Internet Press Conference with Ambassador Pádraig Murphy

– I hope that the Foreign Ministers will take a constructive, future-oriented approach to the negotiations, and move closer to a solution. No matter how much the international community can be involved, the solution in the end lies with the sides to the conflict, and not with mediators, whose role is to promote such a solution. It is essential to prevent any further backward slide in the process, and to ensure that already existing commitments are implemented.

– Yes, protracted conflicts do pose a threat to stability and security, in the South Caucasus region as well as in the OSCE region as a whole. Our security is indivisible, and as long as the conflicts remain unresolved they are a threat to our security. Furthermore, they prevent the development of the societies that suffer from them, so the sooner the leaders of these societies take the bold decisions that are necessary to bring the processes to peaceful solutions, the sooner the people they represent can thrive.

– I do not want to speculate on the reasons of a particular statement from anyone. However, each conflict is different in terms of its scope, background, history, and involvement of international actors, and has to be dealt with individually.

2.A legislative body of the largest Australian state, New South Wales, unanimously adopted a resolution to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its right to self-determination. Before that, resolutions which were similar in spirit were adopted by the US states Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Which trends, do you think, this international process reflects?

– The OSCE starts from the positions adopted by its participating States. The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are endeavoring to find a solution, a formula, through negotiations which would allow people on all sides to live peaceful, safe and economically stable lives.

– The OSCE collects, processes and distributes information on conventional arms among its participating States. By doing so, the OSCE seeks to ensure military transparency and openness among all of its 56 participants, including the countries of South Caucasus. This should help decrease tensions and contribute to building trust among the participating States.

I am worried about the arms build-up in the South Caucasus. In the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, this creates a very dangerous situation for as long as the sides remain unable to come to an agreement.

2.Mr. Murphy, in your opinion, how viable today the Madrid Principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict  settlement are? 

Answer-

Answer-

– The Basic Principles cannot be exhausted: they are principles, and have been affirmed and re-affirmed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan. As outlined by the Minsk Group Co-chairing countries’ Presidents in L’Aquila and Muskoka, they remain the basis for negotiations. The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process has been going on for twenty years. After such a long time there are few, if any, issues that could be considered new. However, any proposals that the sides are ready to discuss will of course be facilitated by the Minsk Group Co-chairs. The elements of a negotiated solution are there. What is missing is the political will of the sides to take bold decisions for the sake of their peoples.

At the same time, while the negotiations are carried out, steps should be taken to re-establish much-needed trust, including on the people-to-people level, the trust which has been eroded throughout the years of the conflict. Mass media, parliamentarians and civil society could play an extremely important role in this.

Confidence- and security building measures, including a mechanism for investigating incidents on the line of contact, must also be put in place – this has been agreed by the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. A mechanism of discussing issues at the level of local military leaders should also be developed, to discuss specific practical concerns and incidents on the ground that contribute to insecurity. The OSCE has experience in this – look at the Ergneti Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism set up after the August 2008 conflict in Georgia.

Answer-

– The format of the OSCE Minsk Group is the only framework for facilitating a political solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which has been agreed by all sides. Peace requires efforts on the part of all those concerned, but especially a commitment on the part of the leaders in order to resolve the conflict for the benefit of the people. We welcome other initiatives aimed at bringing the sides of the conflict, their leaders, their communities, their media and civil society closer together.

I understand that there is a certain degree of frustration, since the OSCE Minsk Group has been working for twenty years now. However, the peace cannot happen overnight, it requires time and strong leadership by the parties involved. We in Ireland know it well. The Good Friday Agreement which put an end to the Northern Ireland conflict was the culmination of more than thirty years of intensive efforts by Irish and British governments, and by the political parties in Northern Ireland, with the good offices of the international community, including the EU, the USA and Canada.

