Tweet
Scramble between world powers started, therefore it is necessary to be
cautious
Igor Muradyan
15-03-2008 15:24:27 - KarabakhOpen
Considering that the Armenian government has so thoughtlessly closed
down the media and thereby turned Radio Liberty the sole source of
information for revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, my article
as always written for the sites Lragir.am and Karabakh-Open.com was
published only in Stepanakert, I have to offer a more extended version
of this article.
In a certain period of acquaintance with the external political
practice Robert Kocharyan and Vardan Oskanyan had the brains not to
relate Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to suspicious `associative' schemes in
which Moscow has involved Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnyestr.
Most probably, Armenia's stance was determined by an intuitive momentum
of sub-political thinking, but apparently afterwards the full
understanding of the danger and pointlessness of this course came.
The publics of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnyestr are enviably
consistent, and readiness to reach the historical goal and regrets for
the division of Georgia and Moldova do not beg a creative stance of the
elite of such minor ethnic communities whose possibilities were
underestimated. Unlike the Moscow-based politicians from the executive
and legislative powers, the leaders of those former autonomies realize
and duly appreciate the stance of Armenia on this issue and actions of
`solidarity', since the Karabakh issue itself is the most significant
factor of support for the struggle of those small nations on the
international arena.
By the way, over the past few weeks the political government of
Armenia, driven by highly egoistic personal and group interests, seemed
to have realized that their salvation and at the same time the
salvation of the nation is ignoring the unjustified and imposed
external influence and constraint. If this political style is used
later, the most illegitimate governments will be recognized as
legitimate (by the way, not only become legitimate as a matter of fact
but also recognized as such). In other words, the political government
of Armenia stands only one chance to become legitimate ` it is the
Armenian nationalism. Only politicians with a `purely Armenian
thinking' do not understand this.
Hence, March 13 which those fond of political scandals were longing for
passed in the Russian Duma in absolute compliance with the tried and
true methods of Russian politics which is described as `much ado about
nothing, preferably at others' expense'. On March 13 Russia came up
with another meaningless initiative on the Bessarabia problem, in other
words, another experiment was staged ` `territorial integrity of
Moldova in return for refusal to join NATO'. The population of 700
thousand of Transdnyestr has become a clear token for cynical bargain
on an initiative of Moscow's. The same perspective is awaiting Georgia
(although in a more comic setting). Hence, this favors one of the
essential elements of the U.S. policy in Western Europe ` `freezing
ethno-political conflicts' as a factor of distancing a number of states
from Russia (which by the way is in the essential Armenian interests).
Russia is obviously late and has historically lost the battle for
shaping a new geopolitical construction. The United States, after
having squeezed its Euro-Atlantic partners, launched solidity
initiatives of `reshaping' the world which, within the borders created
by the British empire, is becoming more uncontrollable. In some cases,
the United States is interested in a stationary situation, in other
cases, in dynamics and contradicting processes, in addition, both
replace each other from time to time. The conservative intellectual
sets in the Untied States have understood that `it is easier to reshape
the world than to stick to the obsolete, stagnant construction', it is
easier to make adepts of the national liberation struggle allies rather
than to declare war on them and thereby acquire foes, who are more
dangerous than radical Islamists.
At least, since 2001 the U.S. Council of Security has been working on
this doctrine. The wording has also been invented, such as `extended
sovereignty', `reserve sovereignty', `expected sovereignty', etc.
Immense potential of national liberation struggle has accumulated as a
recurrence of empires not destroyed through. In the vast spaces of
Eurasia and Africa the power will dominate which will initiate
international support to nations and ethnicities. In the metaphysical
sense, this doctrine is aimed against the British doctrine but of
course only in this sense, since Great Britain in this initial stage of
this initiative is not only a partner but also a major political
projector of this doctrine.
A lyrical digression. In the course of many years of studies of the
problems of geopolitical rearrangement and regional politics in the
United States and Europe I became convinced that despite the claim and
constraint to the United States on behalf of the apostles of `real
politik', actual politics did not resolve and in future arranged to put
an end to various provocations regarding the division of the Iranian
state. Moreover, the division of Iran based on the ethnic and religious
criteria was deemed of as harmful and jeopardizing the strategic
interests of the United States in the American establishment, which was
conceived not without Great Britain. Meanwhile, it was despite the
nuclear threat from Iran. At the same time, after the Turkish
parliament had disallowed the passage of the 3rd division of the U.S.
army to Iraq, the most ardent Turkish lobbyists in the Senate and the
Pentagon `did not object' to the division of Turkey and `review of
justification of control of Turkey on such a vast territory'. And this
was despite the lasting strategic relations.
