Tweet
IF YES IT IS THE MOST TERRIBLE THING
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - 02 February 2015, 12:28
Could the Armenian government have prevented what happened on
January 31 at the gates of Artsakh when force was used cruelly and
demonstratively against the participants of the car march organized by
Founding Parliament? It is obvious that the violence was not a response
to the situation that got out of control but a planned action. Evidence
to this is the video published by Founding Parliament, as well as the
press release of the Police of Artsakh and the comment by the press
secretary of the president of Artsakh.
Could the government of Artsakh plan such an action without agreeing
with the Armenian government and acting upon the approval of Yerevan?
It is hard to imagine that at least Yerevan had not been informed.
Therefore, the incident was approved by Yerevan or Yerevan was
"neutral" or official Yerevan was unable to prevent the decision of
the government of Artsakh.
Could Yerevan be powerless? For example, Liska's reappointment as
governor of Syunik demonstrates that the Armenian government, Serzh
Sargsyan is powerless. He is powerless both before the society and
before those like Liska. Simply his interests are in line with liska
interests: a mutual issue of security is addressed, and Serzh Sargsyan
prefers to cede to Liska, not the society.
After all, the problem is the same violence. Simply in one case we
deal with long-term violence, in the other case we deal with one-time
violence. In addition, it still has to be found out in which case
there were more victims and the situation was worse. For example,
throughout the years of violence there were incidents that ended up in
murder whereas the society is not shocked because it did not happen
"here and now". At the same time, the violence of years was staged
outside the Armenia-Artsakh realm which underwent Armenian-Artsakh
manipulations for two decades, distorting public consciousness and
leaving the issue as an open wound.
Similarly, Serzh Sargsyan is equally linked with the ruling system of
Artsakh with mutual interests. On the one hand, this means that the
January 31 action was not "self-driven" and had to be agreed within
the common system, in other words, with Yerevan. On the other hand,
it is not ruled out that Yerevan went for it receiving the guarantee
of support for a serious issue from the system of Artsakh or the
Artsakh wing of the system.
It could be a foreign matter or a domestic matter, considering the
intensifying domestic scramble for the next governmental status quo and
role distribution ahead of 2017-2018. It is not ruled out that Serzh
Sargsyan did not allow Stepanakert to do what it wanted on January 31
on the condition that if need be Stepanakert will do what he will need.
As an option, this is typical and characteristic of the system in
Armenia. the objective of the society is to understand the domestic
nature, the essence of the mechanism rather than elaborate a legal and
political assessment and subsequently develop a new public methodology
for the dismantlement of this mechanism.
In the long run, the system took a step with a familiar nature but
unexpected in terms of place, time, cause and occasion.
After all, it is possible that Yerevan preferred to organize the
violent demonstration through Stepanakert. On the one hand, it
is staged far from the Armenian government, responsibility is far
from Yerevan, on the other hand, a demonstrative punitive action is
undertaken when nobody doubts that it could have occurred in any part
of Armenia if need be.
Of course, nobody cares that this incident wastes the balance of
security of Armenia and Artsakh. This issue has always been inferior
to the issues of power and money, especially in those stages of these
matters when at least interim solutions are needed.
And could Stepanakert ever do this without agreeing with Yerevan
or without a mutual agreement? It would be possible in one case -
if there is another subject that would support this step and defend
Stepanakert from possible problems with Yerevan.
Could there by such a subject and if yes, who could it be? These are
important questions, especially in the existing situation. However,
only at first sight. Because if such a thing is possible or is certain,
it is not just danger but a terrible record of complete destruction
of the Armenian factor in the Caucasus.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33570#sthash.b9EgcwTz.dpuf
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - 02 February 2015, 12:28
Could the Armenian government have prevented what happened on
January 31 at the gates of Artsakh when force was used cruelly and
demonstratively against the participants of the car march organized by
Founding Parliament? It is obvious that the violence was not a response
to the situation that got out of control but a planned action. Evidence
to this is the video published by Founding Parliament, as well as the
press release of the Police of Artsakh and the comment by the press
secretary of the president of Artsakh.
Could the government of Artsakh plan such an action without agreeing
with the Armenian government and acting upon the approval of Yerevan?
It is hard to imagine that at least Yerevan had not been informed.
Therefore, the incident was approved by Yerevan or Yerevan was
"neutral" or official Yerevan was unable to prevent the decision of
the government of Artsakh.
Could Yerevan be powerless? For example, Liska's reappointment as
governor of Syunik demonstrates that the Armenian government, Serzh
Sargsyan is powerless. He is powerless both before the society and
before those like Liska. Simply his interests are in line with liska
interests: a mutual issue of security is addressed, and Serzh Sargsyan
prefers to cede to Liska, not the society.
After all, the problem is the same violence. Simply in one case we
deal with long-term violence, in the other case we deal with one-time
violence. In addition, it still has to be found out in which case
there were more victims and the situation was worse. For example,
throughout the years of violence there were incidents that ended up in
murder whereas the society is not shocked because it did not happen
"here and now". At the same time, the violence of years was staged
outside the Armenia-Artsakh realm which underwent Armenian-Artsakh
manipulations for two decades, distorting public consciousness and
leaving the issue as an open wound.
Similarly, Serzh Sargsyan is equally linked with the ruling system of
Artsakh with mutual interests. On the one hand, this means that the
January 31 action was not "self-driven" and had to be agreed within
the common system, in other words, with Yerevan. On the other hand,
it is not ruled out that Yerevan went for it receiving the guarantee
of support for a serious issue from the system of Artsakh or the
Artsakh wing of the system.
It could be a foreign matter or a domestic matter, considering the
intensifying domestic scramble for the next governmental status quo and
role distribution ahead of 2017-2018. It is not ruled out that Serzh
Sargsyan did not allow Stepanakert to do what it wanted on January 31
on the condition that if need be Stepanakert will do what he will need.
As an option, this is typical and characteristic of the system in
Armenia. the objective of the society is to understand the domestic
nature, the essence of the mechanism rather than elaborate a legal and
political assessment and subsequently develop a new public methodology
for the dismantlement of this mechanism.
In the long run, the system took a step with a familiar nature but
unexpected in terms of place, time, cause and occasion.
After all, it is possible that Yerevan preferred to organize the
violent demonstration through Stepanakert. On the one hand, it
is staged far from the Armenian government, responsibility is far
from Yerevan, on the other hand, a demonstrative punitive action is
undertaken when nobody doubts that it could have occurred in any part
of Armenia if need be.
Of course, nobody cares that this incident wastes the balance of
security of Armenia and Artsakh. This issue has always been inferior
to the issues of power and money, especially in those stages of these
matters when at least interim solutions are needed.
And could Stepanakert ever do this without agreeing with Yerevan
or without a mutual agreement? It would be possible in one case -
if there is another subject that would support this step and defend
Stepanakert from possible problems with Yerevan.
Could there by such a subject and if yes, who could it be? These are
important questions, especially in the existing situation. However,
only at first sight. Because if such a thing is possible or is certain,
it is not just danger but a terrible record of complete destruction
of the Armenian factor in the Caucasus.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33570#sthash.b9EgcwTz.dpuf