Tweet
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 27 2006
WHO AND HOW MUCH SUGAR PUT TO GEORGIAN-ARMENIAN RELATION?
It is necessary to clarify the nuances, which are essential to
answering the question why six months before the parliamentary
election the Georgian-Armenian border and tensions in Javakheti were
pushed into the political sphere of Armenia. Only after that it will
become clear who put forward this problem. But the problem has
already found its place, and it is clear that everyone is up for
using this problem for their political interest. In this sense, it is
perhaps favorable for most people that they find `fertile land' in
this political `drought' to sow and to reap the harvest in Armenia.
And it should be noted that the sowing has started, and rather
actively. For instance, the Republican Party used the
Georgian-Armenian problem to attack the foreign minister of Armenia,
when the young Republican Armen Ashotyan, who is the loyal defender
of the prime minister and apparently also the advocate of the
Republican Party, demanded that Oskanyan clarify the issue of the
Georgian-Armenian border. We should not forget, however, that Victor
Dallakyan, already or for the time being an independent members of
parliament, raised this issue. He is worried that Armenia may lose
territories as a result of the negotiations over the border.
Answering Ashotyan's question in the parliament, the foreign minister
of Armenia, in fact, did not denythat this danger, but instead
Oskanyan said that the problem is that of exchange, which has been
agreed to. However, the point is that this exchange may not be equal
because it is not logical when say we give 5 sq m of our territory to
the Georgians and they give as much territory to us. Such exchange is
simply meaningless. Consequently, the problem of much or little is
concerned. And in this sense it is important whether we are going to
give much or little. If we are going to give little, what will we
have to do in return and if much, what are the Georgians going to do
in return?
The problem is, however, that in Armenia the question is viewed from
a quite different point of view, that of giving or not giving, which
means that the problem is political. And in order to discern the
vector of its development it is already important to understand who
wanted to introduce the problem to the political sphere where we
already have a dispute over giving or not giving. It is also possible
that the problem is the existing dispute, and this is an effort to
distract attention from it. In other words, when the problem of
another territory occurs, the attention of the public is halved. And
in this case it becomes easier to solve the problem of this
attention. Especially that the public is attracted by a fresh issue
rather. Ostensibly, the Georgian-Armenian border issue was pushed
forward in an effort to distract the attention of the public from the
security area of Karabakh. This is quite possible, considering that
the resumption of the talks over Karabakh was marked by `new ideas'
proposed by the mediators. However, it is also possible that the
reason why the Georgian-Armenian issue occurred is quite different.
At least, the enthusiasm of the political forces of Armenia, who are
eager to become engaged in this `process', means that the issue is
favorable for everyone, and the impression is that if Victor
Dallakyan had not made this attempt, someone else would have done it.
However, this does not mean, of course, that it makes no difference
who put it forward. Moreover, it is interesting to know when it
started.
The question emerged simultaneously with the `last supper', which
took place in Yerevan at the Parvana Restaurant, owned by a sugar
importer. And perhaps it is not accidental that Serge Sargsyan, Gela
Bejuashvili, Georgian foreign minister and Vardan Oskanyan had chosen
this restaurant to sweeten the Georgian-Armenian relation. The
details of the supper are not known, but whatever took place after it
allow supposing that they talked about a number of things. Moreover,
there is an attention-grabbing detail. Vardan Oskanyan officially
announced about the supper, perhaps thereby showing that he did not
take part in secret arrangements during this event and only did not
refuse Serge Sargsyan's invitation. In other words, ostensibly, Serge
Sargsyan and Gela Bejuashvili had certain ideas they wanted to share
with Vardan Oskanyan. Meanwhile, Oskanyan publicly `denied' this
supper which was followed by the emergence of the Georgian-Armenian
border issue along with the local elections in Javakheti. And it is
notable that as the passions grow in Javakheti, the border issue is
becoming a more burning issue.
Consequently, it is possible that it is put forward to counterbalance
the emerging factor of Javakheti.
