Tweet
AZERBAIJANI MP: IF AZERBAIJAN SUCCEEDS TO DEPRIVE ARMENIA OF ITS FOREIGN BACKERS, IT WILL IMMEDIATELY START A WAR
Day.Az
April 7 2010
Azerbaijan
In an interview with a German magazine, Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan accused Azerbaijan of intending to solve the Karabakh problem
by military means. How can you assess Armenian President's statements
given the fact that Baku, unlike Yerevan, has already approved the
updated Madrid principles?
Armenian leaders want to bring their position to the world through the
European media. But, as the last interview of the Armenian President
demonstrated, they fail to do this. After the interview was published,
Yerevan stated that the text of the interview had some mistakes.
Thus, Serzh Sargsyan has once again proved that he is a real smatterer
in foreign policy matters. But this is only the smallest part of
the evils. His claims that Azerbaijan's willingness to resolve this
issue by military means is the major obstacle to the settlement of
the conflict are untrue.
In fact, the statements coming from Baku indicate that Armenia slows
down the negotiation process, and the world powers do nothing to
persuade Armenia to the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh problem.
The organization that must deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement
claims that the parties themselves must find a way to resolve the
conflict. But Armenia has occupied our territory, therefore, it speaks
the language of militarism. However, when Azerbaijan tries to talk
with Yerevan in its language, it becomes a matter of concern abroad.
Any international expert with confidence confirm that Armenia does
not have sufficient economic capacity to wage a war. So I think if
Azerbaijan succeeds to deprive Armenia of its foreign backers, we
will immediately start a war, because Yerevan leaves us no choice.
In an interview with the same magazine the Sargsyan said that "Agrydag
will forever live in the hearts of Armenians". In your opinion, is
it possible that Armenia will make territorial claims to Turkey in
case the U.S. recognizes the "Armenian genocide"?
All are interested in what will happen after a possible recognition
of "Armenian genocide" by the countries of the world. I think Western
countries have more market interests in this respect than Armenia. For
example, Washington uses the "Armenian genocide" to make Ankara more
loyal in the Iranian issue.
Turkey has already begun thinking about how to resist Armenia's
efforts to get world countries to recognize the "Armenian genocide".
They do not raise the issue Armenian crimes in the Ottoman Empire
in vain. Thus, Ankara, showing Armenia's true face, wants to balance
the claims of the sides.
With regard to Agrydag, I think claims by a small Armenia against
Turkey, a country with a population of 80 million, can be costly
for Yerevan. Introducing Agrydag as a symbol of Armenia will destroy
its statehood.
On the other hand, Armenian President's statements claiming that it
is impossible to creat a joint committee with Turkey to study the
events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire are contrary to the texts of
Zurich protocols. It arises a question - then why the country assumed
an obligation to establish a commission to establish the truth about
this issue?
Armenia has announced several times that it may withdraw from the
Zurich protocols. But we have not heard such statements since Serzh
Sargsyan's visit to France. By and large, very little depends on
Armenia in this matrer.
Do you think return of the Turkish Ambassador to Washington and the
forthcoming visit of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the U.S.
indicate that the two countries have left behind the tensions
between them?
First and foremost, it shows that Armenia and the Armenian lobby have
failed to achieve their goal to embroil Turkey with the U.S. and other
countries. Ankara and Washington could reach consensus, because these
countries have too many common interests. The U.S. wants to pursue
its policy in the region through this country, and I think that the
parties succeeded to to agree and understand each other.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Day.Az
April 7 2010
Azerbaijan
In an interview with a German magazine, Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan accused Azerbaijan of intending to solve the Karabakh problem
by military means. How can you assess Armenian President's statements
given the fact that Baku, unlike Yerevan, has already approved the
updated Madrid principles?
Armenian leaders want to bring their position to the world through the
European media. But, as the last interview of the Armenian President
demonstrated, they fail to do this. After the interview was published,
Yerevan stated that the text of the interview had some mistakes.
Thus, Serzh Sargsyan has once again proved that he is a real smatterer
in foreign policy matters. But this is only the smallest part of
the evils. His claims that Azerbaijan's willingness to resolve this
issue by military means is the major obstacle to the settlement of
the conflict are untrue.
In fact, the statements coming from Baku indicate that Armenia slows
down the negotiation process, and the world powers do nothing to
persuade Armenia to the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh problem.
The organization that must deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement
claims that the parties themselves must find a way to resolve the
conflict. But Armenia has occupied our territory, therefore, it speaks
the language of militarism. However, when Azerbaijan tries to talk
with Yerevan in its language, it becomes a matter of concern abroad.
Any international expert with confidence confirm that Armenia does
not have sufficient economic capacity to wage a war. So I think if
Azerbaijan succeeds to deprive Armenia of its foreign backers, we
will immediately start a war, because Yerevan leaves us no choice.
In an interview with the same magazine the Sargsyan said that "Agrydag
will forever live in the hearts of Armenians". In your opinion, is
it possible that Armenia will make territorial claims to Turkey in
case the U.S. recognizes the "Armenian genocide"?
All are interested in what will happen after a possible recognition
of "Armenian genocide" by the countries of the world. I think Western
countries have more market interests in this respect than Armenia. For
example, Washington uses the "Armenian genocide" to make Ankara more
loyal in the Iranian issue.
Turkey has already begun thinking about how to resist Armenia's
efforts to get world countries to recognize the "Armenian genocide".
They do not raise the issue Armenian crimes in the Ottoman Empire
in vain. Thus, Ankara, showing Armenia's true face, wants to balance
the claims of the sides.
With regard to Agrydag, I think claims by a small Armenia against
Turkey, a country with a population of 80 million, can be costly
for Yerevan. Introducing Agrydag as a symbol of Armenia will destroy
its statehood.
On the other hand, Armenian President's statements claiming that it
is impossible to creat a joint committee with Turkey to study the
events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire are contrary to the texts of
Zurich protocols. It arises a question - then why the country assumed
an obligation to establish a commission to establish the truth about
this issue?
Armenia has announced several times that it may withdraw from the
Zurich protocols. But we have not heard such statements since Serzh
Sargsyan's visit to France. By and large, very little depends on
Armenia in this matrer.
Do you think return of the Turkish Ambassador to Washington and the
forthcoming visit of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the U.S.
indicate that the two countries have left behind the tensions
between them?
First and foremost, it shows that Armenia and the Armenian lobby have
failed to achieve their goal to embroil Turkey with the U.S. and other
countries. Ankara and Washington could reach consensus, because these
countries have too many common interests. The U.S. wants to pursue
its policy in the region through this country, and I think that the
parties succeeded to to agree and understand each other.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress