Tweet
Karabakh In Next NATO Summit
Naira Hayrumyan, Political Commentator
Comments - 01 September 2014, 18:09
NATO summits called twice a year are an important platform for the
future world order which is determined by the security system. Now the
only real security system in the world is NATO and the latter's
attitude to different processes and developments often has a
significant role in their developments.
The Armenian president attended the NATO summit in April 2008 in
Bucharest. It was immediately after Serzh Sargsyan's inauguration, on
the wave of "foreign political initiative and activeness".
Then everything changed, initiative diminished, dependence increased.
Armenia started implementing its policy agreeing it with Russia which
was slowly but steadily moving along the path of confrontation with
NATO. Though NATO-Russia relations were maintained, this year the
Russian minister of defense Sergey Shoygu declared NATO a threat to
Russia's security.
Serzh Sargsyan refused to attend the NATO summits, 2010 in Lisbon and
2012 in Chicago. Sargsyan did not go to Lisbon referring to the
unacceptable wording in the draft declaration on South Caucasian
conflicts.
"A reference to only one principle proclaimed by the OSCE may be a
negative signal and create additional obstacles to the process of
negotiations over the Karabakh settlement, especially against the
background of unprecedented growth of Azerbaijan's military spending
and anti-Armenian statements by its government," it was announced
then.
Almost the same wording was used to not attend the summit in Chicago
in 2012. The decision to not take part in the summit was made due to
disagreement to the draft declaration of the alliance on the
resolution of regional conflicts which is unacceptable for Armenia.
The next summit will take place on September 4-5 in Wales. Armenia has
not published the members of the delegation, and it is not ruled out
that Yerevan will not attend the summit at all. Although, the U.K.
Ambassador to Great Britain Katherine Leach has expressed hope that
Armenia will be represented at the level of the president.
It is not known whether the draft resolution of the summit is ready or
not and what wording on the Karabakh issue it contains. Will NATO
change its attitude to the Karabakh settlement? So far NATO insisted
on territorial integrity, and it will most probably continue,
especially in relation to Ukraine. Will there be other wording on the
Karabakh conflict?
Political scientists say the relations between Armenia and the West
would not be normalized because the West does not give Armenia
guarantees of security and does not display approaches that stem from
the interests of Armenia.
Recently the West and Kaabakh have been demonstrating a more priority
approach to the Karabakh settlement.
It is possible to mentioned the establishment of parliamentary and
other relations between some EU member states, the recognition of
independence of Artsakh by five U.S. states, as well as direct
accusations against Azerbaijan regarding recent escalation in
Karabakh.
Is all this sufficient to consider security guarantees? It is
interesting to know whether Turkey will allow such wording on Karabakh
in the NATO concluding resolution that is favorable for Armenia.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32918#sthash.tKdNPmVJ.dpuf
From: A. Papazian
Naira Hayrumyan, Political Commentator
Comments - 01 September 2014, 18:09
NATO summits called twice a year are an important platform for the
future world order which is determined by the security system. Now the
only real security system in the world is NATO and the latter's
attitude to different processes and developments often has a
significant role in their developments.
The Armenian president attended the NATO summit in April 2008 in
Bucharest. It was immediately after Serzh Sargsyan's inauguration, on
the wave of "foreign political initiative and activeness".
Then everything changed, initiative diminished, dependence increased.
Armenia started implementing its policy agreeing it with Russia which
was slowly but steadily moving along the path of confrontation with
NATO. Though NATO-Russia relations were maintained, this year the
Russian minister of defense Sergey Shoygu declared NATO a threat to
Russia's security.
Serzh Sargsyan refused to attend the NATO summits, 2010 in Lisbon and
2012 in Chicago. Sargsyan did not go to Lisbon referring to the
unacceptable wording in the draft declaration on South Caucasian
conflicts.
"A reference to only one principle proclaimed by the OSCE may be a
negative signal and create additional obstacles to the process of
negotiations over the Karabakh settlement, especially against the
background of unprecedented growth of Azerbaijan's military spending
and anti-Armenian statements by its government," it was announced
then.
Almost the same wording was used to not attend the summit in Chicago
in 2012. The decision to not take part in the summit was made due to
disagreement to the draft declaration of the alliance on the
resolution of regional conflicts which is unacceptable for Armenia.
The next summit will take place on September 4-5 in Wales. Armenia has
not published the members of the delegation, and it is not ruled out
that Yerevan will not attend the summit at all. Although, the U.K.
Ambassador to Great Britain Katherine Leach has expressed hope that
Armenia will be represented at the level of the president.
It is not known whether the draft resolution of the summit is ready or
not and what wording on the Karabakh issue it contains. Will NATO
change its attitude to the Karabakh settlement? So far NATO insisted
on territorial integrity, and it will most probably continue,
especially in relation to Ukraine. Will there be other wording on the
Karabakh conflict?
Political scientists say the relations between Armenia and the West
would not be normalized because the West does not give Armenia
guarantees of security and does not display approaches that stem from
the interests of Armenia.
Recently the West and Kaabakh have been demonstrating a more priority
approach to the Karabakh settlement.
It is possible to mentioned the establishment of parliamentary and
other relations between some EU member states, the recognition of
independence of Artsakh by five U.S. states, as well as direct
accusations against Azerbaijan regarding recent escalation in
Karabakh.
Is all this sufficient to consider security guarantees? It is
interesting to know whether Turkey will allow such wording on Karabakh
in the NATO concluding resolution that is favorable for Armenia.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32918#sthash.tKdNPmVJ.dpuf
From: A. Papazian