Tweet
Today, Azerbaijan
May 1 2010
Yerevan invents "a way out of a delicate situation"
01 May 2010 [21:40] - Today.Az
Even experts find it difficult to say when the diplomacy started. It
is only clear that its history dates back to when when the leader of
the White Feathers tribe met with the leader of the Black Feather
tribe near the sacred rocks to decide who would hunt the mammoths
where. If they reached an agreement, they would avoid the war.
We have no clue whether they held talks honestly or resorted to a
sleight of hand. But, no doubt, over the past millennium, the history
of statehood and diplomacy has seen innumerable "tricks.' Every
negotiation, each and every agreement and negotiator bring something
of their own to the table.
The resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is no exception. In
this context, Armenian leaders have frequently demonstrated diplomatic
know-how, so as not to disrupt negotiations openly when the situation
was unfavorable. Suffice it to recall the negotiations in Rambouillet
when then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian asked for permission to
"go to the restroom", and took off at a critical point of the talks.
The Armenian-Turkish negotiations also have a chance to enter the
history of diplomacy. But when Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
decided to suspend the negotiations with Turkey, the fantasy of the
Armenian political strategist seems to have run out. He declared
suspension the of the Armenia-Turkey talks without beating around the
bush.
Frankly, it is clear that it's not about a "reasonable timeframe,'
which no one has fixed, and it's not about Turkey's "preconditions,"
or even not about Karabakh. Talks with Turkey caused Armenia to face a
delicate problem ` where is the proposed boundary supposed to open?
It should be noted that Yerevan still refuses to recognize the current
borders between Turkey and Armenia. But to announce that tiny,
impoverished and hungry Armenia is making demands of Turkey, which is
the second largest power in NATO after the United States and Europe,
the piece of territory atop Agri Dagh is political suicide for
Yerevan.
Similarly, it would be political suicide for Armenian politicians to
give up their "age-old dream of the Armenian people.' When there were
no diplomatic relations, Armenia felt easy talking about eliminating
the "consequences of the 'genocide'" and "Western Armenia" in Turkey.
But it became difficult to do so with the beginning of these recent
talks, not to mention the fact that the Armenian diaspora adamantly
opposed the negotiations with Turkey.
Either way, suspending the talks with Turkey, Sargsyan seems to have
sincerely believed that he invented a painless way out of this
delicate situation. Talks are continuing de jure. So, there will be no
political trouble. They have been interrupted de facto and Armenia
does not need to hurry any longer to define its position on Karabakh
and the Turkish border. The international community seems to have
reacted to the Armenian leader's move with understanding. The
president eliminated what was irritating the diaspora and local
nationalists by suspending talks until better times.
When taking this step, Sargsyan obviously had in mind those "summer
chess' matches where the two neighbors postponed the game until next
season, vowing not forget who was playing white and who was playing
black, and who had made the last move.
Apparently, Armenia failed to take into account one thing. The talks
can be postponed for some time. Problems in the economy cannot be
postponed with the same ease. Armenia cannot solve these problems
without normalizing ties with Turkey and Azerbaijan. But Armenia
refused to do so for the sake of "unity with the diaspora," for which
the longing for a mythical "Western Armenia" in Turkey had long become
a very lucrative business.
Of course, Yerevan can expect that the diaspora will provide financial
handouts in exchange for political loyalty.
Armenia's 18 years of independence were enough even for the most
desperate optimists to make sure that the diaspora's financial
potential has been overestimated. Additionally, the wealth of a number
of individuals in Armenia does not mean that they are willing to share
their financial well-bring. Last but not least, donations will not
help to build a sound economy. This requires investments, which
Armenia lacks.
Yerevan would be unlikely to understand this if it was not for the
fact that control over incoming financial assistance, coupled with no
less than full control over the existing "infrastructure business,'
whether it be the supply of petroleum products, food trade, etc., is
enough to provide a comfortable living for the president and his inner
circle. And, most tragically, all of this already existed in Nagorno
Karabakh. The diaspora has regularly rendered financial assistance to
the self-proclaimed republic that later poured its finances into
pockets of the `Karabakh clan.' Now the clan wants to introduce a
similar model in Armenia along with the drug trafficking taking place
in the occupied Azerbaijani lands.
This is not a unique case in world history. It is well-known that
criminalization is unavoidable when you build your country on
donations alone, and when power is held by former "warlords" who made
their capital through ethnic cleansing and looting in Azerbaijani
villages.
