Refutation of one's own words as a style of Matthew Bryza's diplomacy

US OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Matthew Bryza seems to introduce a new style in diplomacy.

The main feature of this new style is that the US diplomat may accuse mass media representatives of distorting his words when needed.

As is known, the most popular methods used in the world of diplomacy, include diplomat's ability to escape the direct answer to a definite question and ability to speak much saying nothing in general.

Yet, the method of saying something clearly and later accusing reporters of distorting one's words, can be further called "Matthew Bryza's school".

We have again witnessed the use of the diplomatic method, to be called "Bryza's step" henceforth. Thus, while visiting Armenia, the US co-chair of the Minsk Group, speaking to reporters, refuted the words, he had voiced in Baku while talking to Azerbaijani journalists, when he said that "it would be safer for Armenians if the lands go back to Azerbaijan"

Armenian journalists noted that M.Bryza again refuted the words, voiced in the conversation with Azerbaijani journalists. It should be noted that M.Bryza, visiting Baku, also often refuted his words, voiced in Armenia, saying Armenian mass media representatives had distorted his words.

Certainly, this position is successful for a diplomat, especially considering the level of relations between Azerbaijani and Armenian journalists. Just imagine how much fun Azerbaijani journalists must have from writing that Armenian journalists have distorted M.Bryza's words and vise versa.

In the result, M.Bryza is considered to be dealing with diplomacy and saying what each side wants to hear from him in each of the countries. Meanwhile, there is no progress in the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. But the co-chairs, including M.Bryza, by no means blame themselves for it, as it is the fault of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which fail to agree with each other.

If Azerbaijan and Armenia could agree on the conflict settlement, why do they need Matthew Bryza and two his fellow-co-chairs? It means that representatives of the three countries, including M.Bryza, should get a bad mark on diplomacy for the unsettled conflict. However, the resume of the diplomat will fix long years of his efforts, taking diplomatic steps and dealing with the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. We should note from our side that M.Bryza's major diplomatic method was accusation of mass media representatives of distorting his words, even if they are communicated correctly.

In conclusion, it should be noted that M.Bryza speaks Russian well. But every time his incorrectly interpreted words make us think that, perhaps, he implied one thought, but voiced it differently. In this case, we would recommend him not to speak Russian, but hire a professional interpreter while visiting Azerbaijan and Armenia.

/Day.Az/