“The principles of Madrid regarding the Karabakh conflict resolution have undergone no changes,” Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan told a press conference yesterday “But we managed to do that in Armenia, and we are determined to continue the reforms not because some people may announce we must do that but because such reforms are necessary for our people. We make that choice consciously, and we’ll follow that path, deepening and carrying out all the plans that derive from the interests of our people.” One of the journalists looking forward to the speedy settlement of the Karabakh conflict tried to find contradictions in the statements made by the OSCE officials. For instance, Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly said that this might happen till spring, whereas, French Co-Chair Bernard Fassier, expressed an opinion that the document might be signed till the middle of the coming year, according to the time-schedule submitted to the parties. “You cannot find any contradictions in the document adopted by us. Both the statement made by the Foreign Ministers of the OSCE member states and the joint statement of the Foreign Ministers of the MG Co-Chairing countries were elaborated in the same spirit and on the basis of the same principles. I cannot say anything on behalf of separate OSCE officials, but I strongly hope that the communications on the highest level may continue in future provided the parties demonstrate practical flexibility. Of course, the situation is quite complicated, but the important thing is that there is a political will to continue the peaceful settlement process. I think this is what is essential. The 56 Foreign Ministers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe are ready to support the continuation of the process,” the Secretary General said without, naturally, specifying a “concrete” time-limit. What attitude does the OSCE Secretary General have towards the radical activists’ heart-breaking complaints that by making “mild” assessments, the OSCE and PACE observers gave the green light to the acts of violence committed on March 1? Touching upon this question, Mr. Brichambaut made it clear that the task of an observation mission did not absolutely consist in making assessments on the pre-electoral or post-electoral situation of the given country or in estimating the elections as good or bad. The task of the observers is to record “whether or not there has been any progress and whether a step forward has been observed during the elections. This concerns all the countries where we carried out an observation mission. The observation mission is not a tool for speaking about negative phenomena; it is a means for ensuring the transition to democracy and continuing democratic processes in the given states.” In response to the question whether during the meeting in Helsinki the Ministers touched upon the issue that Georgia and Azerbaijan are assiduously arming themselves in breach of all the quotas prescribed by the European Agreement on General Armaments, Nalbandyan referred to his speech, “I specially touched upon the fact that Azerbaijan has increased its military budget several times and continues its efforts in that direction. Unfortunately, many countries that have acceded to the agreement do not make a relevant assessment on the policy conducted by Azerbaijan in contravention to international treaties. That fact was clearly mentioned, and we once again drew the international community and Foreign Ministers’ attention to the fact that such policy may really lead to undesired consequences.” When any country, increasing its military budget, speaks about peace, it is half of the misfortune, but “What Azerbaijan says is quite different, and there is a possibility of war. In such conditions, any incident on the border may be beyond control and have harmful consequences for both Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the whole region and generally, it may pose a threat to security and stability, the principal task of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,” the Foreign Minister is convinced. What does Armenia do “towards the implementation” of the strict recommendations of the ill-famed Bryza, the Commissioner for Human Rights and others who demand that the issue of the “political prisoners” be settled urgently. In the estimation of the Foreign Minister, “Armenia has undertaken quite a lot of steps towards the implementation of the clauses of Resolutions # 1609 and 1620. I can say that their major part has been implemented. There are questions over which the authorities are making efforts. However, it is impossible to solve some questions within a couple of days. I don’t think it is possible to carry out so much work in any country in cooperation with international experts. As Nalbandyan mentioned this is the choice of Armenia and it goes in that direction and “we are not trying to prove anything to the outer world.” So at least we can say that the foreign affairs minister of Armenia demonstrated the practical flexibility noted by the secretary general of the OSCE. At least he does a great job avoiding questions and making statements, which don’t imply anything.
