Tweet
SHOULD ARMENIA SPEAK INSTEAD ARMENIA?
Lragir.am
28 June 06
The "proposals" revealed by the new American co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group Mathew Bryza did not find support in Karabakh. The chair
of the Committee of External Relations of the NKR National Assembly
Vahram Atanesyan, Democracy faction, Gagik Petrosyan, representative
of the second political party in the parliament Azat Hayrenik, and the
opposition announced that the package discussed by the presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia is against the vital interests of Karabakh. The
proposals on returning territories and holding a referendum in an
indefinite period are unacceptable.
"The impression is that the revelations were addressed to the Armenian
party because they are totally in the interests of Azerbaijan,"
said Vahram Atanesyan.
At the same time, they think in Karabakh that Bryza's revelations
may be a swansong of the package proposal. Political scientist Davit
Babayan thinks that since the proposals have been published, the
presidents will not discuss them, and a necessity for new approaches
will occur.
The revelations were followed by the statements of the foreign
ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which accused each other of
rejecting the proposals. Moreover, the statements of the foreign
ministries of both Armenia and Azerbaijan suggest that the package
proposal is, on the whole, acceptable. But why is it acceptable it
Armenia insists that sovereignty will be granted to Karabakh and the
proposal is unacceptable for Armenia.
It is interesting that when an Azerbaijani member of parliament was
asked why Armenia disagrees to the idea of sovereignty of Karabakh,
the member of parliament was surprised: "Why Armenia? We offered this
proposal to Karabakh."
However, as far as it is known, Azerbaijan did not propose anything
to Karabakh. Now it is not clear whether Armenia should answer instead
of Karabakh.
Lragir.am
28 June 06
The "proposals" revealed by the new American co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group Mathew Bryza did not find support in Karabakh. The chair
of the Committee of External Relations of the NKR National Assembly
Vahram Atanesyan, Democracy faction, Gagik Petrosyan, representative
of the second political party in the parliament Azat Hayrenik, and the
opposition announced that the package discussed by the presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia is against the vital interests of Karabakh. The
proposals on returning territories and holding a referendum in an
indefinite period are unacceptable.
"The impression is that the revelations were addressed to the Armenian
party because they are totally in the interests of Azerbaijan,"
said Vahram Atanesyan.
At the same time, they think in Karabakh that Bryza's revelations
may be a swansong of the package proposal. Political scientist Davit
Babayan thinks that since the proposals have been published, the
presidents will not discuss them, and a necessity for new approaches
will occur.
The revelations were followed by the statements of the foreign
ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which accused each other of
rejecting the proposals. Moreover, the statements of the foreign
ministries of both Armenia and Azerbaijan suggest that the package
proposal is, on the whole, acceptable. But why is it acceptable it
Armenia insists that sovereignty will be granted to Karabakh and the
proposal is unacceptable for Armenia.
It is interesting that when an Azerbaijani member of parliament was
asked why Armenia disagrees to the idea of sovereignty of Karabakh,
the member of parliament was surprised: "Why Armenia? We offered this
proposal to Karabakh."
However, as far as it is known, Azerbaijan did not propose anything
to Karabakh. Now it is not clear whether Armenia should answer instead
of Karabakh.