Tweet
CAMPAIGN OF READINESS TO MAKE CONCESSIONS
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments22341.html
Published: 14:11:20 - 23/06/2011
Serzh Sargsyan was trying to convince the PACE session that he has
been a supporter of concessions in the Karabakh issue since 1993,
when the war was not over yet. He was trying to persuade that even
under constant threats by Azerbaijan, he is ready to go to Kazan and
sign the agreement on the Basic Principles.
The next day of this speech Levon Ter-Petrosyan's interview with the
Moskovskiye Novosti was published. Ter-Petrosyan was trying to show
the steadiness of his belief in concession.
The feeling is that Ter-Petrosyan and Serzh Sargsyan are competing
who is more tolerant, fundamental, older and deeper regarding the
Karabakh issue.
And the surprising and perhaps also sad thing is that they are doing
it on the eve of the meeting in Kazan. In other words, prior to
Kazan, the leaders of the Armenian government and opposition express
willingness to sign a document which actually bids farewell to the
regional political importance of Armenia and Karabakh together with
all the consequences. A document, after the adoption of which it is
unknown what may happen to the psychological state of the population
in Karabakh and the inhabitants of villages of Armenia located
along the border when they learn that instead of real security they
are offered some papers which will be blown away by the slightest
geopolitical wind. In other words, Armenia is going to replace its
security earned at the cost of lives of thousands of people with some
written guarantees, while the opposition and the government argue
who should be called the "godfather" of Armenian concessions.
Perhaps, no document will be signed in Kazan, and perhaps everyone
knows it. But the problem case is that the two forces allegedly engaged
in a dialogue for the restoration of constitutional order in Armenia
are not trying to convince the Armenian society that the dialogue
is really about it. On the contrary, they are trying to convince the
international community of their sincerity to sign documents relating
to the Karabakh issue.
Meanwhile it seemed that the dialogue between two serious political
subjects, if real and healthy, should produce another effect on the
Karabakh issue and Armenia should state that it will not be signing
any documents contradicting to the interests of Armenia and Karabakh
at least a little and that for Armenia the object of the national
consensus is not Karabakh but the implementation of democratic
reforms. Anyway, it would have been more logical if the dialogue
strengthened the positions of Armenia in the Karabakh issue rather
than legally established the weaknesses.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments22341.html
Published: 14:11:20 - 23/06/2011
Serzh Sargsyan was trying to convince the PACE session that he has
been a supporter of concessions in the Karabakh issue since 1993,
when the war was not over yet. He was trying to persuade that even
under constant threats by Azerbaijan, he is ready to go to Kazan and
sign the agreement on the Basic Principles.
The next day of this speech Levon Ter-Petrosyan's interview with the
Moskovskiye Novosti was published. Ter-Petrosyan was trying to show
the steadiness of his belief in concession.
The feeling is that Ter-Petrosyan and Serzh Sargsyan are competing
who is more tolerant, fundamental, older and deeper regarding the
Karabakh issue.
And the surprising and perhaps also sad thing is that they are doing
it on the eve of the meeting in Kazan. In other words, prior to
Kazan, the leaders of the Armenian government and opposition express
willingness to sign a document which actually bids farewell to the
regional political importance of Armenia and Karabakh together with
all the consequences. A document, after the adoption of which it is
unknown what may happen to the psychological state of the population
in Karabakh and the inhabitants of villages of Armenia located
along the border when they learn that instead of real security they
are offered some papers which will be blown away by the slightest
geopolitical wind. In other words, Armenia is going to replace its
security earned at the cost of lives of thousands of people with some
written guarantees, while the opposition and the government argue
who should be called the "godfather" of Armenian concessions.
Perhaps, no document will be signed in Kazan, and perhaps everyone
knows it. But the problem case is that the two forces allegedly engaged
in a dialogue for the restoration of constitutional order in Armenia
are not trying to convince the Armenian society that the dialogue
is really about it. On the contrary, they are trying to convince the
international community of their sincerity to sign documents relating
to the Karabakh issue.
Meanwhile it seemed that the dialogue between two serious political
subjects, if real and healthy, should produce another effect on the
Karabakh issue and Armenia should state that it will not be signing
any documents contradicting to the interests of Armenia and Karabakh
at least a little and that for Armenia the object of the national
consensus is not Karabakh but the implementation of democratic
reforms. Anyway, it would have been more logical if the dialogue
strengthened the positions of Armenia in the Karabakh issue rather
than legally established the weaknesses.