Tweet
In This Case Putin Is Right
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27538.html
Published: 14:35:54 - 28/09/2012
After private meetings with the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Azerbaijan the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Jacques Faure, Igor Popov
and Robert Bradtke in New York made a statement appreciating the
commitment of the sides to peace settlement. They urged them to return
to the essence of peace talks.
The statement of the co-chairs is especially interesting in the
context of their last statement following Safarov's extradition. They
announced that the OSCE Minsk Group will continue mediation efforts
and contact with the sides.
And now they urge the sides to return to the substance of the talks.
Hence, the new content or format of the talks rather than the
continuation of the talks seems to be concerned. In other words, there
is no call for continuing what is there but the new situation.
At this point the end of the Russian mediation is marked by certain
diplomatic subtlety. Russia had taken the lead of the negotiations
going for three-party meetings. The only result of these meetings is a
few Azerbaijani subversive acts and killed Armenian soldiers. The only
notable thing is the tragic death of Armenian soldiers.
Perhaps it is good that the period of the Russian mediation is closed.
It is hard to tell what played a role, whether France and the United
States insisted on ending this Russian roulette or whether after
Putin's return Moscow has reviewed its approaches. The point is that
Medvedev's three-party format was explained by his urge for
self-establishment, as well as the activities of the Azerbaijani oil
and gas lobby.
It is not ruled out that Medvedev thus tries to strengthen his
personal position in the Russian oil and gas capital where Putin
stands firmly. After all, one of the keys of the Russian government is
influence on this capital. Medvedev was unable to reach this key.
Meanwhile, Putin is self-sufficient, and he might accept the
replacement of the three-party format, especially that for experienced
Putin it is not clear that the father Russia goes, the closer it gets
to the trap.
A new situation has thus occurred. After all, the place of this
three-party format must be filled in with something, with some
process, otherwise this hole might be filled with war. And this is the
least desirable thing for Armenia and Karabakh, especially in the
present social, economic and psychological situation when defeat will
have full legitimacy.
Consequently, Armenia must be interested in the new process. In
addition, not only the negotiations are concerned but also their
substance, as the Minsk Group hints. This seemingly destructive step
may contain more constructivism than different Armenian and
Azerbaijani meetings. The important thing is the topic on which the
new process will be built. Following the Safarov case the most natural
source of the new topic is the Armenian side. This is a big risk and
responsibility but there is no other way. And it is not self-admiring
statements on Azerbaijan's awkward situation that are expected from or
needed for Armenia.
A great opportunity opens up before Armenia to come up with an
innovative approach in the process called negotiations. However,
Armenia has not displayed ability to use this opportunity. The first
step would be an initiative of open and public discussions on the
Karabakh issue and generation of ideas, providing the ground for
maneuvers of official politics. Meanwhile, instead of generation
official Yerevan seems to be moving backward, following the
conservation path.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27538.html
Published: 14:35:54 - 28/09/2012
After private meetings with the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Azerbaijan the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Jacques Faure, Igor Popov
and Robert Bradtke in New York made a statement appreciating the
commitment of the sides to peace settlement. They urged them to return
to the essence of peace talks.
The statement of the co-chairs is especially interesting in the
context of their last statement following Safarov's extradition. They
announced that the OSCE Minsk Group will continue mediation efforts
and contact with the sides.
And now they urge the sides to return to the substance of the talks.
Hence, the new content or format of the talks rather than the
continuation of the talks seems to be concerned. In other words, there
is no call for continuing what is there but the new situation.
At this point the end of the Russian mediation is marked by certain
diplomatic subtlety. Russia had taken the lead of the negotiations
going for three-party meetings. The only result of these meetings is a
few Azerbaijani subversive acts and killed Armenian soldiers. The only
notable thing is the tragic death of Armenian soldiers.
Perhaps it is good that the period of the Russian mediation is closed.
It is hard to tell what played a role, whether France and the United
States insisted on ending this Russian roulette or whether after
Putin's return Moscow has reviewed its approaches. The point is that
Medvedev's three-party format was explained by his urge for
self-establishment, as well as the activities of the Azerbaijani oil
and gas lobby.
It is not ruled out that Medvedev thus tries to strengthen his
personal position in the Russian oil and gas capital where Putin
stands firmly. After all, one of the keys of the Russian government is
influence on this capital. Medvedev was unable to reach this key.
Meanwhile, Putin is self-sufficient, and he might accept the
replacement of the three-party format, especially that for experienced
Putin it is not clear that the father Russia goes, the closer it gets
to the trap.
A new situation has thus occurred. After all, the place of this
three-party format must be filled in with something, with some
process, otherwise this hole might be filled with war. And this is the
least desirable thing for Armenia and Karabakh, especially in the
present social, economic and psychological situation when defeat will
have full legitimacy.
Consequently, Armenia must be interested in the new process. In
addition, not only the negotiations are concerned but also their
substance, as the Minsk Group hints. This seemingly destructive step
may contain more constructivism than different Armenian and
Azerbaijani meetings. The important thing is the topic on which the
new process will be built. Following the Safarov case the most natural
source of the new topic is the Armenian side. This is a big risk and
responsibility but there is no other way. And it is not self-admiring
statements on Azerbaijan's awkward situation that are expected from or
needed for Armenia.
A great opportunity opens up before Armenia to come up with an
innovative approach in the process called negotiations. However,
Armenia has not displayed ability to use this opportunity. The first
step would be an initiative of open and public discussions on the
Karabakh issue and generation of ideas, providing the ground for
maneuvers of official politics. Meanwhile, instead of generation
official Yerevan seems to be moving backward, following the
conservation path.