Tweet
THE WHOLE TRUTH IS TOLD TO A JACKASS ONLY
HAKOB BADALYAN
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=15044
12:01:38 - 02/09/2009
The governmental heralds who participate in debates and discussions on
the Armenian-Turkish issue who usually are not governmental political
figures but so-called independent political scientists, listening to
whom one understands that they do not want to explain the phenomenon
but only say "good, good, very good", have adopted a very interesting
attitude. The peculiarity of this attitude is that these people try
to present the issue from the angle that whoever speaks against the
strategy the government is against the opening of the Armenian and
Turkish border. This is typical of the Armenian governmental and
pro-governmental thinking to change notions, diviate from the topic
and turn the debate into trivial arguments.
Meanwhile everyone understands that the axis of the criticism of
the process of the Armenian and Turkish relations is not the demand
not to open the border. The main topic of the criticism is at what
price, at whose expense it will be done, what Armenia has to give in
return for opening the border, and whether this price is equal to the
result expected from opening the border. Or whether the Turks are not
using the issue of the border to manipulate the Armenians during the
negotiations. This is the problem and not the open or closed border
as the governmental heralds are trying represent, saying that the
process is important. But do they explain how Armenia benefits from
this process and what it loses? Do they say what form the process has
to have? Or maybe they do not care about the form, the important is
to have it, even if Armenia appears as an "outsider" in this process.
It does not seem hard to understand that the discussion must be on
this issue rather than the fact that an open border is better than a
closed one, or it is better to negotiate than not to negotiate. Of
course, an open border is better than a closed one and negotiation
is better than its absence. But the best solution is to think before
negotiations whether they cannot be used as a trap against you. The
problem of the governmental heralds should be to explain to the
society that there is no trap. Let the heralds explain that the setup
of the sub-commission will not deal with the genocide issue, but they
will study only historical documents and facts not relating to the
genocide. Let the government heralds clarify this issue and not say
that the word genocide lacks in the protocols so everything is good.
Let them explain to the public the reason why Armenia and Turkey
draft a protocol to establish relations and include in it the
provision of recognition of state borders of the two countries as
well as a provision on "respect of inviolability of the borders
of other countries". What do the Armenian and Turkish relations
have in common with other countries? Does this provision imply
Azerbaijan? Let the governmental heralds explain this and not the
fact that Artsakh is not mentioned in the protocol. Finally, let
the governmental heralds know the famous saying "the whole truth is
told to a jacjass only'. Moreover, in diplomacy the whole truth is
never said, especially in such delicate questions as the Armenian
and Turkish relations. Consequently, a politician has to be able to
read between the lines because an ordinary citizen may read the lines
without the help of any politician. They should not take the citizens
for uneducated people or idiots. A political scientist should read
between the lines.
HAKOB BADALYAN
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=15044
12:01:38 - 02/09/2009
The governmental heralds who participate in debates and discussions on
the Armenian-Turkish issue who usually are not governmental political
figures but so-called independent political scientists, listening to
whom one understands that they do not want to explain the phenomenon
but only say "good, good, very good", have adopted a very interesting
attitude. The peculiarity of this attitude is that these people try
to present the issue from the angle that whoever speaks against the
strategy the government is against the opening of the Armenian and
Turkish border. This is typical of the Armenian governmental and
pro-governmental thinking to change notions, diviate from the topic
and turn the debate into trivial arguments.
Meanwhile everyone understands that the axis of the criticism of
the process of the Armenian and Turkish relations is not the demand
not to open the border. The main topic of the criticism is at what
price, at whose expense it will be done, what Armenia has to give in
return for opening the border, and whether this price is equal to the
result expected from opening the border. Or whether the Turks are not
using the issue of the border to manipulate the Armenians during the
negotiations. This is the problem and not the open or closed border
as the governmental heralds are trying represent, saying that the
process is important. But do they explain how Armenia benefits from
this process and what it loses? Do they say what form the process has
to have? Or maybe they do not care about the form, the important is
to have it, even if Armenia appears as an "outsider" in this process.
It does not seem hard to understand that the discussion must be on
this issue rather than the fact that an open border is better than a
closed one, or it is better to negotiate than not to negotiate. Of
course, an open border is better than a closed one and negotiation
is better than its absence. But the best solution is to think before
negotiations whether they cannot be used as a trap against you. The
problem of the governmental heralds should be to explain to the
society that there is no trap. Let the heralds explain that the setup
of the sub-commission will not deal with the genocide issue, but they
will study only historical documents and facts not relating to the
genocide. Let the government heralds clarify this issue and not say
that the word genocide lacks in the protocols so everything is good.
Let them explain to the public the reason why Armenia and Turkey
draft a protocol to establish relations and include in it the
provision of recognition of state borders of the two countries as
well as a provision on "respect of inviolability of the borders
of other countries". What do the Armenian and Turkish relations
have in common with other countries? Does this provision imply
Azerbaijan? Let the governmental heralds explain this and not the
fact that Artsakh is not mentioned in the protocol. Finally, let
the governmental heralds know the famous saying "the whole truth is
told to a jacjass only'. Moreover, in diplomacy the whole truth is
never said, especially in such delicate questions as the Armenian
and Turkish relations. Consequently, a politician has to be able to
read between the lines because an ordinary citizen may read the lines
without the help of any politician. They should not take the citizens
for uneducated people or idiots. A political scientist should read
between the lines.