Quite a long time ago it became clear that Russia will lose this battle
for reshaping the world, and not only will it lose but also will take
part in this battle, since the external policies of Russia are usurped
by either marasmic bribers from the old school of Soviet experts on the
East and young communist scum or slow-witted and excessively ambitious
`figures-adolescents' from the president administration. These two
corporations understood each other well, and they have isolated
Vladimir Putin from real consulting, blocked the activities of the
Russian ministry of foreign affairs and laid the path to power and
adoption of decisions by corporations which have immense interests in
those directions where Russia had completely different goals. As a
result, Russia is facing the prospect of becoming a mere observer of
those processes and is making nervous movements together with more
incompetent functionaries and pseudo-politicians. Russia is on the path
for a new policy, but will this policy be more acceptable for nations
striving for liberation and partnership or will it be fatal for them?
Or maybe this policy is not needed at all?
----------------------------------------
Ac cording to media reports, `on March 13 the Russian Duma may pass a
resolution on the fate of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On this day the
Russian parliamentarians will hold hearings on the urge of the
unrecognized states of the post-Soviet space to recognize their
independence. The speakers of the parliaments of Abkhazia, South
Ossetia and Transdnyestr will participate in session.' `Russia is ready
to take an active part in the process of changing the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The head of the Duma Committee said although the
issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is not included in the topics of the hearings
on March 13, `each participant of the discussion is free to talk about
what they want.' No doubt, it is not the full stop but the beginning of
a new international political process. Would Russia have taken this
step if the independence of Kosovo had not been recognized?'
In the framework of these developments, in answer to Russia's
initiative regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the United States
could have allowed for a military conflict in the province of Karabakh
as a lever of pressure on Russia. What will it be? Clear coercion, but
on whom, Azerbaijan or Armenia? What should poor Armenians do? Maybe
reject treacherous pacifist goals and join effort with those states who
are strategically interested in frozen conflicts. It is notable that
some Armenian politicians of `Yerevan' type have already realized this
tiny political ruse and are ready to uphold this idea. But for whatever
reason this understanding takes place only when the politicians are
retiring from the scene and in `snow-white suits'.
In the context of March 13 when this problem and the moves made by the
unrecognized states were discussed at the Russian Duma, Armenia appears
in a difficult situation because it is necessary to develop a reaction,
and again a mere reaction rather than a policy. In this new situation
when NKR needs to be a real political subject, the republic has nothing
to offer, since the last reserves for underpinning this real subject
have been wasted. The United States and Russia need partners with good
sense to realize these projects, and they are ready and need
recommendations and proposals more than ever. Both powers have appeared
in an unfavorable situation. It is clear that a signal was given to the
Islamic population in Kosovo which is likely to integrate with the
Christian society both vertically and horizontally. Now it is time for
a legitimate project for the Christian society which is setting up
successful relations with the Islamic world. At the same time, this
signal was received by most Islamic countries in the form which was
presupposed, that is quite adequately and therefore hostilely.
How does Nagorno-Karabakh Republic differ from unrecognized states? If
the president elect Serge Sargsyan again fails to understand, George
Bush will never congratulate him, never. At last, it is time to make
definitive moves, dissolve this government, void and miserable
parliament, create new media and form the first nationalist government
of Armenia. Although where should nationalists be sought for? The
United States is on the path for a revolution, whereas we fear a
revolution and instead of leading it we gave it to the `orangists'. We
will have no place in the new world which is ready for rearrangement
and renovation. Shall we work it out?
-------------------------------------------- ----------------
So what happened in the Duma on March 13?
The heads and parliamentarians of unrecognized states appeared as
marionettes in the `genial' plan called `time is rubber, and possibly
against cowards'. As to the Karabakh issue, another mean action was
done. For instance, Member of Parliament Vladimir Nikotin, member of
the Duma Committee of CIS affairs and relations with compatriots, said
`the reason why the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh are not
participating in the hearings is the situation that has emerged in the
region. Possibly the situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan had an
influence. They feared escalation of the conflict', `no invitations
were sent to the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh to participate.'
And Member of Parliament Barinov said answering the question whether
the situation regarding Nagorno-Karabakh had been raised: `The problem
of Nagorno-Karabakh was touched upon slightly, it was said that the
precedent of Kosovo has already caused escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh.'
Hence, the issue of war and peace in the province of Karabakh depends
on one discussion in the Russian Duma or another. So, why are you
sitting and not joining? However, every cloud has a silver lining, and
in fact Moscow has acknowledged that the Karabakh issue is outside its
competency. In this situation, we want to tell the Moscow-based
`drummers' imagining themselves to be politicians: `Be nice, do not
interfere with the affairs of Karabakh, you had already been seen
there.' This phrase has already been uttered in the Russian Duma
several years ago when V. Zhirinovsky said: `So they are idiots and do
not understand that we need not butt in on Karabakh, Armenians will
deal with it. If they had wanted to invite us, they would have done it
a long time ago. We are not needed there.'
cautious
Igor Muradyan
15-03-2008 15:24:27 - KarabakhOpen
Considering that the Armenian government has so thoughtlessly closed
down the media and thereby turned Radio Liberty the sole source of
information for revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, my article
as always written for the sites Lragir.am and Karabakh-Open.com was
published only in Stepanakert, I have to offer a more extended version
of this article.
