Tweet
Foreign Minister's Strange Statement
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - Saturday, 10 May 2014, 18:47
Commentary of the NKR Foreign Ministry with Regards to the Recent
Statement of the US Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group James Warlick
James Warlick On Nagorno-Karabakh: The Keys to a Settlement
Azerbaijan States Return of Armenian Captive
They Emigrate Not Only Due To Shooting
Moscow Saved Azerbaijan In 1994
Radio Liberty informed that the Armenian foreign minister Edward
Nalbandyan has welcomed the decision of California State Assembly on
the recognition of independence of Artsakh.
Nalbandyan said so in response to news.am's question.
At the same time, the Armenian foreign minister said something strange.
`As Azerbaijan continues to hinder the efforts of Armenia and the
co-chairs aimed at the settlement of the Karabakh issue, more such
decisions and resolutions should be expected which will clear the path
for the exercise of the right of self-determination of the people of
Artsakh for the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic,' Nalbandyan announced.
Edward Nalbandyan implies that the process of recognition of
independence of Artsakh is the consequence of destructive behavior of
Azerbaijan in the talks.
What does he mean? Will there be no recognitions unless Azerbaijan
hinders the efforts aimed at negotiations. Is this what the Armenian
foreign minister meant to say?
And, generally, what other purpose does the so-called foreign policy
of Armenia and Artsakh (if there is such a policy or if it is exactly
a policy) except from the international recognition of Artsakh? This
purpose has been declared. And if this declared purpose is a genuine
purpose and is not imitation or lip service, who cares whether
Azerbaijan is constructive or not as long as the ultimate goal of the
Armenian side is the recognition of self-determination of Artsakh?
After all, linking other recognitions to come with Azerbaijan's
constructiveness, the Armenian government turns the recognition to a
means of blackmail of Azerbaijan, which is an insult for the
parliaments of those states which have recognized the independence of
NKR without linking it Azerbaijan's behavior in the process of talks,
whether constructive or destructive.
When the parliaments of California, the other four American states, or
South Wales of Australia recognized the independence of Artsakh, they
did not mention that they recognize the independence of Artsakh since
Baku is not constructive.
It is strange that the Armenian (?) foreign minister Edward Nalbandyan
is saying such a thing.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32413#sthash.iqD11Pik.dpuf
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - Saturday, 10 May 2014, 18:47
Commentary of the NKR Foreign Ministry with Regards to the Recent
Statement of the US Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group James Warlick
James Warlick On Nagorno-Karabakh: The Keys to a Settlement
Azerbaijan States Return of Armenian Captive
They Emigrate Not Only Due To Shooting
Moscow Saved Azerbaijan In 1994
Radio Liberty informed that the Armenian foreign minister Edward
Nalbandyan has welcomed the decision of California State Assembly on
the recognition of independence of Artsakh.
Nalbandyan said so in response to news.am's question.
At the same time, the Armenian foreign minister said something strange.
`As Azerbaijan continues to hinder the efforts of Armenia and the
co-chairs aimed at the settlement of the Karabakh issue, more such
decisions and resolutions should be expected which will clear the path
for the exercise of the right of self-determination of the people of
Artsakh for the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic,' Nalbandyan announced.
Edward Nalbandyan implies that the process of recognition of
independence of Artsakh is the consequence of destructive behavior of
Azerbaijan in the talks.
What does he mean? Will there be no recognitions unless Azerbaijan
hinders the efforts aimed at negotiations. Is this what the Armenian
foreign minister meant to say?
And, generally, what other purpose does the so-called foreign policy
of Armenia and Artsakh (if there is such a policy or if it is exactly
a policy) except from the international recognition of Artsakh? This
purpose has been declared. And if this declared purpose is a genuine
purpose and is not imitation or lip service, who cares whether
Azerbaijan is constructive or not as long as the ultimate goal of the
Armenian side is the recognition of self-determination of Artsakh?
After all, linking other recognitions to come with Azerbaijan's
constructiveness, the Armenian government turns the recognition to a
means of blackmail of Azerbaijan, which is an insult for the
parliaments of those states which have recognized the independence of
NKR without linking it Azerbaijan's behavior in the process of talks,
whether constructive or destructive.
When the parliaments of California, the other four American states, or
South Wales of Australia recognized the independence of Artsakh, they
did not mention that they recognize the independence of Artsakh since
Baku is not constructive.
It is strange that the Armenian (?) foreign minister Edward Nalbandyan
is saying such a thing.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32413#sthash.iqD11Pik.dpuf