During the US State Department daily briefing, Spokesperson Ned Price referred to the recent aggression of Azerbaijan against Armenia’s sovereign territory. Here is the extract of what Mr. Price noticed and answered.
QUESTION: I was hoping you would offer us something more than the readouts we have seen given the scope of diplomatic traffic. We had Secretary’s calls, assistant secretary’s calls to the ministers. We had Reeker – Ambassador Reeker met with both sides today, with Azerbaijani president. What is the (inaudible) assessment – first the reasoning, and secondly the timing – behind the latest clashes yesterday?
MR PRICE: Well, events are fast-moving. I would say broadly it’s unclear if there is one proximate cause and one proximate factor. Oftentimes that is not the case. It’s unlikely to be the case here. Of course, we’ve seen tensions simmering in the Caucasus for quite some time. It’s precisely why we have been concerned about the potential for violence and in more recent hours the reports of attacks along the Armenian-Azerbaijan border.
Secretary Blinken has been personally engaged on this. It is why we and he put out a statement last night just within hours of these escalation of tensions calling for an immediate cessation of violence. It’s why he picked up the phone in the wee hours. He was on the phone until after 1:00 a.m. Eastern with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan underscoring for them the importance of the core message that he issued in his statement, namely the imperative of an immediate cessation of these hostilities. He urged President Aliyev to cease hostilities immediately, to disengage military forces, and to work to resolve all outstanding issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan through peaceful negotiations.
That has been our contention all along: There is no military solution to this conflict. We urge restraint from any further military hostilities. We also encourage both governments to re‑establish – to let direct lines of communication across diplomatic as well as military channels, and to recommit to constructive dialogue and to that diplomatic process. We are going to remain actively engaged diplomatically with both of these governments. You mentioned this already, but Ambassador Reeker, who was recently named our senior adviser for Caucasus negotiations, was in Baku yesterday. He remains there. He met earlier today with senior Azerbaijani leaders, and we remain committed to promoting peaceful, a democratic and prosperous future for the South Caucasus region.
QUESTION: You mentioned a number of times during the past couple of months that the U.S. has been involved, U.S. was in fact in the room engaging. My question is: Did the diplomacy fail you or it was not given a chance?
MR PRICE: Well, diplomacy is still very much alive. And this is a simmering conflict and a simmering sort of tension that has been around for decades. And we have been focused on this since the earliest days of this administration. Of course, we inherited a South Caucasus region that had only recently emerged from a fairly intense flare-up of violence in 2020. With our successive senior advisers now, we have placed a high level of personnel overseeing the day‑to‑day activity of this file. Of course, Ambassador Reeker is someone who is well known to the department. He has been the acting assistant secretary in charge of our Bureau for European and Eurasian Affairs. He has held senior posts overseas as well. He is someone who knows this issue set as well as anyone.
Secretary Blinken has repeatedly engaged with Prime Minister Pashinyan and with President Aliyev, knowing that – knowing the importance, recognizing the importance of his personal diplomacy, of his personal time and attention on this topic. We have made very clear our willingness and we’ve demonstrated our willingness to engage bilaterally with the parties, but also multilaterally as appropriate, bringing in allies as well as other partners in the region to achieve a de-escalation of tensions and to set these countries towards a comprehensive settlement.
QUESTION: The Secretary also mentioned today that he was concerned that Russia could try to stir the pot or could use its influence in the region to help the sides to calm down, let’s say. Russia did in fact claim today that it tried to broker a ceasefire which didn’t work. As soon as the U.S. – Vedant, actually, here behind this podium – announced last week that Ambassador Reeker was going to go to region, Russia sent its own ambassador to meet with the sides. Are you coordinating with Russia, or there is zero coordination in these efforts? And how do you see Russia’s role at this point?
MR PRICE: We have called upon all countries in the region to use their influence constructively. And there is no question on a couple fronts. There is no question that an escalation of hostilities or outright violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan, there is no question that that would not be in Russia’s interests. It would not be in anyone’s interest. There is also no question that Russia has outsized influence with both Azerbaijan and Armenia. We have called on Russia and we do call on Russia to use that influence and to use that leverage in a way that helps to achieve a cessation of hostilities, and more broadly a de-escalation of those tensions.
