OSCE Chairman-In-Office in Yerevan. Kozhara says all the usual things, but adds a Ukrainian twist.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara finally arrived in Yerevan this week, concluding the usual obligatory pilgrimage that all the Chairmen-in-Office of the OSCE do, during their one year stint at the head of the organisation. Usually they manage to visit all the three countries in one go, but Kozhara had to travel from Kiev on three separate occasions to accommodate the busy schedules of the leaderships in the three South Caucasus countries - a sign of how times have changed perhaps.

In many ways Kozhara trip was uneventful, following all the usual routine and saying all the things that was expected. Ukrainian diplomacy is however somewhat irritated at being boxed in during its OSCE Chairmanship and Kozhara has been trying to use different formulas during his South Caucasus trips to introduce some new elements. For example, Kozhara in Yerevan used a formula that he had already stated in Baku some days earlier to describe support for the Minsk Process. Armenian media quote him as saying that "Ukraine supports actions of the OSCE Minsk Group, but believes that it could have more active engagement in the settlement process and could achieve more specific results." The choice of words reflects a broader impatience in the international community with lack of progress achieved by the Minsk Group in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

"Not a single conflict was settled after a conference or session. Practical work is necessary," Kozhara told a press conference in Yerevan. At the same time, he stressed importance of the organization of meetings between representatives of civil society. Kozhara said Ukraine is ready to provide its territory for such a meeting. In addition, Ukraine supports all activities aimed at mitigating the consequences of humanitarian disasters. And any such conflict has consequences, Leonid Kozhara said.

In Yerevan Kozhara also met the President of the self declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Bako Sahakyan. Sahakyan once more repeated the demand for the direct participation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the negotiation process.

This did not go unnoticed in Baku, where, the Foreign Ministry decided to give its own interpretation of the meeting, its spokesman Elman Abdullaev stating that:

"Leonid Kozhara held a meeting with the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh when he was on a visit to Azerbaijan. As a continuation of the meeting, he held meetings with the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh in Yerevan", s He noted that the goal of these meetings with the communities is to establish inter-cultural dialogue: "Therefore, OSCE Chairman-in-Office has met with the representatives of Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno Karabakh".

In Yerevan however, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, dismissed earlier statements by Abdullaev regarding the discussions held in Vienna over the weekend between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair. 

"During the Vienna meeting, we continued discussing how to advance the peace process. We discussed the schedule of upcoming meetings, including possible organization of a high level meeting by the end of this year. The last one failed because of Azerbaijan. Now there is understanding and agreement that such meeting is necessary. We must work to hold this meeting by the end of 2013,"

Like all other OSCE Chairmanships, the Ukrainians are finding that the Office has little power and last for too short a time for the country holding it to make a difference. It remains however the only mechanism that can steer the organisation out of lethargy and Ukrainian diploacy needs at least to be given credit for trying.

source: commonspace.eu with various media outlets.

photo: Ukrainian Foreign Minister and cuirrtent OSCE Chairman Leonid Kozhara speaking in Yerevan on 15 July 2013.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)