Why isn’t the West against “Lavrov plan”?
“There are no surprises for Armenia, Azerbaijan and the West in “Lavrov plan”,” Alexander Rahr, German political scientist, member of Valdai expert club, told 168.am, reflecting to noteworthy parts of the press conference delivered by OSCE MG American Co-Chair Richard Hoagland.
Note, that Richard Hoagland, OSCE MG Co-Chair, was in Yerevan on a regional visit, and he opened remarkable cards on ongoing agenda of NK conflict peaceful settlement.
In a meeting with reporters he informed that although negotiations have slowed down, to resume which parties to the conflict should manifest political will, there are several noteworthy plans. Upon his hints, not only implementation of agreements reached in Vienna and St. Petersburg are meant, but also settlement package, proposal, which as he assures, has approval of OSCE MG Co-Chairs. The most curious is that the US Co-Chair basically didn’t deny existence of plans, which are touched upon in the period of recent 1.5 year, which received the name of “Lavrov plan”. “We don’t call it a “Lavrov plan”,” Hoagland said.
Alexander Rahr said details provided by Hoagland create rather curious snapshot, which was also explicable and assumptive. According to him when “Lavrov plan” was being discussed there was an impression that the West is against this proposal, meanwhile between the lines of Hoagland’s comments the following is observed: the West isn’t against that NK conflict was settled by the package developed by the Russian side.
In his words, it’s noteworthy, that, in fact, the West isn’t against and expresses on it, as that new package basically is comprised of principles, which are already known to experts, diplomats and political figures dealing with this conflict. He stated there are no surprises in that package, on which Hoagland also hinted.
“Thus, on the whole Madrid Principles or developed Kazan proposal are meant, which is again Russian initiative. Why shouldn’t the West be in peace with Russia in this issue? Interest of the West is clear. As for Russia, in its turn Russia, against the background of sharpened relations with the West, which many experts qualify as cold war, attempts to manifest itself as a constructive mediator. Currently Russia would even gain, if the conflict was resolved pursuant this plan, which would totally become victory of Russian diplomacy and one of the only victories with years, which Russia really needs.
All this also shows that, compared with existent issues in other zones, there is serious mutual understanding on Karabakh issue, regarding Russia and the West, in this case, deep, in particular, on US, which lacks on Armenia-Azerbaijan side, due to which this package, in all likelihood, will also fail,” Alexander Rahr said.
He assessed this a positive circumstance, that despite the cold war, the USA and Russia are constructive around Karabakh, as Russia-USA relations currently are at a shaky and indefinite stage, when new escalations aren’t excluded. “Thus, the worthy should be served to the Co-Chairs for this, who show high flexibility,” Rahr said.
By Araks Martirosyan