The point the Secretary was referring to today was very much a reflection of the influence and leverage that Russia has. Russia could use that influence for ill; it could use that influence to help bring about what it is we all seek, and that’s an immediate end to this violence and a de‑escalation of tensions.
QUESTION: It could also be in Russia’s interests in – to divert attention from Ukraine given the latest developments in Ukraine. Isn’t that an option?
MR PRICE: I will leave it to Russia to speak to what’s in their interests, but it is hard for us to envision from here how another conflict on Russia’s borders would be in anyone’s interests, including the interests of those in Moscow.
Anything else? Yeah, Shaun.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Oh, go ahead, if —
QUESTION: Sorry about that. Are you in contact with Russia regarding Azerbaijan and Armenia, or the special envoy Reeker?
MR PRICE: Ambassador Reeker is engaged with the parties. He is engaged with Armenia. He is engaged with Azerbaijan. We’ve made very clear that we’re willing to engage bilaterally as well as multilaterally in any forum or format that helps to bring about a cessation of hostilities and, over time, a de-escalation of tensions. Not in a position to read out all of our diplomacy on this, but we have been very public, as I was just a moment ago, calling upon all stakeholders, including the Russians, to use the influence – the significant influence that they do have – in a way that is constructive.
QUESTION: Any forum or format, including the Minsk Group?
MR PRICE: In a —
QUESTION: In a Minsk?
MR PRICE: In a – that is hard to imagine.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in Russia? In Belarus?
MR PRICE: I didn’t say any location, but —
QUESTION: No, but you said any format or forum, and that’s been the forum.
MR PRICE: Well, we are open to arrangements that would serve to bring about a de-escalation of tensions and a cessation of this violence.
QUESTION: Ned, just to clarify, you’ve offered but are Russians responding?
MR PRICE: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Are Russians responding to your —
MR PRICE: I will leave it to the Russians to speak to their diplomacy.
Shaun.
QUESTION: You mentioned – at the beginning of your statement mentioned the flare-up of violence again in recent hours. Do you have – is there one side that’s more to blame than the other for this? Is there a call on a particular side? The French just a few minutes ago seemed to be calling the Azerbaijanis to respect the ceasefire. Is there an assessment about which side needs to be pressured more (inaudible)?
MR PRICE: Well, as we said in the readout of the Secretary’s calls that took place overnight, he urged President Aliyev to cease hostilities immediately, to disengage military forces, and to work to resolve all outstanding issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan through negotiations that are peaceful and diplomacy that is constructive. We have seen significant evidence of Azerbaijani shelling inside Armenia and significant damage to Armenian infrastructure, but most important for us is that both of these parties commit to a cessation of hostilities and commit to a broader de-escalation.
Yes.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Azerbaijan and Armenia. We know that the tension was simmering because Armenians were conducting sporadic artillery attacks cross-border and in – and then Azerbaijanis responded to those sporadic artillery attacks. Now the tension is out of control. So, sir, the readouts that you mentioned, it says Secretary assured Prime Minister Pashinyan that United States will push for an immediate ceasefire, and but on the Azerbaijanis’ readout you say that Secretary Blinken urged President Aliyev to cease hostilities. Also, it looks that there is an apparent one-sided approach here. Do you think that United States could still contribute to peace if you keep this one-sided approach?
MR PRICE: Well, this goes back to Shaun’s question. Rather than assigning blame, we recognize that there is unlikely to be one proximate cause. What is most important for us is that the two parties commit to a cessation of hostilities and commit to the path of diplomacy to achieve a de-escalation of tensions over the longer term. The fact is that we have seen significant evidence of Azerbaijani shelling inside Armenia, significant damage to Armenian infrastructure, but right now our focus is on achieving that cessation of hostilities and that de-escalation of tensions.
QUESTION: And also, we heard that Armenia called on Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization to intervene the – in the conflict. Would United States – what’s the reaction from United States? Would United States endorse something like this?
MR PRICE: We have called on call countries in the region to use their influence in ways that are constructive to bringing about a cessation of hostilities and a de-escalation of tensions. Of course, it is hard to imagine how the introduction of foreign forces into one side of the conflict could serve those purposes, but again, our emphasis is on bringing about an end to this spike in violence.
