Neither 2006, nor any other coming year can make a «break» in the Karabakh issue

I can say nothing of ICG activities in the NKR, as there was no such. As of the reports and recommendations, this is the rare case, when the NKR society was negative both on reports and recommendations of the International Crisis Group (ICG). A whole range of rhetoric questions arises when acquainting with ICG documents and they remain unanswered. Which of the parties to conflict invited the ICG as a mediator? If none, who imposes them upon us? What do they have to do with the conflict? Do they have any views of the many aspects of the conflict? If they do, which are these, etc. ICG professionalism arouses special perplexity. In their reports they often make conclusions based on doubtful articles of interested parties in favor of the same party.

The role of the OSCE in settlement of the conflict is not that much self-dependent, as it seems to Azerbaijan. Peculiarities of contemporary policy in the globalization age are the way, that when deciding core matters of world policy - and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict refers to those - some consensus is reached at the EU or UN. Consensus is being reached mainly within the interests of large countries, who fund activities of those organizations, while interests of the parties to conflict are taken into account «as luck would have it.» This was true also at division of Yugoslavia, it is observed now when solving the Kosovo issue and that of Iraq. Thus, those who insist on it are advised to read Krylov's fable or recall arithmetic rule on changing the order of items.

Neither 2006, nor any other coming year can make a «break» in settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, as bloody conflicts like this can be settled only on the expiry of long time. Forecasting the exact number of years necessary for that is impossible. A break is being just outlined in the settlement of the Cyprus issue after 30 years, no break can be seen in the Palestinian issue. Please, recall how long the conflict on the Indo-Chinese peninsula lasted, while issues have remained until now. This is also true of any conflict of the 20th century. To make the terms shorter, the negotiations should be intensified, the format of the talks should be expanded, society should participate, confidence measures should be arranged. The conflict will not be settled for no particular reason. It is a very hard work and it demands qualified and professional approach.

As of a repeated referendum in the NKR, comments are unnecessary here. In their time Azeris of Nagorno Karabakh just refused from participation in it. I do not see what can change their viewpoint now or on the expiry of the term, invented by the ICG.