Tweet
Hayots Ashkharh , Armenia
Dec 8 2007
KARABAKH ISSUE
Tendencies And Speculations
As we know in the framework of the 15th session of OSCE Foreign
Ministers' Council, which took place recently in Madrid, Minsk group
co-Chairs introduced to Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers
the written version of the basic principles of the regulation of
Karabakh conflict discussed in Prague process. The co-Chairs
anticipate getting the answers of the two Presidents in the nearest
future.
In general, during the recent years the formulations and the
announcements given by different international organizations
regarding the regulation of Karabakh issue give ground to
contradicting evaluations and opinions in our reality. If we sum up
these evaluations it is not difficult to distinguish two evident and
mutually contradicting tendencies.
First: The interested concern of our political circles and society
towards the prospects of the regulation of Karabakh issue, which is
based on the consciousness of the decisive significance of this issue
for the destiny of all Armenians.
Second: In the situation created in the whole world, including our
region, the keen intentions of certain political powers to use
Karabakh issue as a means to solve their political problems.
When they notice any foreign pressures on the swift regulation of
Karabakh issue, two contradicting tendencies are manifested inside
the country:
a) Those considered about the destiny of the state and the nation
make efforts to formulate a general response to the foreign
challenges.
b) Those who speculate the destiny of the state and the nation for
narrow party and personal purposes prepare themselves for internal
political struggle and try to get rid of Karabakh as soon as
possible.
During the recent years the only idea circulated in the
pro-opposition camp is the proposal to bring NKR back to the
negotiation table, something that has never been removed from our
agenda. All the other proposals were simple speculations upon a very
complicated and multi-layer issue.
In our opinion the existing speculations can be divided into those
of Armenian Pan National Movement, radicals and simple populists.
First: Ter-Petrosyan's strategic clause is: ` Karabakh is the
reason of all our hardships and the main hindrance to our bright
future.' Thus the ex-President doesn't give any formula for the
solution of this complicated issue.
Instead he continuously states that it is not Azerbaijan that
hinders the process of peaceful regulation of Karabakh issue by its
bellicose announcements, but Armenia.
The second conception, to be more precise the absence of the
latter, is hidden in the policy of silence adopted by the radical
powers regarding Karabakh issue. And though similar attitude is
sometimes followed by a strict criticism of the `wrong policy pursued
by the authorities', it is not difficult to notice that the radical
leaders have adopted the policy `one nail drives out another'. That
is to say `let R. Kocharyan fail, and we will silently wait, until
the arena is open for us.'
The third conception is the extreme populism, which in its
culmination point even comes to the marasmus idea of punishing
Armenian authorities by The Hague Court.
In reality our approach should be like this: in terms of Karabakh
we belong neither to Armenian Pan National Movement, nor to the
radical powers, we are neither pro-governmental and nor
pro-opposition, we are not Armenians or Karabakh inhabitants, or
Diaspora. In terms of Karabakh issue our national interest is common,
all the methods are moral in case the employment of these methods
brings to good results.
KAREN NAHAPETYAN
Dec 8 2007
KARABAKH ISSUE
Tendencies And Speculations
As we know in the framework of the 15th session of OSCE Foreign
Ministers' Council, which took place recently in Madrid, Minsk group
co-Chairs introduced to Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers
the written version of the basic principles of the regulation of
Karabakh conflict discussed in Prague process. The co-Chairs
anticipate getting the answers of the two Presidents in the nearest
future.
In general, during the recent years the formulations and the
announcements given by different international organizations
regarding the regulation of Karabakh issue give ground to
contradicting evaluations and opinions in our reality. If we sum up
these evaluations it is not difficult to distinguish two evident and
mutually contradicting tendencies.
First: The interested concern of our political circles and society
towards the prospects of the regulation of Karabakh issue, which is
based on the consciousness of the decisive significance of this issue
for the destiny of all Armenians.
Second: In the situation created in the whole world, including our
region, the keen intentions of certain political powers to use
Karabakh issue as a means to solve their political problems.
When they notice any foreign pressures on the swift regulation of
Karabakh issue, two contradicting tendencies are manifested inside
the country:
a) Those considered about the destiny of the state and the nation
make efforts to formulate a general response to the foreign
challenges.
b) Those who speculate the destiny of the state and the nation for
narrow party and personal purposes prepare themselves for internal
political struggle and try to get rid of Karabakh as soon as
possible.
During the recent years the only idea circulated in the
pro-opposition camp is the proposal to bring NKR back to the
negotiation table, something that has never been removed from our
agenda. All the other proposals were simple speculations upon a very
complicated and multi-layer issue.
In our opinion the existing speculations can be divided into those
of Armenian Pan National Movement, radicals and simple populists.
First: Ter-Petrosyan's strategic clause is: ` Karabakh is the
reason of all our hardships and the main hindrance to our bright
future.' Thus the ex-President doesn't give any formula for the
solution of this complicated issue.
Instead he continuously states that it is not Azerbaijan that
hinders the process of peaceful regulation of Karabakh issue by its
bellicose announcements, but Armenia.
The second conception, to be more precise the absence of the
latter, is hidden in the policy of silence adopted by the radical
powers regarding Karabakh issue. And though similar attitude is
sometimes followed by a strict criticism of the `wrong policy pursued
by the authorities', it is not difficult to notice that the radical
leaders have adopted the policy `one nail drives out another'. That
is to say `let R. Kocharyan fail, and we will silently wait, until
the arena is open for us.'
The third conception is the extreme populism, which in its
culmination point even comes to the marasmus idea of punishing
Armenian authorities by The Hague Court.
In reality our approach should be like this: in terms of Karabakh
we belong neither to Armenian Pan National Movement, nor to the
radical powers, we are neither pro-governmental and nor
pro-opposition, we are not Armenians or Karabakh inhabitants, or
Diaspora. In terms of Karabakh issue our national interest is common,
all the methods are moral in case the employment of these methods
brings to good results.
KAREN NAHAPETYAN