HAKOB BADALYAN
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Oct 27 2006
WHO AND HOW MUCH SUGAR PUT TO GEORGIAN-ARMENIAN RELATION?
It is necessary to clarify the nuances, which are essential to
answering the question why six months before the parliamentary
election the Georgian-Armenian border and tensions in Javakheti were
pushed into the political sphere of Armenia. Only after that it will
become clear who put forward this problem. But the problem has
already found its place, and it is clear that everyone is up for
using this problem for their political interest. In this sense, it is
perhaps favorable for most people that they find `fertile land' in
this political `drought' to sow and to reap the harvest in Armenia.
And it should be noted that the sowing has started, and rather
actively. For instance, the Republican Party used the
Georgian-Armenian problem to attack the foreign minister of Armenia,
when the young Republican Armen Ashotyan, who is the loyal defender
of the prime minister and apparently also the advocate of the
Republican Party, demanded that Oskanyan clarify the issue of the
Georgian-Armenian border. We should not forget, however, that Victor
Dallakyan, already or for the time being an independent members of
parliament, raised this issue. He is worried that Armenia may lose
territories as a result of the negotiations over the border.
Answering Ashotyan's question in the parliament, the foreign minister
of Armenia, in fact, did not denythat this danger, but instead
Oskanyan said that the problem is that of exchange, which has been
agreed to. However, the point is that this exchange may not be equal
because it is not logical when say we give 5 sq m of our territory to
the Georgians and they give as much territory to us. Such exchange is
simply meaningless. Consequently, the problem of much or little is
concerned. And in this sense it is important whether we are going to
give much or little. If we are going to give little, what will we
have to do in return and if much, what are the Georgians going to do
in return?
The problem is, however, that in Armenia the question is viewed from
a quite different point of view, that of giving or not giving, which
means that the problem is political. And in order to discern the
vector of its development it is already important to understand who
wanted to introduce the problem to the political sphere where we
already have a dispute over giving or not giving. It is also possible
that the problem is the existing dispute, and this is an effort to
distract attention from it. In other words, when the problem of
another territory occurs, the attention of the public is halved. And
in this case it becomes easier to solve the problem of this
attention. Especially that the public is attracted by a fresh issue
rather. Ostensibly, the Georgian-Armenian border issue was pushed
forward in an effort to distract the attention of the public from the
security area of Karabakh. This is quite possible, considering that
the resumption of the talks over Karabakh was marked by `new ideas'
proposed by the mediators. However, it is also possible that the
reason why the Georgian-Armenian issue occurred is quite different.
At least, the enthusiasm of the political forces of Armenia, who are
eager to become engaged in this `process', means that the issue is
favorable for everyone, and the impression is that if Victor
Dallakyan had not made this attempt, someone else would have done it.
However, this does not mean, of course, that it makes no difference
who put it forward. Moreover, it is interesting to know when it
started.
The question emerged simultaneously with the `last supper', which
took place in Yerevan at the Parvana Restaurant, owned by a sugar
importer. And perhaps it is not accidental that Serge Sargsyan, Gela
Bejuashvili, Georgian foreign minister and Vardan Oskanyan had chosen
this restaurant to sweeten the Georgian-Armenian relation. The
details of the supper are not known, but whatever took place after it
allow supposing that they talked about a number of things. Moreover,
there is an attention-grabbing detail. Vardan Oskanyan officially
announced about the supper, perhaps thereby showing that he did not
take part in secret arrangements during this event and only did not
refuse Serge Sargsyan's invitation. In other words, ostensibly, Serge
Sargsyan and Gela Bejuashvili had certain ideas they wanted to share
with Vardan Oskanyan. Meanwhile, Oskanyan publicly `denied' this
supper which was followed by the emergence of the Georgian-Armenian
border issue along with the local elections in Javakheti. And it is
notable that as the passions grow in Javakheti, the border issue is
becoming a more burning issue.
Consequently, it is possible that it is put forward to counterbalance
the emerging factor of Javakheti.
HAKOB BADALYAN
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress