The prospect of former OSCE Minsk Group mediator on the Karabakh issue settlement Matthew Bryza’s possible appointment as the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan has become one of the most discussed subjects in Armenia.

The main issue in this connection is: how can Ambassador Bryza impact the negotiation process considering his close relations with Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s political circles and his kindred relations with a famous Turkish family?

The recent hearings at the US Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs during which Bryza, as the nominee for US Ambassador in Azerbaijan, was asked impartial questions related to his partial position on the Karabakh issue settlement, have made this issue more urgent.

The decision by the UN International Court of Justice, The Hague, announced on July22, according to which Kosovo’s proclamation of independence does not contradict international law, became the news of the day in Armenia where such a decision is believed to nullify Azerbaijan’s claims that the Armenian nation cannot gain independence twice and have two states.

In light of international sanctions imposed on Iran as well as speculations about a possible preemptive strike on the Islamic Republic, it is in the national interests of Armenia not to allow a war in the region. It is this interest that might explain a boost in Iranian-Armenian relations.

While a number of Iranian-Armenian economic projects, such as ambitious plans for a railway construction project, construction of large processing enterprises and others, appear to be stalling, political cooperation is becoming more and more tangible.

Despite the statements quite frequently voiced by the Azeri authorities on the possibility of resuming hostilities against Armenia, it is yet extremely premature to speak about prospects of a new war. There are no objective prerequisites in current circumstances that would indicate launch of war in the near future.

Azerbaijan is building its statehood on oil, and oil tariffs nowadays reflect quite positively on main economic indicators. In that view it is highly unlikely that Azerbaijan would go for a cardinal change of situation, especially with most indefinite outcome prospects.

“The unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and unsettled Armenian-Turkish relations hinder the development of Armenia,” such an argument has been causing debate in Armenia for many years. Discussions have gained fresh impetus after the speech by the country’s first president, now leader of the opposition Armenian National Congress (ANC) Levon Ter-Petrosyan at last weekend’s 16th congress of the Armenian National Movement, a former ruling party that now is a key member in the Ter-Petrosyan-led political alliance.

Ter-Petrosyan said that without the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and Armenian-Turkish relations, the security, economic and democratic development of Armenia will remain open to question. The result of the lack of appreciation of this truth, according to him, has been the emigration from Armenia and Karabakh, which may take disastrous proportions. The opposition leader criticized the belief expressed by his successor as president, Robert Kocharyan, that Armenia may develop still for a hundred years in conditions of a blockade.

The opposition Heritage Party and Armenian National Movement (HHSh) each held their congresses during the past two weeks; and while the oppositionists call for a change of power in Armenia, leadership changes have taken place within their own parties heralding the launch of pre-election campaigns. (The next parliamentary elections in Armenia are scheduled to be held in 2012).

The OSCE Ministerial meeting in Almaty, Kazakhstan, late last week had been presented in previews as a decisive one for the Karabakh settlement. It had been assumed that the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides would come to terms and possibly come close to drafting a framework document. Western diplomats even suggested “keeping the fingers crossed” to avoid “the evil eye.”

Apparently, someone, after all, has spoilt it with his “evil eye”.

With less than two years remaining before the parliamentary elections in Armenia, the opposition parties start to mobilize forces and declare their policies. Thus, the opposition Heritage Party held its extraordinary congress on July 10, and the non-parliamentary Armenian National Movement (ANM), which stood at the sources of independent Armenia, plans its convention for July 17.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s brief visit to Armenia has sparked extended debate and discussion. Some are satisfied that Clinton visited the Tsitsernakaberd Genocide Memorial, however, there are still speculations: Why was it simply a private visit, why didn’t she enter the Genocide Museum, and finally, why didn’t she personally receive souvenirs presented by the director of the Genocide Museum-Institute?

Hayk Demoyan, Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute in Yerevan, says that the visit of the US Secretary of State to Armenia is “a historical event in itself.”

While no disappointment is expressed at the official level in Yerevan and Baku over U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s South Caucasus tour and her position on the Karabakh settlement, such disappointment is vented in both countries at the level of experts.

Particular disappointment in Yerevan has been caused by the circumstance that the senior U.S. official in fact has “equalized” both parties to the Karabakh conflict. The Armenian side had expected the U.S. secretary of state to condemn Azerbaijan for the incident at the Karabakh-Azerbaijani border on June 18 in which four Armenian soldiers were killed as well as Azerbaijan’s increased war rhetoric on the whole. But Clinton only urged both sides to respect the ceasefire regime.