Tweet
WHAT IF THEY DO NOT COME TO AGREEMENT
HAKOB BADALYAN
LRAGIR.AM
11:32:23 - 01/07/2009
The process of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement has again activated,
and again optimistic statements are heard, which precede the regular
Sargsyan-Aliev meeting in Moscow, which is going to be already
the sixth one. Before this, the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers met in Paris, then Medvedev visited Baku, after the OSCE
Minsk group CO-Chairs were said to be coming to the region in the
beginning of July, who, according to the statement of the French
Foreign Ministry, had made new proposals on the settlement to the
sides of the conflict. This nuance is interesting. It is interesting
from the point that if there is mutual understanding in the negotiation
process, as the mediators state, and there is also some progress, what
is the sense of making new suggestions? If they propose new variants
of mutual compromises, this means that there is no hope to come to
agreement on the previous proposals, there is no prospect for it.
In general, is there any prospect in connection with the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, or maybe the regular activation and
the optimistic statements are just a part of the constructive
atmosphere? On the one hand, it is difficult to believe that such
kind of high-level imitation is organized. But, on the other hand,
it is difficult to notice any edges of settlement of the conflict,
because the clash of interests and disagreements of the geopolitical
centers- U.S., Russia, Europe or France, in connection with the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue are quite visible. In addition, these are those
powers, which are openly involved in the process, while there are of
course other powers, which are not evidently involved in it but are
as much interested in the settlement of this conflict as the others.
This variety of interest, in practice, does not let any other
possibility for an agreement, than the one on the continuation of the
process. In other words, there is no imitation as such, but there is
no decision to settle the issue at any cost either. Merely, each of
the sides involved in the conflict, is trying to do what is expedient
for it. If they manage is good, and if they fail- what can we do? This
is called diplomacy, when you try as much as you can to reach what
you want. From this point of view, it is an illusion to think that
the question on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is
posed at any cost. For this, the agreement of all the geopolitical
centers is needed. But this agreement cannot exist, because each of
them has their own ides on the settlement of the conflict, and these
ideas are not based on humanistic and peaceful strives, but they are
dictated by the interests of the centers. Their interests, fortunately,
coincide on one issue: to preserve peace in the region, not to restart
a war. This is a very valuable agreement, which the superpowers have.
But the fact that there will not be any war and there is no decision
to settle the conflict at any cost does not mean that the present
situation is just a theater. It is not a theater, but even if it is,
it is led by the Shakespearian sprit "life is a theater". In other
words, the life is the process, which moves forwards and where the
directly or indirectly involved sides of the conflict live. In other
words, the process of the settlement is the settlement, if we may
say so. Consequently, it is very important, how everyone, including
Armenia and Karabakh, will behave in this process. The point is that
giving positive answers to all the proposals hoping that anyway,
the interests of the superpowers will not let them be fulfilled,
instead Armenia will secure its peaceful and constructive image as
a republic, is too dangerous, which may only settle the question the
strengthening of the governmental but not the state positions. And what
is going to happen if the superpowers do not come to agreement? Since,
even if the Caucasus is very important, it is a part of the world,
consequently, a circle of the interests if the superpowers. In other
words, all the decisions concerning the circle are made by the logic
towards the whole chain.
HAKOB BADALYAN
LRAGIR.AM
11:32:23 - 01/07/2009
The process of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement has again activated,
and again optimistic statements are heard, which precede the regular
Sargsyan-Aliev meeting in Moscow, which is going to be already
the sixth one. Before this, the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers met in Paris, then Medvedev visited Baku, after the OSCE
Minsk group CO-Chairs were said to be coming to the region in the
beginning of July, who, according to the statement of the French
Foreign Ministry, had made new proposals on the settlement to the
sides of the conflict. This nuance is interesting. It is interesting
from the point that if there is mutual understanding in the negotiation
process, as the mediators state, and there is also some progress, what
is the sense of making new suggestions? If they propose new variants
of mutual compromises, this means that there is no hope to come to
agreement on the previous proposals, there is no prospect for it.
In general, is there any prospect in connection with the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, or maybe the regular activation and
the optimistic statements are just a part of the constructive
atmosphere? On the one hand, it is difficult to believe that such
kind of high-level imitation is organized. But, on the other hand,
it is difficult to notice any edges of settlement of the conflict,
because the clash of interests and disagreements of the geopolitical
centers- U.S., Russia, Europe or France, in connection with the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue are quite visible. In addition, these are those
powers, which are openly involved in the process, while there are of
course other powers, which are not evidently involved in it but are
as much interested in the settlement of this conflict as the others.
This variety of interest, in practice, does not let any other
possibility for an agreement, than the one on the continuation of the
process. In other words, there is no imitation as such, but there is
no decision to settle the issue at any cost either. Merely, each of
the sides involved in the conflict, is trying to do what is expedient
for it. If they manage is good, and if they fail- what can we do? This
is called diplomacy, when you try as much as you can to reach what
you want. From this point of view, it is an illusion to think that
the question on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is
posed at any cost. For this, the agreement of all the geopolitical
centers is needed. But this agreement cannot exist, because each of
them has their own ides on the settlement of the conflict, and these
ideas are not based on humanistic and peaceful strives, but they are
dictated by the interests of the centers. Their interests, fortunately,
coincide on one issue: to preserve peace in the region, not to restart
a war. This is a very valuable agreement, which the superpowers have.
But the fact that there will not be any war and there is no decision
to settle the conflict at any cost does not mean that the present
situation is just a theater. It is not a theater, but even if it is,
it is led by the Shakespearian sprit "life is a theater". In other
words, the life is the process, which moves forwards and where the
directly or indirectly involved sides of the conflict live. In other
words, the process of the settlement is the settlement, if we may
say so. Consequently, it is very important, how everyone, including
Armenia and Karabakh, will behave in this process. The point is that
giving positive answers to all the proposals hoping that anyway,
the interests of the superpowers will not let them be fulfilled,
instead Armenia will secure its peaceful and constructive image as
a republic, is too dangerous, which may only settle the question the
strengthening of the governmental but not the state positions. And what
is going to happen if the superpowers do not come to agreement? Since,
even if the Caucasus is very important, it is a part of the world,
consequently, a circle of the interests if the superpowers. In other
words, all the decisions concerning the circle are made by the logic
towards the whole chain.