Declaration of Kosovo's independence and recognition of a new state in the Balkan peninsula became the most important event of this week, which divided the world into two parts. It is not a secret to anyone that the two poles are headed by the United States and Europe from the one side and Russia from the other.The word "precedent" is used more frequently by political scientists and politicians.
It should be reminded that it was Russian President Vladimir Putin who declared the universality of the Kosovo model of conflict resolution during the meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel on January 21 od 2007. It was followed by numerous indignant announcements by officials of the United States, European Union and international organizations on uniqueness of the situation in Kosovo and inapplicability of the resolution model to other conflicts. Moscow and pseudo-formations, it controls, in Moldova, Azerbaijan and Georgia rebutted the arguments of the West, accusing it of double standards and insisted on adoption of the Kosovo variant as a precedent.
Armenian diplomats were notable for understanding the senseleness of disputes with the West and at the same time, not willing to give up the dream of recognition of the Kosovo model as an international precedent. At the same time, Armenia, faring the reaction of its Russian supporters, is willing to recognize the Kosovo independence, to equate the situation in Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh.
Vardan Oskanyan's attempt to interpret the thesis of the absence of precedent, is an attempt to preserve the image before the West and the internal audience.
It should be noted that Azerbaijan behaved independently, unlike Armenia, by not recognizing Kosovo. The matter is not about the fare to have the same destiny as Serbia. Baku has stressed its adherence to the international law and demonstrated the observance of principles, rather than striving for satisfaction of allies and partners on energy security and combat with international terror.
Returning to the chronology of a dispute around the Kosovo model, the sensational announcement of V.Putin, made in the Kremlin on February 14, should be singled out.
He criticized western countries for double standards and put the unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria and Northern Cyprus (the Turkish republic recognized only by Turkey) into the one and the same list. Nagorno Karabakh was not mentioned among them. What does it mean? Does it mean that Nagorno Karabakh has no chances for recognition by the world in the future of its independence, or, on the contrary, that the issue of Nagorno Karabakh has been settled so that stopped being a problem? Taking into account that Putin's words were welcomed both in Yerevan and Baku, it should be supposed that the answer to the question is not monosemantic.
The US Embassy to Azerbaijan has made an odd announcement, which requires a detailed text analysis, on February 19, the 20th anniversary of the well known session of the Oblast committee of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The announcement starts with an optimistic note, assuring Azerbaijan that "Kosovo differs with its specifics and does not set a precedent for other regions, including Nagorno Karabakh. Yet it is followed by sentences, containing a subtext which is dangerous for Baku). The announcement says that "Kosovo is regulated by provisions of a special resolution (resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council), adopted for assistance to the definition of the future status. The resolution also envisions possible independent status of Kosovo via political processes".
At the same time, the statement says regarding Nagorno Karabakh: "Our policy remains changeless. The United States, recognizing the territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Azerbaijan, supports peaceful and coordinated resolution of the conflict. At the same time, we would like to declare, that the future status of Nagorno Karabajkh should be defined by way of international talks".
The future (now established) status of Kosovo,settled by means of political processes and the future status of Nagorno Karabakh, defined by way of international talks... What is the difference?
Considering that resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council also implied preservation of the territorial integrity of Serbia (we have become witnesses of how the world treats promises and resolutions and being aware of the status of the autonomous region set by these political processes, it is only to ask what is a difference between "political processes" and "international talks" and is it guaranteed that the announcements on recognition of the territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Azerbaijan will not be affected by "international talks"? Will there appear a person who will put a document, terminating international resolutions, on the table of negotiations within 15 years? Unfortunately, no one can guarantee it.
In conclusion, the authors of the announcement almost threaten that "all attempts of military resolution or a resolution, beyond the compromise, may pose a threat on stability in the Caucasus region". This should be interpreted as follows: the military resolution is declared by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to be illegal and invalid and in case of absence of compromises (which is more likely to be expected) the final resolution on the status of the province will be worked out by means of INTERNATIONAL (not bilateral) talks and presented to both presidents. This means that the resolution will be adopted by superstates and in conditions of predicted absence of compromises on the micro-level, it will be imposed on sides. The same occurred with the Akhtisaari's plan. Calming Azerbaijan down with announcements on recognition of its territorial integrity and inapplicability of the Kosovo scenario to Nagorno Karabakh, none of the co-chairmen has ever announced that the future status of this occupied land will be defined in the framework of Azerbaijan's international borders!
Gradually, Baku's suspicions were raised by official representative of the US Department of State, Schon McCormack, who did not mention Nagorno Karabakh in his notifications to Russia regarding comparison of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Kosovo, noting that any comparisons "develop separatism in these regions". Such an attitude can partially be explained by the fact that Vladimir Putin did not mention Nagorno Karabakh answering the question of a German reporterfive days ago. What will occur if Putin had mentioned it? Would McCormack spread this separatism feature on this province? It is difficult to answer, however, it should be reminded that the representatives of the US Department of State have never called the regime in Khankendi as separatist, whose strivings should not be encouraged.
Punning and Americans' constant avoiding of clear answer create the atmosphere of reticence between the two partners on strategic cooperation. A small reticence can further lead to great distrust in the future. Washington should understand that these insignificant details do not stay unnoticed by Baku.
/Day.Az/
|