In a certain period of acquaintance with the external political
practice Robert Kocharyan and Vardan Oskanyan had the brains not to
relate Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to suspicious `associative' schemes in
which Moscow has involved Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnyestr.
Most probably, Armenia's stance was determined by an intuitive momentum
of sub-political thinking, but apparently afterwards the full
understanding of the danger and pointlessness of this course came.
The publics of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnyestr are enviably
consistent, and readiness to reach the historical goal and regrets for
the division of Georgia and Moldova do not beg a creative stance of the
elite of such minor ethnic communities whose possibilities were
underestimated. Unlike the Moscow-based politicians from the executive
and legislative powers, the leaders of those former autonomies realize
and duly appreciate the stance of Armenia on this issue and actions of
`solidarity', since the Karabakh issue itself is the most significant
factor of support for the struggle of those small nations on the
international arena.
By the way, over the past few weeks the political government of
Armenia, driven by highly egoistic personal and group interests, seemed
to have realized that their salvation and at the same time the
salvation of the nation is ignoring the unjustified and imposed
external influence and constraint. If this political style is used
later, the most illegitimate governments will be recognized as
legitimate (by the way, not only become legitimate as a matter of fact
but also recognized as such). In other words, the political government
of Armenia stands only one chance to become legitimate ` it is the
Armenian nationalism. Only politicians with a `purely Armenian
thinking' do not understand this.
Hence, March 13 which those fond of political scandals were longing for
passed in the Russian Duma in absolute compliance with the tried and
true methods of Russian politics which is described as `much ado about
nothing, preferably at others' expense'. On March 13 Russia came up
with another meaningless initiative on the Bessarabia problem, in other
words, another experiment was staged ` `territorial integrity of
Moldova in return for refusal to join NATO'. The population of 700
thousand of Transdnyestr has become a clear token for cynical bargain
on an initiative of Moscow's. The same perspective is awaiting Georgia
(although in a more comic setting). Hence, this favors one of the
essential elements of the U.S. policy in Western Europe ` `freezing
ethno-political conflicts' as a factor of distancing a number of states
from Russia (which by the way is in the essential Armenian interests).
Russia is obviously late and has historically lost the battle for
shaping a new geopolitical construction. The United States, after
having squeezed its Euro-Atlantic partners, launched solidity
initiatives of `reshaping' the world which, within the borders created
by the British empire, is becoming more uncontrollable. In some cases,
the United States is interested in a stationary situation, in other
cases, in dynamics and contradicting processes, in addition, both
replace each other from time to time. The conservative intellectual
sets in the Untied States have understood that `it is easier to reshape
the world than to stick to the obsolete, stagnant construction', it is
easier to make adepts of the national liberation struggle allies rather
than to declare war on them and thereby acquire foes, who are more
dangerous than radical Islamists.
At least, since 2001 the U.S. Council of Security has been working on
this doctrine. The wording has also been invented, such as `extended
sovereignty', `reserve sovereignty', `expected sovereignty', etc.
Immense potential of national liberation struggle has accumulated as a
recurrence of empires not destroyed through. In the vast spaces of
Eurasia and Africa the power will dominate which will initiate
international support to nations and ethnicities. In the metaphysical
sense, this doctrine is aimed against the British doctrine but of
course only in this sense, since Great Britain in this initial stage of
this initiative is not only a partner but also a major political
projector of this doctrine.
A lyrical digression. In the course of many years of studies of the
problems of geopolitical rearrangement and regional politics in the
United States and Europe I became convinced that despite the claim and
constraint to the United States on behalf of the apostles of `real
politik', actual politics did not resolve and in future arranged to put
an end to various provocations regarding the division of the Iranian
state. Moreover, the division of Iran based on the ethnic and religious
criteria was deemed of as harmful and jeopardizing the strategic
interests of the United States in the American establishment, which was
conceived not without Great Britain. Meanwhile, it was despite the
nuclear threat from Iran. At the same time, after the Turkish
parliament had disallowed the passage of the 3rd division of the U.S.
army to Iraq, the most ardent Turkish lobbyists in the Senate and the
Pentagon `did not object' to the division of Turkey and `review of
justification of control of Turkey on such a vast territory'. And this
was despite the lasting strategic relations.
