Tweet
NALBANDIAN FURTHER ALIENATES
By Ara Khachatourian
Asbarez
Jul 20th, 2009
Armenia's Foreign Minister, Eduard Nalabandian, chose a joint press
briefing with his Swedish counterpart Carl Bildt to fire back at
calls for his resignation.
Last week the Armenian Revolutionary Federation called for Nalbandian
to step down, saying "Armenia's foreign policy has deviated from the
main provisions of the national security strategy."
"On the one hand, they can perhaps be explained by some naivety, to
put it very mildly. On the other hand, perhaps by attempts to fish
for something in troubled waters," said Nalbandian. "I don't think
that speculation around the Karabakh problem, which is a matter of
national importance, gives credit to anyone."
The undiplomatic manner in which Nalbandian addressed this matter,
demonstrated further that a change was needed.
The individual charged with shaping Armenia's foreign policy cannot
diminish national discourse on a matter as urgent and important as
the fate of Karabakh by describing the sincere concerns, not just from
the ARF, but also from political players in Karabakh as "speculation."
Calls for Nalbandian's resignation and criticism of Armenia's foreign
policy stems from the lack of transparency on part of the foreign
ministry during the course of Nalbandian's tenure. When both Azeri
and Turkish of ficials--perhaps in tandem--are making statements on
a daily basis and revealing details of discussions and agreements,
the general silence by the foreign ministry prompts discussion. It is
this very strategy that has muddied the waters, in which Nalbandian
claims his detractors are fishing.
Clearly, the calls for his resignation prompted him to clarify a
series of issues, including refuting claims by his Azeri counterpart
that a timetable has been developed for withdrawal from the liberated
territories surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. "I can tell
you that this issue has not been discussed at the Moscow meeting,"
stressed Nalbandian.
He went on to say that while the Madrid principles serve as a basis
for negotiations, Armenia has not given its official approval to them.
Nalbandian also broached the thorny issue of Turkey-Armenia relations,
saying that no new agreement has been signed following the April
22 announcement of the infamous "roadmap," and rejected claims that
Armenia has approved the establishment of commission of historians to
probe the Genocide. He did say, however, that once a final agreement is
reached and corresponding agreements are signed, an intergovernmental
committee that will include various sub-committees "that will deal
with various issues, including the issue of the restoration of mutual
trust between the two peoples."
If the foreign ministry elevates the transparency and provides
information on a timely manner, then the nation can have a more
substantive dialogue and discussion about matters of great importance
to Armenia, as it should given the ramifications of these critical
challenges confronting us.
By brushing aside the criticism and resorting to petty name calling,
Nalbandian showed his and the administration's unwillingness to trust
its own people, further alienating the political forces at a time
when national unity is of paramount importance.
By Ara Khachatourian
Asbarez
Jul 20th, 2009
Armenia's Foreign Minister, Eduard Nalabandian, chose a joint press
briefing with his Swedish counterpart Carl Bildt to fire back at
calls for his resignation.
Last week the Armenian Revolutionary Federation called for Nalbandian
to step down, saying "Armenia's foreign policy has deviated from the
main provisions of the national security strategy."
"On the one hand, they can perhaps be explained by some naivety, to
put it very mildly. On the other hand, perhaps by attempts to fish
for something in troubled waters," said Nalbandian. "I don't think
that speculation around the Karabakh problem, which is a matter of
national importance, gives credit to anyone."
The undiplomatic manner in which Nalbandian addressed this matter,
demonstrated further that a change was needed.
The individual charged with shaping Armenia's foreign policy cannot
diminish national discourse on a matter as urgent and important as
the fate of Karabakh by describing the sincere concerns, not just from
the ARF, but also from political players in Karabakh as "speculation."
Calls for Nalbandian's resignation and criticism of Armenia's foreign
policy stems from the lack of transparency on part of the foreign
ministry during the course of Nalbandian's tenure. When both Azeri
and Turkish of ficials--perhaps in tandem--are making statements on
a daily basis and revealing details of discussions and agreements,
the general silence by the foreign ministry prompts discussion. It is
this very strategy that has muddied the waters, in which Nalbandian
claims his detractors are fishing.
Clearly, the calls for his resignation prompted him to clarify a
series of issues, including refuting claims by his Azeri counterpart
that a timetable has been developed for withdrawal from the liberated
territories surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. "I can tell
you that this issue has not been discussed at the Moscow meeting,"
stressed Nalbandian.
He went on to say that while the Madrid principles serve as a basis
for negotiations, Armenia has not given its official approval to them.
Nalbandian also broached the thorny issue of Turkey-Armenia relations,
saying that no new agreement has been signed following the April
22 announcement of the infamous "roadmap," and rejected claims that
Armenia has approved the establishment of commission of historians to
probe the Genocide. He did say, however, that once a final agreement is
reached and corresponding agreements are signed, an intergovernmental
committee that will include various sub-committees "that will deal
with various issues, including the issue of the restoration of mutual
trust between the two peoples."
If the foreign ministry elevates the transparency and provides
information on a timely manner, then the nation can have a more
substantive dialogue and discussion about matters of great importance
to Armenia, as it should given the ramifications of these critical
challenges confronting us.
By brushing aside the criticism and resorting to petty name calling,
Nalbandian showed his and the administration's unwillingness to trust
its own people, further alienating the political forces at a time
when national unity is of paramount importance.