Tweet
MULTI-POLAR WORLD AFTER THE ELECTION IN UKRAINE
May 28 2014
The topic of "Face to Face" series of talk show of Aravot online
is discussed between publicist Gurgen Yeghiazaryan and MP Tevan
Poghosyan. Aram Abrahamyan - Were the elections held in Ukraine
legitimate? Is Petro Poroshenko a legitimate president or not? Gurgen
Yeghiazaryan - Of course, not. How can a president be legitimate when
the whole east of the country is in a war? Today, there is a civil war
in Ukraine. Under these circumstances, how can there be talks about
the elections? A large segment has not participated in the elections,
consequently, they have already separated this segment de jure. Tevan
Poghosyan - I believe that, yes, Petro Poroshenko is a legitimate
president, because if we imagine theoretically that these people have
complained, sat in the kitchen and had not participated, however,
around 60 percent of the overall Ukrainian population participated.
The Ukrainians themselves decide the legitimacy. When there are
elections held in Karabakh, the whole world does not recognize it,
saying that they are not legitimate and so on, but the legitimacy
generates from the people's participation. There is participation
by the majority, where people recognize that the elections were
legitimate, and Petro Poroshenko's vote is fair. The people who
were in the campaign with him, recognize the election results, and
even Yanukovich welcomed that the Ukrainian people have made their
choice in these difficult circumstances. So, it seems to me that the
legitimacy should be recognized. A. A. - If there are 35.5 million
electorates in Ukraine, and 6,700,000 in Lugansk and Donetsk regions
and in Crimea, then the majority, however, has made its choice. G. E.
- The matter is not the arithmetic. I remember that in a number
of countries, there are no talks about elections during the civil
war, but since we are living in a different reality... Prior to
the Crimea's accession to Russia, let me say that we were living
on a unipolar earth, when there was one state, other states were
coming, and 100 places were empty. This time, Russia did not allow
recurrence of the same what happened in Yugoslavia. In 90's, Russia
was much more measureable and kneeling country; Boris Nikolayevich was
accepting anything that was told to him. What happened in Yugoslavia,
the massacres, killing, and slaughter that continues to this day,
the criminal unions that are acting until now, so to speak, after the
introduction of democracy, divided Yugoslavia into parts and created
Kosovo. Kosovo was adopted by Europe and by the rest of the countries,
and first by the United States, but, for some reasons, no one accepts
Karabakh under the same circumstances. The first precedent was Karabakh
for us, Kosovo is another problem, we are a very small country, today
we do not have a role at all, and our voice was not heard... Crimea's
voice was heard, because powerful Russia was standing in the back. The
same story as that of Kosovo occurred in the Crimea.
First of all, it was a manifestation of people's good will, which is
accepted by all international norms. A. A. - Karabakh, Crimea, Kosovo,
the right to self-determination etc. T. P. - There is an adopted
international norm in the world regarding the self-determination of
nations, naturally, we understand that being recognized or not by other
countries would always remain a political issue. We must be guided by
our interests. Karabakh has exercised its right to self-determination
in full compliance with all respective legal acts, the then functioning
laws, by building today's Artsakh Republic, by proving every day
that it is going to exist. I am confident that the world will surely
recognize Artsakh. The time issue is a bit political, and here, we
must be able to really invest all our zeal to achieve recognition a
day early, sooner or later. If we look at Kosovo, often it is useful
for Armenia as a precedent. Crimea will always belong to people
who are living there, and if they find that their problem is better
solved with Russia, it naturally will be admitted by the world over
the time. If they feel that Ukraine is offering better conditions, I
would not be surprised that there will be another referendum tomorrow,
and the Crimea would be able to solve its problem. Prepared by
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/05/28/165439/
From: A. Papazian
May 28 2014
The topic of "Face to Face" series of talk show of Aravot online
is discussed between publicist Gurgen Yeghiazaryan and MP Tevan
Poghosyan. Aram Abrahamyan - Were the elections held in Ukraine
legitimate? Is Petro Poroshenko a legitimate president or not? Gurgen
Yeghiazaryan - Of course, not. How can a president be legitimate when
the whole east of the country is in a war? Today, there is a civil war
in Ukraine. Under these circumstances, how can there be talks about
the elections? A large segment has not participated in the elections,
consequently, they have already separated this segment de jure. Tevan
Poghosyan - I believe that, yes, Petro Poroshenko is a legitimate
president, because if we imagine theoretically that these people have
complained, sat in the kitchen and had not participated, however,
around 60 percent of the overall Ukrainian population participated.
The Ukrainians themselves decide the legitimacy. When there are
elections held in Karabakh, the whole world does not recognize it,
saying that they are not legitimate and so on, but the legitimacy
generates from the people's participation. There is participation
by the majority, where people recognize that the elections were
legitimate, and Petro Poroshenko's vote is fair. The people who
were in the campaign with him, recognize the election results, and
even Yanukovich welcomed that the Ukrainian people have made their
choice in these difficult circumstances. So, it seems to me that the
legitimacy should be recognized. A. A. - If there are 35.5 million
electorates in Ukraine, and 6,700,000 in Lugansk and Donetsk regions
and in Crimea, then the majority, however, has made its choice. G. E.
- The matter is not the arithmetic. I remember that in a number
of countries, there are no talks about elections during the civil
war, but since we are living in a different reality... Prior to
the Crimea's accession to Russia, let me say that we were living
on a unipolar earth, when there was one state, other states were
coming, and 100 places were empty. This time, Russia did not allow
recurrence of the same what happened in Yugoslavia. In 90's, Russia
was much more measureable and kneeling country; Boris Nikolayevich was
accepting anything that was told to him. What happened in Yugoslavia,
the massacres, killing, and slaughter that continues to this day,
the criminal unions that are acting until now, so to speak, after the
introduction of democracy, divided Yugoslavia into parts and created
Kosovo. Kosovo was adopted by Europe and by the rest of the countries,
and first by the United States, but, for some reasons, no one accepts
Karabakh under the same circumstances. The first precedent was Karabakh
for us, Kosovo is another problem, we are a very small country, today
we do not have a role at all, and our voice was not heard... Crimea's
voice was heard, because powerful Russia was standing in the back. The
same story as that of Kosovo occurred in the Crimea.
First of all, it was a manifestation of people's good will, which is
accepted by all international norms. A. A. - Karabakh, Crimea, Kosovo,
the right to self-determination etc. T. P. - There is an adopted
international norm in the world regarding the self-determination of
nations, naturally, we understand that being recognized or not by other
countries would always remain a political issue. We must be guided by
our interests. Karabakh has exercised its right to self-determination
in full compliance with all respective legal acts, the then functioning
laws, by building today's Artsakh Republic, by proving every day
that it is going to exist. I am confident that the world will surely
recognize Artsakh. The time issue is a bit political, and here, we
must be able to really invest all our zeal to achieve recognition a
day early, sooner or later. If we look at Kosovo, often it is useful
for Armenia as a precedent. Crimea will always belong to people
who are living there, and if they find that their problem is better
solved with Russia, it naturally will be admitted by the world over
the time. If they feel that Ukraine is offering better conditions, I
would not be surprised that there will be another referendum tomorrow,
and the Crimea would be able to solve its problem. Prepared by
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/05/28/165439/
From: A. Papazian