Tweet
Passions around the Karabakh settlement
D. Karabekyan, independent analyst
05-05-2008 10:35:53 - KarabakhOpen
The parliaments of the two Armenian states held recurrent hearings on
the settlement of the Karabakh issue. This time they were held in the
context of the passage of the UN GA resolution on the
Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict which was drafted and lobbied by
Azerbaijan and other members of GUAM. The hearings were held in the
context of the Armenian presidential election, the upcoming
presidential election in Azerbaijan and the statements by the
Azerbaijani leadership about likelihood to boost the military budget.
In our opinion, despite the skeptical-reassuring evaluations of the
passage of the UN resolution which are heard in Yerevan and
Stepanakert, the fact that Baku reached its goal makes think about a
lot of things: a) the Azerbaijani government increased their assets
before the election, b) provided guarantees that the precedent of
Kosovo will not reoccur in Karabakh, c) the possibility to justify
their aggressive stance and readiness to return the talks back to the
times when Nagorno-Karabakh did not participate in the talks as a
conflict side, and Azerbaijan could in fact offer ultimatums to the
mediator and sides.
Despite the different evaluations of the strategy adopted by
Azerbaijan, it is beyond doubt that the attempts of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh to protect their interests in the Karabakh settlement
and in general are highly passive, inconsistent and ineffective, and
the clearance of the diplomatic corps during the presidential election
was belated.
The stereotypes that the United States sets the rules in the world
politics, France represents the 25 EU states to the Minsk Group, and
Russia is influential enough underwent a serious trial. About 140
states disagreed with the United States partly or fully, and the stance
of France (which voted against the abovementioned resolution) was
supported by only 4 states of the EU, and only Armenia agreed with the
stance of Russia.
The readiness to revise the policy of Armenia on the Karabakh issue is
felt from the speeches of the Armenian parliament members and the
statement passed after the hearings. However, the tendency to wait
until the presidential election in Azerbaijan, and the inability to
change the former passive `behavior' with heavy reliance on the EU, the
United States and even Azerbaijan still persist¦ It turns out that
Armenia will not recognize NKR and will not take any other steps unless
Baku makes sudden moves, and the statement of the parliament is only
the result of the aggressiveness of Baku.
However, most of all the inconsistency of Armenia and NKR regarding the
priorities marked by the decision of the joint session of the Supreme
Soviets of Soviet Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region on
December 1, 1989 worries. This is already a separate topic, which
requires great and serious study. We would not like the Armenian and
Karabakh politicians to remember about the necessity to follow the
decision and priorities set by the historic joint session only after
another demarche of the Azerbaijani government.
D. Karabekyan, independent analyst
05-05-2008 10:35:53 - KarabakhOpen
The parliaments of the two Armenian states held recurrent hearings on
the settlement of the Karabakh issue. This time they were held in the
context of the passage of the UN GA resolution on the
Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict which was drafted and lobbied by
Azerbaijan and other members of GUAM. The hearings were held in the
context of the Armenian presidential election, the upcoming
presidential election in Azerbaijan and the statements by the
Azerbaijani leadership about likelihood to boost the military budget.
In our opinion, despite the skeptical-reassuring evaluations of the
passage of the UN resolution which are heard in Yerevan and
Stepanakert, the fact that Baku reached its goal makes think about a
lot of things: a) the Azerbaijani government increased their assets
before the election, b) provided guarantees that the precedent of
Kosovo will not reoccur in Karabakh, c) the possibility to justify
their aggressive stance and readiness to return the talks back to the
times when Nagorno-Karabakh did not participate in the talks as a
conflict side, and Azerbaijan could in fact offer ultimatums to the
mediator and sides.
Despite the different evaluations of the strategy adopted by
Azerbaijan, it is beyond doubt that the attempts of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh to protect their interests in the Karabakh settlement
and in general are highly passive, inconsistent and ineffective, and
the clearance of the diplomatic corps during the presidential election
was belated.
The stereotypes that the United States sets the rules in the world
politics, France represents the 25 EU states to the Minsk Group, and
Russia is influential enough underwent a serious trial. About 140
states disagreed with the United States partly or fully, and the stance
of France (which voted against the abovementioned resolution) was
supported by only 4 states of the EU, and only Armenia agreed with the
stance of Russia.
The readiness to revise the policy of Armenia on the Karabakh issue is
felt from the speeches of the Armenian parliament members and the
statement passed after the hearings. However, the tendency to wait
until the presidential election in Azerbaijan, and the inability to
change the former passive `behavior' with heavy reliance on the EU, the
United States and even Azerbaijan still persist¦ It turns out that
Armenia will not recognize NKR and will not take any other steps unless
Baku makes sudden moves, and the statement of the parliament is only
the result of the aggressiveness of Baku.
However, most of all the inconsistency of Armenia and NKR regarding the
priorities marked by the decision of the joint session of the Supreme
Soviets of Soviet Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region on
December 1, 1989 worries. This is already a separate topic, which
requires great and serious study. We would not like the Armenian and
Karabakh politicians to remember about the necessity to follow the
decision and priorities set by the historic joint session only after
another demarche of the Azerbaijani government.