Tweet
BAKU AND BUDAPEST MADE A MISTAKE THAT BRUSSELS AND WASHINGTON, DC ALLOWED THEM TO DO
Hovsep Khurshudyan,
ACNIS senior analyst
It is obvious that Brussels, Washington, D.C., and Yerevan were all
aware of the extradition of the fanatic murderer Ramil Safarov ahead
of time. This act was silently allowed to have taken place, since
three of these capitals had their own interest in causing this harm to
both the current authorities of Hungary and to Aliev.
The current Prime Minister of Hungary has become the eyesore of the
European family since his regime was in power during 1998-2002. In
Brussels his nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric and politics were
always considered as contradicting and threatening to the European and
common humanistic values.
Orban was also blamed for the application of authoritarian model of
public administration, resulted in decrease of the parliament's role
and authority. In 2002--not without Brussels' support--liberals and
leftists won the elections, and Orban with his Fidesz right-centrist
party (by the way, the party is a member of EPP) was complaining about
fabrication of the results. But the only violation the European
observers found was obviously more privileges given to Fidesz during
the Public TV coverage.
Owing to discontent among the Hungarian people--stemming from the
outcomes of the world economic crisis--in 2010 Fidesz again came to
power, and Orban became the Prime Minister. However, this time
Washington with Obama's democratic administration--that attaches more
importance to human rights, even sometimes compromising some
geopolitical positions--also joint Brussels in the team of Orban's
"dislikers." Meanwhile Orban's regime--nationalist, populist and
xenophobic, supporter of the catholic priests (and for that having
been awarded the cross of St. Gregory the Great by Vatican)--does not
match the context of the international priorities declared by the US
foreign policy, and has already gained the harsh criticism of the US.
By the way, it is not only catholic Vatican that admires Orban, but
also Great Russia, from where always admiration is expressed towards
"European Hugo Chavez," who closed the roads for the projects of
formation of European global elite"
(http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2012/05/18/ugo-chaves-evropy.html.
Moscow is particularly excited about the new constitution of Hungary
that was enacted on January 1st, 2012. With this Hungary became the
first the EU state that put an end to "cultural diversity." In
addition, the preamble of the new constitution mentions modern Hungary
as a "successor" of the medieval Hungarian Empire, the territory of
which exceeded two to three times that of contemporary Hungary, and
included Slovakia in its entirety, the Ukrainian Carpathians, Serbian
Vojvodina, almost all of Croatia, and half of Romania. In other words,
this mishap that has come to power in the middle of Europe stands in
full contrast with the European values. Thus, it is not by accident
that Hungary fell in its own "pit of values," when it ignored the
humanistic and principal moral values for the sake of its "national
interests." That is, in order to ensure a few billion dollars worth of
investment by Azerbaijan in Hungary, it returned the criminal, who had
committed a loathsome murder, to a country, which Europe unofficially
considers to be an eastern petrol emirate, the foreign policy of which
includes elements of racism, and where the murderer would clearly
avoid enduring deserved punishment. Moreover, he was already turned
into a hero before his transfer.
Thus, Orban belongs to those xenophobes who do not accept European
values, and always takes the chance to discredit them. Now there is
great opportunity for Brussels and Washington to get rid of his exotic
regime. Orban himself is giving the chance.
Aliev was no less foresighted, and if Brussels and Washington were
interested in his mistake, official Yerevan's concern was even deeper.
The first two solve at least three problems concerning Azerbaijan:
1. Formation of additional prerequisites for pressuring Azerbaijan as
an uncompromising side that stimulates the undermining of the status
quo, which is unacceptable for the West.
2. Global weakening of the ruling regime of Azerbaijan--that has
become strictly stubborn due to oil super profits and irritates the
West--and democratizating Azerbaijan by strengthening its system of
checks and balances.
3. Creation of yet another opportunity for escalation of international
pressure on Aliev a year ahead of Azerbaijani presidential elections
to be held in October, 2013.
Meanwhile, Yerevan is the most interested party in the weakening of
Azerbaijan's status and of making Baku a target of international
pressure the least effects of which may be at minimum the extortion of
some concessions within the negotiation format, such as Republic of
Mountainous Karabakh's (MKR) return to the negotiating table, adoption
of a more loyal attitude by the presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group's
Co-Chair countries France, the Russian Federation, and the United
States of America towards the stimulation of the resettlement process
of the liberated territories or at least a real restart of modernized
Stepanakert airport, and at maximum a permission for the recognition
of Artsakh's freedom to be received from the aforementioned three
presidents, which will become a starting point for the international
recognition process of the MKR as a state. Eventually, the weakening
of current racist and anti-Armenianist Azerbaijan is a security issue
for Armenia and Artsakh. The dissolution of misanthropic feudal regime
and the establishment of a modern democratic state in our neighboring
country stems not only from Armenia's and Western countries'
interests, but also from the interests of Azerbaijan's multiethnic
nation.