/Day.Az/
URL: http://www.today.az/news/analytics/67119.html
May 1 2010
Yerevan invents "a way out of a delicate situation"
01 May 2010 [21:40] - Today.Az
Even experts find it difficult to say when the diplomacy started. It
is only clear that its history dates back to when when the leader of
the White Feathers tribe met with the leader of the Black Feather
tribe near the sacred rocks to decide who would hunt the mammoths
where. If they reached an agreement, they would avoid the war.
We have no clue whether they held talks honestly or resorted to a
sleight of hand. But, no doubt, over the past millennium, the history
of statehood and diplomacy has seen innumerable "tricks.' Every
negotiation, each and every agreement and negotiator bring something
of their own to the table.
The resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is no exception. In
this context, Armenian leaders have frequently demonstrated diplomatic
know-how, so as not to disrupt negotiations openly when the situation
was unfavorable. Suffice it to recall the negotiations in Rambouillet
when then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian asked for permission to
"go to the restroom", and took off at a critical point of the talks.
The Armenian-Turkish negotiations also have a chance to enter the
history of diplomacy. But when Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
decided to suspend the negotiations with Turkey, the fantasy of the
Armenian political strategist seems to have run out. He declared
suspension the of the Armenia-Turkey talks without beating around the
bush.
Frankly, it is clear that it's not about a "reasonable timeframe,'
which no one has fixed, and it's not about Turkey's "preconditions,"
or even not about Karabakh. Talks with Turkey caused Armenia to face a
delicate problem ` where is the proposed boundary supposed to open?
It should be noted that Yerevan still refuses to recognize the current
borders between Turkey and Armenia. But to announce that tiny,
impoverished and hungry Armenia is making demands of Turkey, which is
the second largest power in NATO after the United States and Europe,
the piece of territory atop Agri Dagh is political suicide for
Yerevan.
Similarly, it would be political suicide for Armenian politicians to
give up their "age-old dream of the Armenian people.' When there were
no diplomatic relations, Armenia felt easy talking about eliminating
the "consequences of the 'genocide'" and "Western Armenia" in Turkey.
But it became difficult to do so with the beginning of these recent
talks, not to mention the fact that the Armenian diaspora adamantly
opposed the negotiations with Turkey.
Either way, suspending the talks with Turkey, Sargsyan seems to have
sincerely believed that he invented a painless way out of this
delicate situation. Talks are continuing de jure. So, there will be no
political trouble. They have been interrupted de facto and Armenia
does not need to hurry any longer to define its position on Karabakh
and the Turkish border. The international community seems to have
reacted to the Armenian leader's move with understanding. The
president eliminated what was irritating the diaspora and local
nationalists by suspending talks until better times.
When taking this step, Sargsyan obviously had in mind those "summer
chess' matches where the two neighbors postponed the game until next
season, vowing not forget who was playing white and who was playing
black, and who had made the last move.
Apparently, Armenia failed to take into account one thing. The talks
can be postponed for some time. Problems in the economy cannot be
postponed with the same ease. Armenia cannot solve these problems
without normalizing ties with Turkey and Azerbaijan. But Armenia
refused to do so for the sake of "unity with the diaspora," for which
the longing for a mythical "Western Armenia" in Turkey had long become
a very lucrative business.
Of course, Yerevan can expect that the diaspora will provide financial
handouts in exchange for political loyalty.
Armenia's 18 years of independence were enough even for the most
desperate optimists to make sure that the diaspora's financial
potential has been overestimated. Additionally, the wealth of a number
of individuals in Armenia does not mean that they are willing to share
their financial well-bring. Last but not least, donations will not
help to build a sound economy. This requires investments, which
Armenia lacks.
Yerevan would be unlikely to understand this if it was not for the
fact that control over incoming financial assistance, coupled with no
less than full control over the existing "infrastructure business,'
whether it be the supply of petroleum products, food trade, etc., is
enough to provide a comfortable living for the president and his inner
circle. And, most tragically, all of this already existed in Nagorno
Karabakh. The diaspora has regularly rendered financial assistance to
the self-proclaimed republic that later poured its finances into
pockets of the `Karabakh clan.' Now the clan wants to introduce a
similar model in Armenia along with the drug trafficking taking place
in the occupied Azerbaijani lands.
This is not a unique case in world history. It is well-known that
criminalization is unavoidable when you build your country on
donations alone, and when power is held by former "warlords" who made
their capital through ethnic cleansing and looting in Azerbaijani
villages.
/Day.Az/
URL: http://www.today.az/news/analytics/67119.html