Tweet
CLOSER TO WHAT?
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25535.html
Published: 16:44:29 - 21/03/2012
In an interview with the European service of Radio RFE/RL on the
20th anniversary of the OSCE, and evaluating the OSCE Minsk Group
which has been mediating the process of settlement of the Karabakh
conflict for two decades, the American co-chair Robert Bradtke said
the sides are closer to a settlement than twenty years ago.
Bradtke spoke about the settlement options, the territory for status
mechanism, the return of refugees and displaced persons, etc, the
unacceptability of the status quo, but the assessment that the sides
are now closer to settlement than twenty years ago may have a very
interesting context.
What is our understanding of settlement? In the long run, the
activities of the Minsk Group revealed that there is no other
settlement of the Karabakh conflict than the results established
through the war and laid down in the truce in 1994. Another option,
if the rational climate is maintained, is possible by way of violating
the presumption of good sense and bordering with the presumption of
insanity. Only a misunderstanding of national security, regional and
global challenges, or simply historical fear and ensuing mental and
moral inhibitions will have Armenia agree to the options proposed by
the international mediators.
These options do not ensure settlement and lasting peace because
strategically they will violate the balance between Armenia and
Azerbaijan and the system of their establishment as political subjects,
giving Azerbaijan an advantage.
There is no objective and reliable guarantee in global politics that
Azerbaijan~Rs advantage will not transform to a moral right to use
force, and in the history of politics there is no case when such
advantage did not transform into such a right.
Hence, by breaking the balance and giving Azerbaijan real advantage,
leaving this balance to rely on guarantees of mostly unreal
international law, such resolution of the process of settlement will
solve no essential issue in the region but will pose threat to the
security of Armenia and Karabakh and their economic and political
modernization.
The Armenian people solved an essential issue in the region by winning
the war in Karabakh and balancing the South Caucasian area, making
this area more favorable and reliable for the effective work of the
great powers and centers of global politics.
Hence, the resolution should be viewed from this standpoint, at least
from the Armenian angle, and the Armenian approach must be promoted
at this angle from the process of settlement and the stance of the
mediators.
In this meaning, the comment of the American co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group that the sides are closer to the settlement than 20
years ago and the sides are closer than they think must be evaluated
by the Armenians from this standpoint. The sides are closer to the
settlement because as time passes and the outcome of the war remains
unchanged, there is a growing probability that the final result will
be conciliation with the reality.
However, the problem is that Armenia, like Azerbaijan, cannot accept
the reality. Armenia is not taking the essential steps required from
it: constitutional order, fair governance, human rights and freedoms.
This is what Armenia needs to do to make its important contribution
to the global reconciliation. Meanwhile, Armenia is dominated by a
different understanding. From time to time the Western diplomats try
to check the degree of growth or maturity of the 20-year-old state
and society, and the best indicator thereof is the statements on
reconciliation and closeness of the settlement of the Karabakh issue.
After all, after over two decades of efforts the Western political
and expert sets are increasingly thinking that the key premise for
the only rational and optimal settlement of the Karabakh issue ~V
acknowledgement of the reality ~V is to mature national and civil
thinking and the crisp and clear formulation of the national interest
based on the economic, political and strategic evaluation of the
status quo.
However, the reaction of different public and political layers of
Armenia to these statements indicating the level of this reality which,
if summarized, will sound like ~Ssee that we are rights when we say the
world wants reconciliation based on compromise~T prompts to the Western
politicians that after the mature step of winning the war the growth
of this state and society has slowed down and is behind the time,
clearing the path for the progress of historical and psychological
complexes and stereotypes.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25535.html
Published: 16:44:29 - 21/03/2012
In an interview with the European service of Radio RFE/RL on the
20th anniversary of the OSCE, and evaluating the OSCE Minsk Group
which has been mediating the process of settlement of the Karabakh
conflict for two decades, the American co-chair Robert Bradtke said
the sides are closer to a settlement than twenty years ago.
Bradtke spoke about the settlement options, the territory for status
mechanism, the return of refugees and displaced persons, etc, the
unacceptability of the status quo, but the assessment that the sides
are now closer to settlement than twenty years ago may have a very
interesting context.
What is our understanding of settlement? In the long run, the
activities of the Minsk Group revealed that there is no other
settlement of the Karabakh conflict than the results established
through the war and laid down in the truce in 1994. Another option,
if the rational climate is maintained, is possible by way of violating
the presumption of good sense and bordering with the presumption of
insanity. Only a misunderstanding of national security, regional and
global challenges, or simply historical fear and ensuing mental and
moral inhibitions will have Armenia agree to the options proposed by
the international mediators.
These options do not ensure settlement and lasting peace because
strategically they will violate the balance between Armenia and
Azerbaijan and the system of their establishment as political subjects,
giving Azerbaijan an advantage.
There is no objective and reliable guarantee in global politics that
Azerbaijan~Rs advantage will not transform to a moral right to use
force, and in the history of politics there is no case when such
advantage did not transform into such a right.
Hence, by breaking the balance and giving Azerbaijan real advantage,
leaving this balance to rely on guarantees of mostly unreal
international law, such resolution of the process of settlement will
solve no essential issue in the region but will pose threat to the
security of Armenia and Karabakh and their economic and political
modernization.
The Armenian people solved an essential issue in the region by winning
the war in Karabakh and balancing the South Caucasian area, making
this area more favorable and reliable for the effective work of the
great powers and centers of global politics.
Hence, the resolution should be viewed from this standpoint, at least
from the Armenian angle, and the Armenian approach must be promoted
at this angle from the process of settlement and the stance of the
mediators.
In this meaning, the comment of the American co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group that the sides are closer to the settlement than 20
years ago and the sides are closer than they think must be evaluated
by the Armenians from this standpoint. The sides are closer to the
settlement because as time passes and the outcome of the war remains
unchanged, there is a growing probability that the final result will
be conciliation with the reality.
However, the problem is that Armenia, like Azerbaijan, cannot accept
the reality. Armenia is not taking the essential steps required from
it: constitutional order, fair governance, human rights and freedoms.
This is what Armenia needs to do to make its important contribution
to the global reconciliation. Meanwhile, Armenia is dominated by a
different understanding. From time to time the Western diplomats try
to check the degree of growth or maturity of the 20-year-old state
and society, and the best indicator thereof is the statements on
reconciliation and closeness of the settlement of the Karabakh issue.
After all, after over two decades of efforts the Western political
and expert sets are increasingly thinking that the key premise for
the only rational and optimal settlement of the Karabakh issue ~V
acknowledgement of the reality ~V is to mature national and civil
thinking and the crisp and clear formulation of the national interest
based on the economic, political and strategic evaluation of the
status quo.
However, the reaction of different public and political layers of
Armenia to these statements indicating the level of this reality which,
if summarized, will sound like ~Ssee that we are rights when we say the
world wants reconciliation based on compromise~T prompts to the Western
politicians that after the mature step of winning the war the growth
of this state and society has slowed down and is behind the time,
clearing the path for the progress of historical and psychological
complexes and stereotypes.