The following is the interview the US co-chair Steven Mann gave on the eve of the meeting to AzerTAj Washington-based correspondent.

- Ambassador Mann, thank you for meeting with us. The frequent contacts between Armenian and Azerbaijani leadership in an effort to find a solution to a long-time conflict brought the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh back to agenda for the past several weeks. After the presidents meeting in France that bared no results some critics evaluated the situation as the end of the Prague process. So let me start with the question. Is the Prague process dead? Can you define this process for us?

- I don’t believe that the Prague Process is dead. I believe that we still have the hope and the possibility to reach an agreement, but the timeline is very short. Now let me move to the Prague Process- what this is was an attempt by the international mediators to take advantage of what we saw as a favorable political window in each country and try to move towards in a a Karabakh settlement. It started in the spring of 2004. We had many meetings in Prague, usually at the foreign minister level and also in other European capitals. It was designed at the beginning to create a confidential framework for each side not to negotiate, but to explore the possibilities and the issues. And then in the late part of 2004 we turned the corner from discussions to actual negotiations. And now, after more than a year of negotiations the co-chairs have said it’s time to move from negotiations to decisions and that brought us to Rambouillet.

- After the talks in Rambouillet, the US side expressed its disappointment with the outcome of this meeting. We certainly heard that from Under Secretary Burns, from the US Ambassador to Baku Harnish. So, I assume Washington had a certain expectations from the discussions of presidents. What were those?

- We did and these were expectations that we shared with our co-chair countries and the Minsk group. What we have seen is that we are close in the negotiations. The two sides have made a lot of progress. Both the president of Armenia and the president of Azerbaijan and their ministers deserve a lot of credit and respect for what they have achieved. Now that said there are still some very serious issues that are not solved. But it was our expectation that Rambouillet was the point to move ahead and close those gaps. It didn’t happen. It was a disappointment. I have to confess that. But we have very serious people on each side. The presidents themselves are very serious and I think very dedicated. So I still have the hope that we can move in the time we have remaining to us. What do I mean by the time remaining to us? I think, factually as we get further into the year then we get closer to the political seasons in each country with parliamentary and presidential elections coming up in Armenia and in Azerbaijan. It’s just a simple fact that it’s difficult if not impossible for governments to move forward when they have major internal political debate going on. So the belief of co-chairs is that now is the time in which we must pull on agreement. If there’s anyone who wants to disagree with us, certainly they are welcome to advance that point of view. But I think, factually everyone who looks seriously at the Karabakh conflict realizes that we are in a period where we do need decisions.

- In one of your recent quotes you talk about the year 2006 being the one for solving the conflict and us facing the tragedy in case of non-settlement. Can you elaborate on that?

- If we don’t manage to close the gaps in 2006, we are looking at a number of years before the sides achieve this kind of deep negotiations. May be, I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t think I’m wrong. What we have then is a continuing humanitarian tragedy on both sides of the line of contact for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people. Every year there’s a 20 or 30 deaths of Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers along this line of contact. We can’t minimize that. Also, the greater dangers persist, if you don’t solve the underlying problems.

- What can we expect from the consultations of co-chairs?

- It is one of the regular consultations of co-chairs. We meet sometimes in Moscow, Paris or Vienna. This time the co-chairs and Ambassador Kasprzyk are coming to Washington. This meeting will be our opportunity to more deeply evaluate what happened at Rambouillet and to look at what the next steps in the process might be.

- Here we talk about the solution of conflict. And the word “compromise” prevails in the terminology of the mediators. Some people and by that I mean, all Azerbaijani public and part of the international community, firmly believe that the approach of co-chair countries are fundamentally wrong. So far no country that directly deals with the conflict condemns Armenia in its policy of occupation. Because we can talk about political will and concession from both sides forever, But the fact is there, we are dealing with the occupant and the victim here. Azerbaijan is the one who lost about 20 % of its territories to the violent attack of its neighbor. And this kind of approach from co-chairs gives Armenia the grounds to blackmail Azerbaijan using occupied territories.