Answer-

Answer-

– Every death is a tragedy. This year alone 28 people were killed on the line of contact and on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

We can and do offer and develop new and enhance already existing mechanisms, including monitoring on the line of contact and investigating of incidents on the front lines. Essential prerequisites are, firstly, agreement from the sides; and secondly, resources. At the moment, we stumble on the first. No amount of statements can replace the political will of the sides to deliver on the commitments already made.

We don’t give up, however. We continue working with the sides in the existing format of the OSCE Minsk Group and its Co-Chairs, as well as try to push through initiatives aimed at building trust between people, at individual level, with the help of media and civil society.

Answer-

Answer-

– The situation in the region is very serious. The tensions have grown lately, and the situation around Ramil Safarov, as well as the issue of opening of an airport in Nagorno-Karabakh added to the atmosphere of mistrust. Military rhetoric is used increasingly often, and it is vital to do everything possible for it to not grow into violent actions followed by retaliatory measures. I am convinced that military action cannot solve the conflict. I say this as Special Representative of the Irish Chairmanship in Office of the OSCE. Ireland witnessed a bloody conflict for many years. It would have unforeseeable consequences and only deepen the conflict further and multiply the hardships that the people in the region are facing.

The Helsinki Final Act, signed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, already contains important provisions related to the non-use of force of the threat of force. There is also a 1994 ceasefire agreement between the sides. Strictly respecting these commitments would already make a significant contribution to restoring security on the ground.

Any initiatives which would further reaffirm the non-use of force principle would be certainly welcomed. I remain convinced that a big deficit of the process is that there is no mechanism on the ground to deal with incidents. I am not only talking about an investigation mechanism, but also about one where local commanders can regularly sit together to discuss concerns such as shootings, troop movements, unmanned aerial vehicles over-flights, and other factors that contribute to insecurity for the soldiers.

What we, in co-operation with other international actors, can do is to facilitate continued dialogue, help restore and maintain confidence, including through humanitarian initiatives and supporting contacts between people. We believe such initiatives could create atmosphere inductive to making progress in political negotiations.

– The situation around the opening of the airport in Nagorno-Karabakh has been another factor contributing to the recent increase of tensions. Whatever is done in regard to this airport can have no implications for the status of this territory. This summer, the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group received assurances from the sides that they would refrain from any threat or use of force against civilian aircraft, pursue the matter through diplomatic steps, and refrain from politicizing the issue. I trust that these commitments will be fulfilled.

– There is no question that Armenia and Azerbaijan both need a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I cannot speak on behalf of the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan, neither on behalf of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs, except to say that both Governments continue to engage with the Minsk Group Co-Chairs in order to find a solution to the conflict. Personally, as Special Representative of the Irish Chairmanship in Office of the OSCE, I can speak also from the perspective of a country which knows well the cost of the conflict to the ordinary people and the suffering it brings. If you think about the people on the ground, about their safety and prosperity, and about the future of their children, you realise the necessity for compromise and finding a negotiated solution. And the experience of Northern Ireland confirms that this is possible.

It cannot be repeated often enough that one does not make peace with one’s friends; one makes peace with one’s enemies. To start perceiving your enemy as a negotiating partner is not easy, but this must be done, as peace and safety of thousands of people are at stake.

– It is not the role of the OSCE to assign guilt on the sides of the conflict. The Minsk Group Co-chairs facilitate the negotiations between the sides, and do not determine the participants in these negotiations, in practice, the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to the OSCE Minsk Group format and entered into a number of commitments, including non-use of force or threat of use of force.

– We are aware of the idea to restore the railway connection though Sukhumi, which is not new.  It is of course an interesting idea. Whatever would promote the movement of people and goods and stimulate trade and business is good, as it can create positive dynamics and contribute to stability.

We’ve seen the positive impact of the restoration of railway transportation in another conflict area of the OSCE region, through Transdniestria.

The South Caucasus has a great potential in terms of crossroads. The more this potential is developed the more prospects we will see to overcome the present deadlocks.

