US State Department: wanted to make it better, but the result was as usual

PanARMENIAN.Net - In fact it is not that appropriate to speak about the conflict in the report about human rights, but that's not the point. It should be mentioned that the original version of the text (which so remained the final version) contained the Azerbaijani viewpoint on the conflict issue, namely; "Armenia has occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, which belongs to Azerbaijan". After Armenia announced that the text doesn't comply with the truth, the wording was changed, this, however, made things less comprehensible. "The Armenian armed forces occupy the great part of the Azeri territory, adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. The RA official establishments declare that the Republic hasn't occupied Nagorno-Karabakh particularly." Roughly speaking everything is left almost unchangeable. However, here Azerbaijan threatened the USA with rejection to participate in the security commission. Here an idea comes forward, if the USA doesn't want to treat Azerbaijan badly, it means Baku is of great importance to it. After all Baku means a lot; oil, gas, a possible bridgehead for attacking Iran, and a corridor connecting with Central Asia. And what can Armenia offer especially now when the elections are very close and, to the greatest disappointment of the USA, they will be held with no violations and no "colorful" revolution is predicted; even the opposition is calm and has started to think about its country's future, with the exception of one or two oppositional groups which do not really make any difference. So it would be better to let Armenia solve its problems on its own.

However, the truth is that it is not possible to ignore the US State Department's report, which however was done by Armenia. The RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs is being rather reasonable to believe that the issue of changing the wording of the US State Department's report has not been treated seriously from the very beginning. "It's all right; they will change it again. The most important thing is that the USA admitted its mistake," declared acting press-secretary of RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vladimir Karapetyan.

Everything is not that bad, except for the long and confusing interview of the OSCE co-chairman from the USA, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza, given to AzerTadj agency. "In the preliminary version of the report the statement was incorrect. Taking into account the present phase of the negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh issue, it was our mistake. Let's take a look at it once again; it is stated in the correction that the Armenian forces have occupied the territories; however the RA officials announce that they haven't occupied Nagorno-Karabakh. As you can see, we only indicated what the Armenian side had stated. At present we are at the stage of peace negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh issue, when the parties are leading talks regarding its future status. This process, with the assistance of the OSCE Minsk Group, will be carried out in a peaceful way, on the basis of international principles, such as UN Security Council Resolution and OSCE Regulation.

That is why, if we, like in the preliminary version of the report, announce that Armenia has occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, the given statement will surpass the results of the negotiations regarding the status. We can't define the results; they will be reached as the outcome of the negotiations. That is why I repeat that it was our mistake, but we corrected it. Let me mention that we didn't fall under anyone's influence. It is said that we did it under the pressure of some Diaspora groups. This is not true." However Bryza's statement didn't make it clear when America made that mistake; first or the second time? If the mistake was in the first statement, everything is clear, if the mistake was in the second one; then it's even more confusing - what did they correct? The American diplomat announced that there will be no more corrections and here we agree with him. If there was no correction in the first statement, everything would be quite clear - this is the USA's position. Then followed the confusion. A report can hardly be considered a step forward in the field of human right's protection. This concept has lately gained a more political sense.