Tweet
THE COCHAIRMEN PROVOKE A WAR
By Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
08 July 06
Vahan Shirkhanian says who has filled different posts in the
governing system of Armenia till 2000, both the deputy Prime minister
and deputy Minister of Defense.
* Only suppositions and doubts in 1997-1998 that the President of
Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian can give back the regions bordering
Nagorno Karabakh cause to accuse him of "selling Karabakh" and
treason. Now the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen elucidate themselves
that Robert Kocharian has negotiated in this whole period round
giving step by step the territories back instead of some conditions,
making unclear the matter of Karabakh status. But people don't
revolt. Which is the reason?
* We also had the whole picture of settlement in 1998 though it wasn't
official. And the proposal was almost the same. The positive thing
was that there were positions about status, that is; wide autonomy
in the part of Azerbaijan, by their own armed forces, police, bank,
monetary unit, flag etc. The same version, which was proposed that
time and wasn't adoptable has worsen up to the present day. Those
powers, which aimed to settle the problem not in favor of Armenia,
managed to form an authority in our country, which disparted the
society, making the part of population emigrate.
* Your accusations refer to Robert Kocharian and Serge Sargsian,
too. Whether those who came to power for settling the NK conflict
would like to settle the conflict in unprofitable way for Armenia?
* The only profitable circumstance is that Karabakh Status-quo has
been kept for 8 years. I don't see another positive thing in their
activities. Karabakh has been emptied, the public of Armenia has
become hostile towards both the authorities and Karabakh, and the
40-50% of Armenian population has emigrated. And the worse thing
is that the interests of the outside enemies and inside authorities
are general.
* You insist that the offered proposal is almost the same what was done
in 1997. While the representatives of the authority insist that there
is a great difference; it isn't spoken about the use of the right
of self-determination and holding a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh.
* This is simply a cynicism for naive people. What does referendum
mean even in 5 years and especially in 10-15 years if you resettle
the Azerbaijanis in Karabakh, if Azerbaijan doesn't have a law about
holding referendum? They must adopt that law, make amendments in
the Constitution. And even if they adopt, no Armenian will remain in
Karabakh till that time, only the Azerbaijanis will remain. Should
they hold a referendum?
* If this version is so profitable for Azerbaijan why do they oppose
to this version of settlement? The Foreign Minister of Armenia and
the Press Secretary of the President stress that just Azerbaijan
has refused this and previous proposals, but our country has agreed.
* I don't think it is so. Why must Azerbaijan refuse? Perhaps the
only reason for refusal is that peace-making powers will be settled
and a passage through Lachin will be given to Armenia, which isn't
profitable for them and certainly they don't want.
* There were interpretations that the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen
provoke to changeover of political powers, as it was supposed that
the declassified positions would make a noise in the counteracting
countries. But the head of the ruling majority, the RPA group
leader Galust Sahakian insists, "anyone's declaration can't have
its influence on our political situation. Which standpoint is more
basic for you?
* I exclude that the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen or superpowers have
aimed to realize changeover of political powers. Nobody needs in
it. They won't have more guided authority than this is. They held
everything they needed in Armenia; a new Constitution, laws about
sects, sexual minorities, removal of death penalty etc. And they can
hold again without any difficulty. It's another matter that Key-West,
Rambuye, Bucharest and other meetings were held, proposals were
made but they all were round a focus, round territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan.
* One of them, Mathew Brayza, speaks. After cochairmen's declaration
that "we have got tired, decide yourself, knowing very well that
nowadays Azerbaijan is much more ready than Armenia to settle the
conflict itself. I think they provoke a war. It's all the same;
they will settle the conflict, as it is profitable for them.
* You insist that the Armenian authorities are very profitable for
the OSCE Minsk Group. While the cochairmen also blame Robert
Kocharian for the lack of political will for signing an
agreement. Mathew Brayza considered responsible both presidents
for the failure of proposals.
* In my opinion Aliev sees another danger even in the most profitable
version of settlement. If peacemaking powers will be replaced in the
region and immigration and emigration will be realized under their
control, so he loses the possibility of personal leadership. The
authoritarian leader is afraid of that prospect. As regards the
accusations addressed to Robert Kocharian, I must remind that the
policy is a game. And such accusations are also the part of the game.
