Tweet
ONE MORE "ROAD MAP" OR JUST ANOTHER MYTH?
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
08.05.2009 GMT+04:00
No president of Armenia, if he values his life, will sign a murderous
agreement with Baku, whose fruits will be first of all used by Turkey,
and then by great powers.
The successive meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
in Prague once again was unproductive. Such was, at least,
the impression of the statements, which as always, were filled
with on-duty, non-committal phrases. In a word, no "breakthrough"
occurred. Nevertheless, Mathew Bryza as always stayed true to himself
and again said inopportunely that "an agreement on the Basic Principles
was achieved", which immediately caused sharp reaction in Stepanakert.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In the opinion of a number of experts, an impression
was created that Armenia signed a second "road map", this time on the
Karabakh issue. A little cleared the air Minister of Foreign Affairs
of France Bernard Kouchner, who stated that the Presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan held difficult talks on Nagorno Karabakh. "There is a
lot of misunderstanding between the sides. Each insists on going his
own way. But we shouldn't lose heart. Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan
have still much to do," emphasized the French FM. As for the Ministers
of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia Elmar Mammadiarov and
Edward Nalbandyan, they refused to comment on the results of the
meeting. It is quite probable that Bryza in a pair of days will deny
his own words, saying he was "improperly translated..." We are already
accustomed to it.
It is here appropriate to note that before the meeting there were
rumors, very reliable by the way, that the meeting might not take
place. The reason was clear too - the USA was not able to duly press on
both sides so that they would agree to sign just another "road map",
this time on the Karabakh regulation issue. Let us remind that all
these are surmises and observations, which, however, have had a recent
tendency to come true if not completely, at least partially. Such was
the case at the meeting in Prague, and before it at the BSEC summit
in Yerevan. All these summits are interesting for the Armenian and
Azerbaijani-Turkish societies from the point of view of one problem
only: how far is it possible to push one's interests via diplomacy or
other means, without resorting to force; or, to put it more simply,
how much does a conflicting party yield to the pressure from the
outside? By the way it is absolutely unimportant who presses: Russia
or the USA. However strange it may sound, in the South Caucasus
region the stances of Washington and Moscow in the normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations have so far matched. The new US
Administration has not yet gained confidence; for the last 20 years
Russia has conducted no policy at all in the Caucasus, and she simply
desires to preserve what remains. And remains only Armenia, which,
by the way, is more and more frequently looking to the West. Under
such circumstances no one will settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
especially since there is almost nothing to be settled. No president of
Armenia, if he values his life, will ever sign a murderous agreement
with Baku, whose fruits will be first of all used by Turkey, and
then by great powers. Everybody knows it. As in the case of signing
the Armenian-Turkish agreement, we can predict, draw conclusions,
but it is always appropriate to remember that Armenia will sign no
single document without the consent of the Nagorno-Karabakh people. At
least it is what official Yerevan keeps saying.
But a strange thing happens: both of the alleged "road maps" are signed
precisely on the eve of the days, which are significant for Armenia
and the Armenian people both in the tragic and heroic sense of the
word: April 24 and May 9. Coincidences, as is known, do not occur
in the history, they are simply well prepared. The question is, how
well Armenia and its leadership were aware of that "coincidence". The
question is far from being empty, if we take into consideration the
existing complex situation in the region. Just have a look: always
unstable Georgia that was never able to become a state; a sultanate,
indebted to natural reserves and therefore most dangerous and most
vulnerable; Turkey, which is dangerous only by definition, and Iran,
without which Armenia cannot actually survive, since, other conditions
being equal, Teheran is more inclined to support "the unfaithful",
than the Sunnis or the odd Georgians. Thus, it so happens that
even a casually dropped word causes an ambiguous and sometimes
also an inadequate reaction in Armenia and NKR. Unfortunately, once
again we have to admit that Armenian diplomacy is not presently its
best. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is very important indeed and
it is necessary, but to make it one of the priorities of a country's
foreign policy would be unreasonable. The priorities of a state must
be based on physical realities of the region, and we shouldn't expect
that with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey anything
can be changed in the region. Nothing will be changed; the situation
may even worsen, although this must be the limit. In the absence of the
national idea, which has been being discussed for two decades already,
even a tiniest victory in the diplomatic field might be received as
defeat, because it is aimless and amuses only one's pride.
As far as the summit of "Eastern Partnership" is concerned, what can
draw Armenia is only the absence of a postulate in the declaration,
regarding "territorial integrity" of a country, participant in the
program.