Answer-

– Russia too has a stake in the security of the South Caucasus region, as it borders Georgia and Azerbaijan. It has strong economic and social links with the region. Russia also actively participates in the conflict resolution efforts in the regions – it is one of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. Russia is also a participant of the Geneva International Discussions.

It is natural that all countries in the region have their political agendas. All these countries are participating States of the OSCE. The OSCE cannot impose policy on any OSCE participating State. Our role is to create conditions and offer platforms for the States to discuss their security concerns through the established formats, including the weekly meetings of the Forum for Security Co-operation in Vienna where politico-military matters of security are discussed.

– No country is isolated in today’s globalized world, and of course any tensions in Iran, which borders both Armenia and Azerbaijan, can have a serious impact on the neighbouring South Caucasus region.

– The OSCE’s role is not to give assessments or assign guilt to any side of the conflict. The OSCE’s role is to facilitate dialogue between the sides, but it cannot replace them in the process.

I would argue that the soonest settlement of conflict is not subject to how the OSCE or indeed any other international entity assesses the conflict. The soonest settlement of conflict is about how committed the sides are to negotiating a peaceful solution, and how prepared they are to take bold decisions, beginning with taking full responsibility for the implementation of the agreements and commitments already achieved.

– The status issue is at the core of the settlement process. An agreement between the sides to proceed on the basis of the Basic Principles would be instrumental for paving the way towards a peace agreement and resolving the question of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Answer-

Answer-

1.Taking into account the Russian factor, is the initiative of the new government of Georgia to conduct direct dialogue with Abkhazia and Tskhinvali, implementable? Given the fact that despite the shift of power in Georgia, Russia has been firmly stating that it is not going to discuss the fate of Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia with anyone, don’t you think that the future of the conflict regions of Georgia is predefined?

– The statements made so far by representatives of the new Georgian administration with regard to normalizing relations with Russia, including through an appointment of the special representative, are encouraging. Representatives of the new government were present at the latest, 21st round of the Geneva International Discussions – this was a welcome initiative which demonstrated their commitment to the process.  We hope for their continued positive involvement, and we also hope that other participants of the Geneva International Discussions, including the Russian Federation, will demonstrate a constructive approach, too.

In fact, the Geneva International Discussions is the framework which already includes participants from Moscow, Tbilisi, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, so in this way the OSCE has already been assisting the dialogue – and will continue doing so in the future as one of the Co-Chairs of the Geneva International Discussions.

As for whether the future of the conflict regions, as you put it, is predefined, I would argue that the Geneva International Discussions are not about the political status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is not on the agenda of the Discussions. The dialogue is about security and stability as well as about displaced persons and humanitarian issues. Within the Geneva International Discussions, the OSCE is putting a special emphasis on the need to improve the daily life of people in the conflict-affected areas. We are implementing EU-funded projects on providing potable and irrigation water to several hundreds of families living on both sides of the administrative boundary line.

– The co-chairs of the Geneva International Discussions (Philippe Lefort from the EU Antti Turunen from the UN and myself on behalf of the OSCE) have put a draft text on the table. At the 21st round of the Geneva International Discussions, the participants appointed experts who discussed the draft. As of today, the draft document envisages that the participants in the Geneva International Discussions could issue a joint declaration. It is not a protocol which would require signatures. The declaration would rather reaffirm existing commitments on the non-use of force.

– The OSCE Mission to Georgia was closed down in 2009, as no consensus was reached on the continuation of its activities. Despite the absence of the Mission on the ground, we still are actively engaged with the country, and are looking into ways of stepping up this engagement. This would strengthen our contribution to the Geneva Discussions, our work on the ground and to the work of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism. At the moment, we are specifically looking into the option of establishing a Vienna-based OSCE support team, inspired by a UN model. Of course, all possible options must be discussed with and agreed by all relevant actors, including the Russian Federation. We are raising the issue with all those concerned, and will continue our efforts with a view to finding a solution which will advance the interests of all sides.