Hovsep Khurshudyan,
ACNIS senior analyst
It is obvious that Brussels, Washington, D.C., and Yerevan were all
aware of the extradition of the fanatic murderer Ramil Safarov ahead
of time. This act was silently allowed to have taken place, since
three of these capitals had their own interest in causing this harm to
both the current authorities of Hungary and to Aliev.
The current Prime Minister of Hungary has become the eyesore of the
European family since his regime was in power during 1998-2002. In
Brussels his nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric and politics were
always considered as contradicting and threatening to the European and
common humanistic values.
Orban was also blamed for the application of authoritarian model of
public administration, resulted in decrease of the parliament's role
and authority. In 2002--not without Brussels' support--liberals and
leftists won the elections, and Orban with his Fidesz right-centrist
party (by the way, the party is a member of EPP) was complaining about
fabrication of the results. But the only violation the European
observers found was obviously more privileges given to Fidesz during
the Public TV coverage.
Owing to discontent among the Hungarian people--stemming from the
outcomes of the world economic crisis--in 2010 Fidesz again came to
power, and Orban became the Prime Minister. However, this time
Washington with Obama's democratic administration--that attaches more
importance to human rights, even sometimes compromising some
geopolitical positions--also joint Brussels in the team of Orban's
"dislikers." Meanwhile Orban's regime--nationalist, populist and
xenophobic, supporter of the catholic priests (and for that having
been awarded the cross of St. Gregory the Great by Vatican)--does not
match the context of the international priorities declared by the US
foreign policy, and has already gained the harsh criticism of the US.
By the way, it is not only catholic Vatican that admires Orban, but
also Great Russia, from where always admiration is expressed towards
"European Hugo Chavez," who closed the roads for the projects of
formation of European global elite"
(http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2012/05/18/ugo-chaves-evropy.html.
Moscow is particularly excited about the new constitution of Hungary
that was enacted on January 1st, 2012. With this Hungary became the
first the EU state that put an end to "cultural diversity." In
addition, the preamble of the new constitution mentions modern Hungary
as a "successor" of the medieval Hungarian Empire, the territory of
which exceeded two to three times that of contemporary Hungary, and
included Slovakia in its entirety, the Ukrainian Carpathians, Serbian
Vojvodina, almost all of Croatia, and half of Romania. In other words,
this mishap that has come to power in the middle of Europe stands in
full contrast with the European values. Thus, it is not by accident
that Hungary fell in its own "pit of values," when it ignored the
humanistic and principal moral values for the sake of its "national
interests." That is, in order to ensure a few billion dollars worth of
investment by Azerbaijan in Hungary, it returned the criminal, who had
committed a loathsome murder, to a country, which Europe unofficially
considers to be an eastern petrol emirate, the foreign policy of which
includes elements of racism, and where the murderer would clearly
avoid enduring deserved punishment. Moreover, he was already turned
into a hero before his transfer.
Thus, Orban belongs to those xenophobes who do not accept European
values, and always takes the chance to discredit them. Now there is
great opportunity for Brussels and Washington to get rid of his exotic
regime. Orban himself is giving the chance.
Aliev was no less foresighted, and if Brussels and Washington were
interested in his mistake, official Yerevan's concern was even deeper.
The first two solve at least three problems concerning Azerbaijan:
1. Formation of additional prerequisites for pressuring Azerbaijan as
an uncompromising side that stimulates the undermining of the status
quo, which is unacceptable for the West.
2. Global weakening of the ruling regime of Azerbaijan--that has
become strictly stubborn due to oil super profits and irritates the
West--and democratizating Azerbaijan by strengthening its system of
checks and balances.
3. Creation of yet another opportunity for escalation of international
pressure on Aliev a year ahead of Azerbaijani presidential elections
to be held in October, 2013.
Meanwhile, Yerevan is the most interested party in the weakening of
Azerbaijan's status and of making Baku a target of international
pressure the least effects of which may be at minimum the extortion of
some concessions within the negotiation format, such as Republic of
Mountainous Karabakh's (MKR) return to the negotiating table, adoption
of a more loyal attitude by the presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group's
Co-Chair countries France, the Russian Federation, and the United
States of America towards the stimulation of the resettlement process
of the liberated territories or at least a real restart of modernized
Stepanakert airport, and at maximum a permission for the recognition
of Artsakh's freedom to be received from the aforementioned three
presidents, which will become a starting point for the international
recognition process of the MKR as a state. Eventually, the weakening
of current racist and anti-Armenianist Azerbaijan is a security issue
for Armenia and Artsakh. The dissolution of misanthropic feudal regime
and the establishment of a modern democratic state in our neighboring
country stems not only from Armenia's and Western countries'
interests, but also from the interests of Azerbaijan's multiethnic
nation.