Quite a long time ago it became clear that Russia will lose this battle
for reshaping the world, and not only will it lose but also will take
part in this battle, since the external policies of Russia are usurped
by either marasmic bribers from the old school of Soviet experts on the
East and young communist scum or slow-witted and excessively ambitious
`figures-adolescents' from the president administration. These two
corporations understood each other well, and they have isolated
Vladimir Putin from real consulting, blocked the activities of the
Russian ministry of foreign affairs and laid the path to power and
adoption of decisions by corporations which have immense interests in
those directions where Russia had completely different goals. As a
result, Russia is facing the prospect of becoming a mere observer of
those processes and is making nervous movements together with more
incompetent functionaries and pseudo-politicians. Russia is on the path
for a new policy, but will this policy be more acceptable for nations
striving for liberation and partnership or will it be fatal for them?
Or maybe this policy is not needed at all?
----------------------------------------
Ac cording to media reports, `on March 13 the Russian Duma may pass a
resolution on the fate of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On this day the
Russian parliamentarians will hold hearings on the urge of the
unrecognized states of the post-Soviet space to recognize their
independence. The speakers of the parliaments of Abkhazia, South
Ossetia and Transdnyestr will participate in session.' `Russia is ready
to take an active part in the process of changing the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The head of the Duma Committee said although the
issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is not included in the topics of the hearings
on March 13, `each participant of the discussion is free to talk about
what they want.' No doubt, it is not the full stop but the beginning of
a new international political process. Would Russia have taken this
step if the independence of Kosovo had not been recognized?'
In the framework of these developments, in answer to Russia's
initiative regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the United States
could have allowed for a military conflict in the province of Karabakh
as a lever of pressure on Russia. What will it be? Clear coercion, but
on whom, Azerbaijan or Armenia? What should poor Armenians do? Maybe
reject treacherous pacifist goals and join effort with those states who
are strategically interested in frozen conflicts. It is notable that
some Armenian politicians of `Yerevan' type have already realized this
tiny political ruse and are ready to uphold this idea. But for whatever
reason this understanding takes place only when the politicians are
retiring from the scene and in `snow-white suits'.
In the context of March 13 when this problem and the moves made by the
unrecognized states were discussed at the Russian Duma, Armenia appears
in a difficult situation because it is necessary to develop a reaction,
and again a mere reaction rather than a policy. In this new situation
when NKR needs to be a real political subject, the republic has nothing
to offer, since the last reserves for underpinning this real subject
have been wasted. The United States and Russia need partners with good
sense to realize these projects, and they are ready and need
recommendations and proposals more than ever. Both powers have appeared
in an unfavorable situation. It is clear that a signal was given to the
Islamic population in Kosovo which is likely to integrate with the
Christian society both vertically and horizontally. Now it is time for
a legitimate project for the Christian society which is setting up
successful relations with the Islamic world. At the same time, this
signal was received by most Islamic countries in the form which was
presupposed, that is quite adequately and therefore hostilely.
How does Nagorno-Karabakh Republic differ from unrecognized states? If
the president elect Serge Sargsyan again fails to understand, George
Bush will never congratulate him, never. At last, it is time to make
definitive moves, dissolve this government, void and miserable
parliament, create new media and form the first nationalist government
of Armenia. Although where should nationalists be sought for? The
United States is on the path for a revolution, whereas we fear a
revolution and instead of leading it we gave it to the `orangists'. We
will have no place in the new world which is ready for rearrangement
and renovation. Shall we work it out?
-------------------------------------------- ----------------
So what happened in the Duma on March 13?
The heads and parliamentarians of unrecognized states appeared as
marionettes in the `genial' plan called `time is rubber, and possibly
against cowards'. As to the Karabakh issue, another mean action was
done. For instance, Member of Parliament Vladimir Nikotin, member of
the Duma Committee of CIS affairs and relations with compatriots, said
`the reason why the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh are not
participating in the hearings is the situation that has emerged in the
region. Possibly the situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan had an
influence. They feared escalation of the conflict', `no invitations
were sent to the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh to participate.'
And Member of Parliament Barinov said answering the question whether
the situation regarding Nagorno-Karabakh had been raised: `The problem
of Nagorno-Karabakh was touched upon slightly, it was said that the
precedent of Kosovo has already caused escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh.'
Hence, the issue of war and peace in the province of Karabakh depends
on one discussion in the Russian Duma or another. So, why are you
sitting and not joining? However, every cloud has a silver lining, and
in fact Moscow has acknowledged that the Karabakh issue is outside its
competency. In this situation, we want to tell the Moscow-based
`drummers' imagining themselves to be politicians: `Be nice, do not
interfere with the affairs of Karabakh, you had already been seen
there.' This phrase has already been uttered in the Russian Duma
several years ago when V. Zhirinovsky said: `So they are idiots and do
not understand that we need not butt in on Karabakh, Armenians will
deal with it. If they had wanted to invite us, they would have done it
a long time ago. We are not needed there.'