“By these statements they attempt to urge Baku withdraw from some steps”
Areg Galstyan (Russia), PhD, regular contributor to Forbes, the National Interest, the Hill and the American Thinker, editor-in-chief and head of American Studies, commenting on the statement issued by OSCE MG Co-Chairs, condemning Azerbaijani actions, told “168 Hours” that it has several reasons.
Firstly, OSCE main members have been long convincing Baku, that there is no need to exert efforts towards closure of OSCE Yerevan Office, but Baku ignored views of Moscow, Washington and Brussels. Those statements were a signal, as in fact, no one from OSCE MG members intended to close it in Yerevan, i.e. it turns out that will of one side is exerted over MG and the international community,” he clarified.
The analyst considers the second reason is the fact that it’s difficult to make general statement, as according to Galstyan many things have become more apparent now and both sides can’t be called every time.
“Now everything is obvious: who initiates aggression, who shoots and who replies. Besides, it’s clear that similar statements may bring to another April and already will have to bear difficult implications. Maybe they understood that now it’s easier to make unilateral statements, that we know you are the guilty and preventing bigger conflict, than doing so-called peaceful statements, and then simulate that nothing happened and attempt to put down that fire.
By these statements they attempt to urge Baku withdraw from some serious steps by showing that they realize who starts the first. This official statement is a new step toward conflict settlement and preventing Azerbaijan. MG more actively attempts to prevent Azerbaijan by realizing that internal situation isn’t stabile and Azerbaijan may undertake serious steps from that toward escalation,” Areg Galstyan said.
As for Russian MFA representative Maria Zakharova’s similar statement, he considers it a part of the same logic, “They also comprehend in Russia if the same position continues that we don’t know who initiated actions, we call on the sides that it’ll lead to another escalation, it may free Azerbaijan’s hands. On account of the point that throughout all this period Russia actively armed Azerbaijan, it bears some moral responsibility. Here those activities are directed to the point that Azerbaijan realized that Russia doesn’t want conflict escalation, Russia yet wants the status-quo to be maintained, and that serious provocations weren’t recorded on the contact line.”
Accordingly, Areg Galstyan considers on account of the circumstance that main role in Artsakh issue settlement is that of Moscow, naturally it bears more responsibility, than Europeans and Americans,
“Russia is the main regional actor and main mediator of conflict settlement, that’s why this clear consistent statement that Azerbaijan violates ceasefire regime and not the sides, is directed to giving an exact signal to Baku that there is a red line, which shouldn’t be passed and that they know about it, i.e. this somewhat changes the discourse of negotiations, as currently it’s clear for both OSCE MG and Moscow who is interested in regime violation.”
reflecting to the incident recorded between the Armenian Diaspora representatives in the USA and Erdogan’s bodyguards, told reporters this wasn’t new,
“In 2006 similar incident was recorded, when bodyguards of Turkey’s Foreign Ministry and Turkish citizens oppressed protest action of Armenians. A tough reply should be given. First of all, it’s necessary to raise the issue before the US Congress, that representatives of a different country used force against US citizens. It isn’t correct, when they say Turks fought with Armenians. Representatives of other country attacked US citizens and information discourse should be led in this direction.”
In his words even if those people consider they’re more Armenians, than Americans, it isn’t an issue, it should be raised before the Congress, “And Congress is for protection of interests of US citizens. Accordingly, raise the issue with your Congressman, take steps so that clear statements are made, that respective decision condemning those steps was adopted. If there were Jews or Irish instead of Armenians, I’m sure, a week later serious sanctions would have been imposed.”
According to A.Galstyan, it turns out that people constitutionally express their opinion, that’s why they’re attacked and beaten,
“The attacker is the state, as those people are representatives of the state, it’s the same that Turkey attacked on the US and makes a blow damaging its authority. Accordingly, you should reply. By the way, such a statement was already made, but it has no any connection to the activity of the Armenian Diaspora: John McCain stated that bodyguards of the president of other country have attacked on their citizens, i.e. in their territory. Now if our Diaspora intends to show its power, let it direct all its resources on this issue and reach to the point that sanctions were imposed against Turkey. It’s quite legal.”
By Razmik Martirosyan
