Baku / 19.04.19 / Turan: Azerbaijani Foreign Minister E. Mammadyarov told the press that Washington is preparing a new meeting with the Armenian Foreign Minister in the US capital. The Armenian Foreign Ministry expressed displeasure at disclosing this information, but did not refute it.
At the previous one, in Moscow, the two ministers agreed on reciprocal visits by journalists and relatives of those in captivity and an armistice during agricultural work.
Question: What will the ministers talk about in Washington? Do these humanitarian agreements mean the surrender of its positions by Azerbaijan? Turan was answered by political analyst Ahmed Alili.
Answer: For a long time, the essence of the negotiation process and the logic of the parties was to say "no" to certain proposals, when the other party said "yes". As soon as they agreed on something in Baku, Yerevan immediately had its reasons for refusing this proposal.
Azerbaijan now agrees to practically all small steps with good intentions in order to achieve the fulfillment of the so-called "Lavrov Plan" or the "Hoagland Proposals" by Armenia.
Over the past year, Azerbaijan has demonstrated a more conciliatory tone during public speeches. Even when Pashinyan talked about changing the format of the negotiation process and abandoning the Madrid principles, Baku behaved quite confidently.
Tonoyan"s famous statement and the reaction of Baku to this showed that Azerbaijan has its own vision of the current phase of the negotiation process and it is confidently moving in this direction.
In Armenia, the impression was created that as soon as Pashinyan took the reins of government in his hands, he would be able to resolve the conflict. This visibility had to be created in order to improve relations with the European Union and the United States. However, now the process seems to be out of control of Yerevan.
Pashinyan came to power, and the problem was already there; there was little room for maneuver. Special hopes were that in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would somehow help Mnatsakanyan to get the process back on track. It was clear that the efforts of Americans and Europeans to achieve certain results do not please Moscow and Yerevan.
The Moscow meeting was entrusted with huge expectations. The closed part of the negotiation process is not clear, but the reaction to what is happening shows that Baku was pleased with the results.
In previous times, it happened that Lavrov became very active and took the initiative in his hands, pushing the EU and the US back. The format of the Moscow meeting showed that Washington and Brussels do not intend to leave Lavrov and the conflicting parties alone.
After the meeting Mnatsakanyan-Lavrov-Mammadyarov, a meeting was held together with other co-chairs. It was a mini-coup in the negotiation process. Lavrov failed to take the initiative.
After Moscow, Mnatsakanyan flew to Paris. Washington"s proposal to hold the meeting, voiced by Mammadyarov, and the reaction of Yerevan speak volumes.
These humanitarian contacts are useful for Baku to develop ties with Karabakh Armenians. Yerevan fears such a scenario, too, but cannot retreat. Baku has never been against it. Baku was against the principle "we are now performing humanitarian actions, creating trusting relationships, and when the parties become closer to each other, we will start talking about a real resolution of the conflict." However, all the acute issues that have created the current situation remain unresolved and may flare up with a new force. Baku is trying to distance itself from such a scenario. It has always been in favor of taking humanitarian steps to create confidence-building measures and switch to a real resolution of the conflict. It seems that we are now talking about such a scenario.
Question: Does "humanitarian achievement" mean the end of the threat of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
Answer: We always have time to fight. We must understand that war creates enormous risks to the security of the region. OSCE MG member countries want to avoid this. Therefore, they are intensively working in this direction. If there is at least one chance to resolve the conflict by military means, then we must take it.
According to Kommersant sources close to the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, USA, France), "Lavrov"s plan" to resolve the conflict in Karabakh, proposed by international mediators, looks like this: Armenia returns five (out of seven) occupied areas around Nagorno-Karabakh, which it currently controls in whole or in part. Azerbaijan removes economic blockade from Armenia. Nagorno-Karabakh is given a temporary status guaranteeing its security and self-government, and the issue of holding a referendum on its final status and the status of the two remaining regions is postponed.
Former US OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Richard Hoagland: "This is a very good, internationally approved plan. It is supported by the OSCE and the co-chair countries. " -0-
Question-answer
-
State Department's Liam Wasley, Director of the Office of European Security and Political Affairs at the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, speaks to TURAN's Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu on NATO's comprehensive defense and deterrence plan for Ukraine, forthcoming announcements of a package of support, as well as the country's progress towards membership and other challenges.
-
Sadettin Tantan, one of Turkey's most experienced statesmen and politicians, answers the questions from the Turan News Agency.
-
Yılmaz Akıncı, an employee of the Türkiye office of the Al-Jazeera channel, answered the questions of Turan News Agency after the publication of his memoirs entitled "An Angel on My Tail"
-
Authoritative expert Sabit Bagirov, who heads the Foundation for the Promotion of Entrepreneurship and Market Economy, in an exclusive interview with Turan sheds light on the country's upcoming role as the organizer of the 29th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29).
Leave a review