* I also should mention that it is inappropriate to turn to the
societies of both countries as presidents both in Azerbaijan and
Armenia have been elected without the participation of the society,
by the assistance of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen's countries. And
today, they must work together with their elected presidents.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
08 July 06
Vahan Shirkhanian says who has filled different posts in the
governing system of Armenia till 2000, both the deputy Prime minister
and deputy Minister of Defense.
* Only suppositions and doubts in 1997-1998 that the President of
Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian can give back the regions bordering
Nagorno Karabakh cause to accuse him of "selling Karabakh" and
treason. Now the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen elucidate themselves
that Robert Kocharian has negotiated in this whole period round
giving step by step the territories back instead of some conditions,
making unclear the matter of Karabakh status. But people don't
revolt. Which is the reason?
* We also had the whole picture of settlement in 1998 though it wasn't
official. And the proposal was almost the same. The positive thing
was that there were positions about status, that is; wide autonomy
in the part of Azerbaijan, by their own armed forces, police, bank,
monetary unit, flag etc. The same version, which was proposed that
time and wasn't adoptable has worsen up to the present day. Those
powers, which aimed to settle the problem not in favor of Armenia,
managed to form an authority in our country, which disparted the
society, making the part of population emigrate.
* Your accusations refer to Robert Kocharian and Serge Sargsian,
too. Whether those who came to power for settling the NK conflict
would like to settle the conflict in unprofitable way for Armenia?
* The only profitable circumstance is that Karabakh Status-quo has
been kept for 8 years. I don't see another positive thing in their
activities. Karabakh has been emptied, the public of Armenia has
become hostile towards both the authorities and Karabakh, and the
40-50% of Armenian population has emigrated. And the worse thing
is that the interests of the outside enemies and inside authorities
are general.
* You insist that the offered proposal is almost the same what was done
in 1997. While the representatives of the authority insist that there
is a great difference; it isn't spoken about the use of the right
of self-determination and holding a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh.
* This is simply a cynicism for naive people. What does referendum
mean even in 5 years and especially in 10-15 years if you resettle
the Azerbaijanis in Karabakh, if Azerbaijan doesn't have a law about
holding referendum? They must adopt that law, make amendments in
the Constitution. And even if they adopt, no Armenian will remain in
Karabakh till that time, only the Azerbaijanis will remain. Should
they hold a referendum?
* If this version is so profitable for Azerbaijan why do they oppose
to this version of settlement? The Foreign Minister of Armenia and
the Press Secretary of the President stress that just Azerbaijan
has refused this and previous proposals, but our country has agreed.
* I don't think it is so. Why must Azerbaijan refuse? Perhaps the
only reason for refusal is that peace-making powers will be settled
and a passage through Lachin will be given to Armenia, which isn't
profitable for them and certainly they don't want.
* There were interpretations that the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen
provoke to changeover of political powers, as it was supposed that
the declassified positions would make a noise in the counteracting
countries. But the head of the ruling majority, the RPA group
leader Galust Sahakian insists, "anyone's declaration can't have
its influence on our political situation. Which standpoint is more
basic for you?
* I exclude that the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen or superpowers have
aimed to realize changeover of political powers. Nobody needs in
it. They won't have more guided authority than this is. They held
everything they needed in Armenia; a new Constitution, laws about
sects, sexual minorities, removal of death penalty etc. And they can
hold again without any difficulty. It's another matter that Key-West,
Rambuye, Bucharest and other meetings were held, proposals were
made but they all were round a focus, round territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan.
* One of them, Mathew Brayza, speaks. After cochairmen's declaration
that "we have got tired, decide yourself, knowing very well that
nowadays Azerbaijan is much more ready than Armenia to settle the
conflict itself. I think they provoke a war. It's all the same;
they will settle the conflict, as it is profitable for them.
* You insist that the Armenian authorities are very profitable for
the OSCE Minsk Group. While the cochairmen also blame Robert
Kocharian for the lack of political will for signing an
agreement. Mathew Brayza considered responsible both presidents
for the failure of proposals.
* In my opinion Aliev sees another danger even in the most profitable
version of settlement. If peacemaking powers will be replaced in the
region and immigration and emigration will be realized under their
control, so he loses the possibility of personal leadership. The
authoritarian leader is afraid of that prospect. As regards the
accusations addressed to Robert Kocharian, I must remind that the
policy is a game. And such accusations are also the part of the game.
* I also should mention that it is inappropriate to turn to the
societies of both countries as presidents both in Azerbaijan and
Armenia have been elected without the participation of the society,
by the assistance of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen's countries. And
today, they must work together with their elected presidents.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress