Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Independence is not granted; it is either proclaimed or won

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Independence is not granted; it is either proclaimed or won

    PanARMENIAN.Net

    Independence is not granted; it is either proclaimed or won

    Granted independence is not stable: the guarantor
    countries in case of any change in the world politics
    or in the given region may simply occupy the given
    region and the entire `independence' will be put an
    end to right away.
    25.12.2007 GMT+04:00

    In the process of conflict resolution there is a
    formula, which always works out. If the regulation of
    the conflict is not handy for someone, or if its
    resolution is based on unacceptable bases for either
    of the parties, the topic is simply being `distorted'.
    Most probably, regardless the `decisiveness' of the
    OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, the OSCE and EU itself,
    the process of the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh
    conflict hasn't improved over the last 10 years.

    /PanARMENIAN.Net/ The upcoming visit of the OSCE Minsk
    Group in 2008 to the region will hardly bring to any
    results. According to some information the major point
    in the achievement of the process is the status of
    Nagorno-Karabakh, i.e. its independence; the very
    independence which they want for Kosovo, but refuse to
    grant to the CIS countries, using the term `frozen
    conflicts'.

    The truth is that in this case there is one important
    thing to be mentioned: independence is not granted, it
    is proclaimed (like in the case of Kosovo), or it is
    won, like the case was with Karabakh. Granted
    independence is not stable: the guarantor countries in
    case of any change in the world politics or in the
    given region may simply occupy the given region and
    the entire `independence' will be put an end to right
    away. Metropolitans willingly or unwillingly follow
    the example of Israel, which refuses the Arabs in
    establishing the own state of Palestine. `Hopes George
    Bush has for the Peace Conference under the
    chairmanship of Tony Blair, who has lately been
    appointed the Middle East Quartet's Special Envoy, are
    mere illusions. From point of view of the American
    President, all the previous peaceful initiatives have
    failed in many ways, if not only because the
    Palestinians were not ready to establish their state.
    This is why the main point on the agenda is the
    formation of the governmental institutes and reforms
    in the Palestinian State system. Peaceful process is
    at a deadlock for another reason, but neither Bush nor
    the EU has political will to speak about it openly.
    The thing is that the Israeli political elites have
    already reached a consensus regarding the
    inadmissibility of having Palestine State, since this
    would deprive Israel of the possibility to exercise
    political and economic control over the Western bank
    of the River Jordan,' writes the director of the
    USA/Middle East Project Henry Siegman in London Review
    of Books. According to the Chief of General Staff of
    the Israel Defense Forces Moshe Ya'alon, the main goal
    of Israel is to make is `to make it quite clear for
    the Palestinian people that they are defeated nation.'
    But the best depiction of the situation was given by
    the former Minister of Defense of Israel Moshe Dayan
    in 1977 in a conference held in Tel-Aviv: `The
    question is not about what the decision must be like,
    but how we shall live without any decision.'

    Such a formation of the question presupposes the most
    different variants of the resolution of the conflict,
    certainly committed to failure. All the basic
    proposals made by the OSCE Minsk Group brought to the
    following: `package option', which presupposes
    withdrawal of the Armenian troops from the safe haven
    in the vicinity of Nagorno-Karabakh and the
    determination of the status, which was rejected by
    Azerbaijan; `step-by-step option', which presupposes
    firstly providing the withdrawal of the troops and
    then only the issue of determination of the status,
    and the third; the principle of `common nation'-
    within Azerbaijan with great autonomy, which was
    rejected by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. So it all
    goes according to Dayan; living with the flow, raising
    the same old propositions from time to time only with
    some slight changes and waiting for the resolution of
    the Kosovo problem, which will any way have its effect
    on the decisions of all the conflicts in CIS area,
    including that of Nagorno-Karabakh.

    «PanARMENIAN.Net» analytical department
Working...
X