Tweet
"ARMENIA CARRIES OUT A PASSIVE POLICY"
A1+
[07:24 pm] 08 September, 2006
"The recent developments of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict recorded
serious loss of the US control on the upon the procedure", announced
professor of the Yerevan State University David Hovhannisyan
during the seminar organized by the Armenian Center for National
and International Studies. Instead, Iran showed serious influence,
and now they are treated differently, he added.
Representing the 50-year history of the conflict, David Haroutyunyan
noted that nothing has been changed throughout these years, and the
recent developments only accelerated the plans of the USA. According
to him, Israel has solved its problems; nevertheless, it turned out
that the Israeli army is not what it used to be.
During the seminar titled "Armenian peace-keepers in Lebanon? Pro
et contra" ex Minister of Defense, Lieutenant-general Vagharshak
Haroutyunyan was to give strategic-political assessment of the
situation. He represented the positive and negative sides of Armenian
troupes being sent to Lebanon. According to him, before making a
decision the country ahs to clear out several issues. We must also
find out what authorities the UN mandate gives to the troupes; if it
is that of disarmament, the participation of the Armenian side may
be dangerous.
Nevertheless, the participation in the peace-keeping mission is in
itself good and important, especially in case of the Lebanese-Israeli
conflict, when the sides are for the allocation of peace-keeping
troupes, taking into account the presence of a large Armenian community
in both countries.
Answering the question why troupes were sent to Iraq immediately, and
the issue of Lebanon is not even included in the agenda, Vagharshak
Haroutyunyan answered, "An offer was made to send troupes to Iraq.
As for Lebanon, something is needed which our authorities do not have -
their own initiative. This is called passive policy".
David Hovhannisyan's point of view was positive too: we must send
troupes to Iraq, and there is nothing negative about it. On the whole,
all the experts participating in the discussion were for sending a
peace-keeping mission.
Secretary of the political council of the Armenian Center for National
and International Studies, economist Edward Antinyan's speech was
radically different from that of politicians and experts. He blamed the
Armenians for defending "Hezbollah", although there has never been an
announcement presupposing that possibility. He blamed everyone for not
defending Israel. He also blamed the Arabs for seizing 22 countries
and for their wish to destroy Israel. He justified the actions of
Israel even though it resulted in the deaths of non-combatant people.
Nevertheless, he appeared in an unenviable situation when deputy
Ambassador of Egypt Said Shafey Abdul Mohsen who also participated
in the seminar decided to answer his speech and informed Mr. Antinyan
that the 100-km territory of Lebanon called Nazare Sharif was captured
not by the Arabs but by Israel and that not the Arabs but Israeli
army is the aggressor.
A1+
[07:24 pm] 08 September, 2006
"The recent developments of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict recorded
serious loss of the US control on the upon the procedure", announced
professor of the Yerevan State University David Hovhannisyan
during the seminar organized by the Armenian Center for National
and International Studies. Instead, Iran showed serious influence,
and now they are treated differently, he added.
Representing the 50-year history of the conflict, David Haroutyunyan
noted that nothing has been changed throughout these years, and the
recent developments only accelerated the plans of the USA. According
to him, Israel has solved its problems; nevertheless, it turned out
that the Israeli army is not what it used to be.
During the seminar titled "Armenian peace-keepers in Lebanon? Pro
et contra" ex Minister of Defense, Lieutenant-general Vagharshak
Haroutyunyan was to give strategic-political assessment of the
situation. He represented the positive and negative sides of Armenian
troupes being sent to Lebanon. According to him, before making a
decision the country ahs to clear out several issues. We must also
find out what authorities the UN mandate gives to the troupes; if it
is that of disarmament, the participation of the Armenian side may
be dangerous.
Nevertheless, the participation in the peace-keeping mission is in
itself good and important, especially in case of the Lebanese-Israeli
conflict, when the sides are for the allocation of peace-keeping
troupes, taking into account the presence of a large Armenian community
in both countries.
Answering the question why troupes were sent to Iraq immediately, and
the issue of Lebanon is not even included in the agenda, Vagharshak
Haroutyunyan answered, "An offer was made to send troupes to Iraq.
As for Lebanon, something is needed which our authorities do not have -
their own initiative. This is called passive policy".
David Hovhannisyan's point of view was positive too: we must send
troupes to Iraq, and there is nothing negative about it. On the whole,
all the experts participating in the discussion were for sending a
peace-keeping mission.
Secretary of the political council of the Armenian Center for National
and International Studies, economist Edward Antinyan's speech was
radically different from that of politicians and experts. He blamed the
Armenians for defending "Hezbollah", although there has never been an
announcement presupposing that possibility. He blamed everyone for not
defending Israel. He also blamed the Arabs for seizing 22 countries
and for their wish to destroy Israel. He justified the actions of
Israel even though it resulted in the deaths of non-combatant people.
Nevertheless, he appeared in an unenviable situation when deputy
Ambassador of Egypt Said Shafey Abdul Mohsen who also participated
in the seminar decided to answer his speech and informed Mr. Antinyan
that the 100-km territory of Lebanon called Nazare Sharif was captured
not by the Arabs but by Israel and that not the Arabs but Israeli
army is the aggressor.