- First of all, it isn’t a mandate that’s given to the co-chairs. We work on the basis of what the OSCE Permanent Council and the chairman- of- office instruct us to do. Our instructions have been the same since the beginning of the co-chair process, which is to be mediators and bring two sides together. We are not arbitrators or judges. The second point and it is a larger point, is that international community has chosen not take sides in this conflict. We wish for peaceful resolution. We are deeply sympathetic to the humanitarian plight of Azerbaijanis in this. But I’ll speak for the Unites States- we consider both Azerbaijan and Armenia to be friendly countries to us and we are trying to assist each side with solving this dispute.

- The country that you represent has an official policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We have seen it through the history of this nation, we are seeing it today in anti-terror war in Middle East, we are seeing in its foreign policy in international arena. Why when it comes to Azerbaijan you expect the rules of the game to be changed? Don’t you think that by agreeing to peace talks with a terrorist state Azerbaijan makes a biggest concession on its own?

- I don’t view that as a concession. It was a wise policy chosen by President Heydar Aliyev and now President Ilham Aliyev. The best way to solve disputes is to bring international community into it to help and look for a peaceful solution. And that’s the way that this conflict can and must be solved. I have been doing diplomacy for 30 years. My experience is primarily in former Soviet Union. I remember, when president Regan called the Soviet Union “an evil empire”, the propaganda that came back against the US in Soviet media was vicious and sharp. Nevertheless, the two sides continued detailed negotiations that over the years resulted in major breakthroughs on the most difficult issues of nuclear arms, of forces in Europe. And if the US and USSR which were pledged to the destruction of each others system could do that, it gives me hope in all conflicts of Eurasia.

- I understand you can’t go into details but is there any actual draft plan on the paper that being discussed between the sides?

- We have a lot of papers that we have circulated between the sides. And we have gotten Azerbaijani comments and Armenian comments. There is a lot in play. To the superb negotiating on each side, the sides have come very close. But there are still tough issues ahead. The deal that I hope emerges is the one where each side will gain major benefits. It’s not a deal where everything will be solved. Some issues will have to be kept negotiated. But why not try to solve what is solvable for the foreseeable future? It must involve compromises. There is no negotiation in history where one side has gotten 100 % of its demands. Life doesn’t work that way. But it’s possible in the month ahead that each nation can come out of this with real benefits. I think, we are at a point when we need good will of each nation, not just the ministers to negotiate, but the will of each nation to say “lets make this situation much better”.

- An OSCE Minsk Group Fact-Finding Mission visited occupied regions of Azerbaijan last year to examine the issue of illegal Armenian settlements in these territories. The report that came out confirmed the concerns of Azerbaijani side. Is the restoring of the demographic balance on the occupied territories are being discussed as a part of the peace deal? Will these illegal settlers be removed?

- The answer in large part is “it depends”. There are many things in play. I don’t want to go into details because that would be disrespecting the confidentiality of the negotiations. But, I will say that an important element we are looking at is demining, rehabilitation, reconstruction, a donors’ conference to affect all of those areas that have been so hard hit by war.

- Armenian Diaspora living in the United States has a big influence on Armenia and especially Nagorno-Karabakh issue. In the course of your work, you meet with them occasionally. What are the feelings among Armenian Diaspora regarding what’s going on?

- My contacts with Armenian Diaspora are occasional. I can say, they have a real interest in the process. I have never felt any pressure from Diaspora. It is an issue for the Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Armenia with president Kocharian is taking a lead and is making policies.

- Any final thoughts at this point?

- I would like to express the satisfaction I have felt as a professional diplomat working with foreign minister Mamedyarov and his team, minister Oskanian and his team. It has been an honor to work so closely with each president. As an outsider looking at this issue I have a great respect for what each team has so professionally accomplished. That said, I believe this is a year and now realistically is the time if we are going to get some real benefits for each side. Again, if anyone can contradict our views of the fact that 2006 is the year they are welcome to do that. But I think, this is not ideologically based, but factual - this is the time we need to move forward. Two sides are very close. If we can rally pull this deal together- and I don’t if we will, I don’t know if each president have the will to move forward- but if we can pull this deal together it really will bring major benefits for each side. So the United States will be supporting and be joining the co-chair colleagues and we will see what we all can manage achieve in the weeks ahead.

- Thank you