Идет загрузка...
Сегодня:  Среда, 16 Июня, 2021 года


Genesis of the idea of transferring Nagorno-Karabakh to the UN protectorate

10:46, Суббота, 08 Августа, 2020 года
Genesis of the idea of transferring Nagorno-Karabakh to the UN protectorate

Washington's position on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is undergoing changes. This is demonstrated by the rhetoric of the former US interim co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Richard Hoagland.
     Referring to an unofficial conversation with the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk, Hoagland raises the question of the abilities and capabilities of the OSCE Minsk Group to influence the course of events and comes to the following conclusion: "At the moment, they cannot carry out an observation mission in the zone of tension. The Minsk Group has made great efforts to reduce tensions and return to the status quo. But I have a feeling that, unfortunately, it is unable to resolve the issue".
     Hoagland is well acquainted with the Karabakh dossier of the Minsk Group, knows about numerous previously developed scenario projects for the settlement of the conflict, which were discussed by the conflicting parties, but were ultimately rejected.
     After the Tovuz crisis, Hoagland suggests the following: "I think that the issue should become a UN problem. The only way is to leave Nagorno-Karabakh under the protectorate of the organization for an indefinite period. And in the future, years later, when, perhaps, emotions have cooled down, both sides will be able to express their desires for the future under the leadership of the UN".
     The idea of transferring Nagorno-Karabakh to the UN protectorate has been discussed for several years on the sidelines of the OSCE, as well as among the Western and Russian expert community. It was updated after the April 2016 war. They even drew up a possible scenario of the OSCE Minsk Group's actions in the event that one of the conflicting parties, due to certain circumstances, declares its refusal to mediate services of this group and withdraws from the ne***iation process.
     Recently, it was Azerbaijan that threatened to take such a move. Then the co-chairing countries of the Minsk Group, which are also members of the UN Security Council, initiate the adoption of a resolution on the introduction of protectorate governance in Nagorno-Karabakh. They sensed danger in Baku.

On the one hand, Azerbaijan criticizes and, in fact, blocks the work of the OSCE Minsk Group, on the other hand, it believes that we should not abandon the Minsk Group yet, since a more effective format has not been created.
     But even if a new format appears (Baku insisted on adding Turkey or Germany to the number of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs), nothing will change, unless the political and diplomatic confrontation will become more complicated. Because the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has long been internationalized. It actually stays in the center of three influencing processes: from the north - from Georgia, from the south - from the Middle East and from the east - from Azerbaijan.

Therefore, there is a stable feeling that the work of Azerbaijani diplomacy in the Karabakh direction, open threats to use the force scenario are designed for a certain factor associated with future events in the region. Provided that a situation arises that could fetter Russia's actions and open up new opportunities for Turkey. But these are dead-end scenarios. It is no coincidence that Hoagland speaks of the complex history of the conflict, calls for the beginning of an "objective historical study of its genesis", and not to dance from the "Sovietization" of the 1920s.
     Why? Because Hoagland, after Russian President Vladimir Putin "declared that the collapse of the USSR was the biggest catastrophe of the last century, and indicated that such post-Soviet countries as Azerbaijan and Armenia are in the special zone of Russia's privileged attention", The South Caucasus seems likely in a certain perspective. In this regard, some Western experts do not exclude that Russia will declare the protectorate administration of Nagorno-Karabakh and will strive to agree on this with the conflicting Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this regard, Washington needs to get ahead of Moscow - to pass a decision on the UN protectorate over Nagorno-Karabakh, based on the Azerbaijani-Armenian contradictions that existed in the region even before the Russian Empire appeared there.
     Of course, the American diplomat, as he himself says, expressed his personal opinion. But Hoagland is an authoritative specialist and expert, he reflects the sentiments existing in the US State Department regarding the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. All that he is declaring now is not accidental and requires attention.

We should not forget that after the aggravation of 2016 in Karabakh, the EU and UN are not particularly caring to what is happening there.
     The Western countries sometimes provide humanitarian support to the military personnel of both countries, as well as to the civilians suffering from clashes, but the EU has not had a single serious initiative related to the ceasefire ne***iations.

The American government is pleased with this conflict situation. Azerbaijan is almost an ally of the United States. And Baku also has close cooperation with Israel. In the economic sphere, Azerbaijan primarily cooperates with the United States in order to export its energy resources to world markets, especially to Western Europe. Along with Azerbaijan's natural resources such as oil and gas, the United States is attracted by Azerbaijan's geographic location and access to the Caspian Sea.
     The transfer of the Karabakh problem to the UN protectorate does not foreshadow the construction of such a ne***iating environment that will protect the interests of both the people of Artsakh and Armenia.

Продвижение этого поста
Статья опубликована в проекте Пресс-секретарь.
Зарегистрируйтесь и опубликуйте свои статьи.
Не нравится
| | |
3739 | 0 | 0