Armenia’s hesitations
have objective reasons. Firstly, putting into discussion the old
proposals means that the process of settlement is delayed and Armenia
gains extra time. Secondly, after the start of the six-party political
dialogue on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Armenian
Diaspora increased pressures on official Yerevan. It is proved by the
fact that the leaders of the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA) refused to meet with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian
during his visit to the United States. This demonstrative refusal means
that Armenian Diaspora is dissatisfied with the plan of solution that
is on the table. Armenia, which agreed to the process of settlement
at the urgent request of the co-chairing countries of Minsk Group,
faced pressures of Armenian Diaspora. The only way out for Sargsyan
government to balance the pressures exerted from both sides is to
delay the process of settlement and gain time. The best way is to
put the old proposals on the table again, and this was what Serzh
Sargsyan did in Prague.
-Turkey-Armenia rapprochement struck the first blow on Nagorno
Karabakh conflict!
The third objective reason is the notable improvement in Armenia-Turkey
relations. From the very beginning official Yerevan claimed that the
reopening of the borders with Turkey had no links to the settlement
of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. At first similar colours were observed
in Turkey’s position, but later it was stated on various levels
that the reopening of borders was parallel to the settlement of
the conflict. Though American co-chair Matthew Bryza said in his
interview to the Radio Liberty that the process took place in
parallel, he underlined that they did not depend on each other:
"Nagorno Karabakh and improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations are two
separate processes. They are moving in parallel, but with different
speed. And an improvement in one has positive influence on the
other." In his statement the co-chair confirmed that improvement of
Turkey-Armenia relations was more ahead of the settlement of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. This is one of the factors making Armenia change
the agenda easily. Taking into account that the relations with Turkey
moved forward enough, became an irresistible process, Turkey will not
stop the process, even if there is no improvement in the settlement
of the conflict, Yerevan wanted to put Azerbaijan before facts.
Most likely Yerevan thinks that Turkey will not keep its promise
"the borders with Armenia will be not opened until the solution of
Nagorno Karabakh problem" under the foreign pressure. It will be clear
soon how it will be justified, but the fact remains: "Turkey-Armenia
rapprochement strengthened the political position of Yerevan and
contrary to the expectations this process negatively effected on
the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict". The Yerevan’s policy
"first open the borders and then we will see the settlement of
the conflict" probably is supported by the United States, one of
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. The answer to an enigma of Matthew
Bryza, who valued the Prague meeting, "that progress of one of the
processes will have a positive impact on the other" is following:
"The opening of Turkey-Armenia borders should take place before the
settlement of Nagorno Karabakh problem and this process will promote
the settlement of the conflict". With these ideas, the US co-chair
supported the Armenia’s tactic "first open the borders and then we
will see the settlement of the conflict" in Prague.
– "Samoopredelenie"(self-determination) or
"samoupravlenie"(self-administration) ?
There is one more interesting point in the Matthew Bryza’s evaluation
of the meeting. The US co-chair said that in his interview two
weeks ago the Azerbaijani president told that he respected the
self-determination right of Nagorno Karabakh Armenians and Bryza
considered it as a preparation of Azerbaijani population to agree
with one of the basic principles. "President Aliyev spoke about the
Lachin corridor and its role in the security, self-administration and
self-determination (added in Russian "samoopredelenie") of Karabakh
population. With this statement, he made a significant step toward
the preparation of Azerbaijani population to the agreement on basic
principles". He referred to the interview of Azerbaijani President
to Vesti and ITAR-TASS agency on April 18 during his working visit
to Moscow, but there are no such ideas in the part of interview
Matthew Bryza referred. "Our proposal contains the security of the
people living in Nagorno Karabakh and the people to live there in
future; local self-administration of Nagorno Karabakh; restoration
of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The decision on the status
of Nagorno Karabakh can be delayed for uncertain time. We support the
proposals of Minsk Group co-chairs at present. Results of the conflict
should be eliminated and Armenia must withdraw its occupant forces
from the territories outside the administrative borders of Nagorno
Karabakh as well. We understand that above-ground corridor between
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is important for the Armenian side and
we don’t see a problem in this issue. The issues related to Lachin
corridor can be resolved so usefully that the people living in Nagorno
Karabakh today and the Azerbaijanis returned there after the solution
to the conflict will not concern over the communication blockade.
We approach this issue so that it can be possible to be resolved. The
restoration of territorial integrity, guarantee for security, return
of all refugees and displaced persons to their historic homelands in
Nagorno Karabakh and surrounding territories and making decision in
future on the status of Nagorno Karabakh acceptable for both sides are
coordinated in both our and OSCE Minsk Group proposals. There is can’t
be unilateral decision on the status of Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan
will never participate in the processes considered the mechanisms
of legal separation of Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan. This is our
univocal position.
At the same time, we understand that the people living there should
feel themselves secure, have self-administration opportunities and
spend their lives for the solution to the conflict. From this point
of view we have no domination or interference into their lives. In my
opinion all theses factors can lead to the progress in the solution
to the conflict".
Matthew Bryza’s incomprehensible (?) happiness
The head of state spoke about the local self-administration right of
Armenians, but not about the self-determination. Most likely Bryza
mixed up the words "samoupravlenie" and "samoopredelenie". The first
notion is about the forming of self-administration bodies, the second
one is about the right of any nation to establish its state. The
President said "the people living there should feel themselves
secure, have self-administration opportunities for the solution to
the conflict". The Matthew Bryza’s mistake put forward one of the
main targets of the OSCE Minsk Group – the recognition of Nagorno
Karabakh self-determination right by Azerbaijan and they follows
this goal in long-year negotiations. Otherwise Matthew Bryza, who
mixed up "samoupravlenie" and "samoopredelenie", wouldn’t say that
"significant step was made toward the preparation of Azerbaijani
population to the agreement on basic principles". Unfortunately!