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
08.05.2009 GMT+04:00
No president of Armenia, if he values his life, will sign a murderous
agreement with Baku, whose fruits will be first of all used by Turkey,
and then by great powers.
The successive meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
in Prague once again was unproductive. Such was, at least,
the impression of the statements, which as always, were filled
with on-duty, non-committal phrases. In a word, no "breakthrough"
occurred. Nevertheless, Mathew Bryza as always stayed true to himself
and again said inopportunely that "an agreement on the Basic Principles
was achieved", which immediately caused sharp reaction in Stepanakert.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In the opinion of a number of experts, an impression
was created that Armenia signed a second "road map", this time on the
Karabakh issue. A little cleared the air Minister of Foreign Affairs
of France Bernard Kouchner, who stated that the Presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan held difficult talks on Nagorno Karabakh. "There is a
lot of misunderstanding between the sides. Each insists on going his
own way. But we shouldn't lose heart. Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan
have still much to do," emphasized the French FM. As for the Ministers
of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia Elmar Mammadiarov and
Edward Nalbandyan, they refused to comment on the results of the
meeting. It is quite probable that Bryza in a pair of days will deny
his own words, saying he was "improperly translated..." We are already
accustomed to it.
It is here appropriate to note that before the meeting there were
rumors, very reliable by the way, that the meeting might not take
place. The reason was clear too - the USA was not able to duly press on
both sides so that they would agree to sign just another "road map",
this time on the Karabakh regulation issue. Let us remind that all
these are surmises and observations, which, however, have had a recent
tendency to come true if not completely, at least partially. Such was
the case at the meeting in Prague, and before it at the BSEC summit
in Yerevan. All these summits are interesting for the Armenian and
Azerbaijani-Turkish societies from the point of view of one problem
only: how far is it possible to push one's interests via diplomacy or
other means, without resorting to force; or, to put it more simply,
how much does a conflicting party yield to the pressure from the
outside? By the way it is absolutely unimportant who presses: Russia
or the USA. However strange it may sound, in the South Caucasus
region the stances of Washington and Moscow in the normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations have so far matched. The new US
Administration has not yet gained confidence; for the last 20 years
Russia has conducted no policy at all in the Caucasus, and she simply
desires to preserve what remains. And remains only Armenia, which,
by the way, is more and more frequently looking to the West. Under
such circumstances no one will settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
especially since there is almost nothing to be settled. No president of
Armenia, if he values his life, will ever sign a murderous agreement
with Baku, whose fruits will be first of all used by Turkey, and
then by great powers. Everybody knows it. As in the case of signing
the Armenian-Turkish agreement, we can predict, draw conclusions,
but it is always appropriate to remember that Armenia will sign no
single document without the consent of the Nagorno-Karabakh people. At
least it is what official Yerevan keeps saying.
But a strange thing happens: both of the alleged "road maps" are signed
precisely on the eve of the days, which are significant for Armenia
and the Armenian people both in the tragic and heroic sense of the
word: April 24 and May 9. Coincidences, as is known, do not occur
in the history, they are simply well prepared. The question is, how
well Armenia and its leadership were aware of that "coincidence". The
question is far from being empty, if we take into consideration the
existing complex situation in the region. Just have a look: always
unstable Georgia that was never able to become a state; a sultanate,
indebted to natural reserves and therefore most dangerous and most
vulnerable; Turkey, which is dangerous only by definition, and Iran,
without which Armenia cannot actually survive, since, other conditions
being equal, Teheran is more inclined to support "the unfaithful",
than the Sunnis or the odd Georgians. Thus, it so happens that
even a casually dropped word causes an ambiguous and sometimes
also an inadequate reaction in Armenia and NKR. Unfortunately, once
again we have to admit that Armenian diplomacy is not presently its
best. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is very important indeed and
it is necessary, but to make it one of the priorities of a country's
foreign policy would be unreasonable. The priorities of a state must
be based on physical realities of the region, and we shouldn't expect
that with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey anything
can be changed in the region. Nothing will be changed; the situation
may even worsen, although this must be the limit. In the absence of the
national idea, which has been being discussed for two decades already,
even a tiniest victory in the diplomatic field might be received as
defeat, because it is aimless and amuses only one's pride.
As far as the summit of "Eastern Partnership" is concerned, what can
draw Armenia is only the absence of a postulate in the declaration,
regarding "territorial integrity" of a country, participant in the
program.