Tweet
AGAIN THE ROLE OF RESPONDENT
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
KarabakhOpen
02-07-2007 13:50:30
Recently there has been an unnoticed but in fact a breakthrough in
the settlement of the Karabakh issue. The visit of the Azerbaijani
ambassador to Russia to Karabakh and the meeting with the president
of Karabakh Arkady Ghukasyan can be considered as some format of the
Azerbaijan-Karabakh relation which might not have been accidental or
related to the negotiations, but it was a fact which is difficult to
ignore. This event sparked debate in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. In
Azerbaijan it met strong a backlash, namely the nationalists led by
Akif Nagi described the move of the ambassador as treason. The Armenian
propaganda presented it as some diplomatic victory of the Armenian
diplomacy in the sense that the visit of the Azerbaijani ambassador
to Karabakh means recognition of the sovereignty of Karabakh.
In reality, however, it is the victory of the Azerbaijani diplomacy
rather than the Armenian diplomacy. And the reason for this suggestion
is not my desire to use every opportunity to criticize the Armenian
diplomacy.
Generally, it is difficult to criticize the Armenian diplomacy
for the simple reason that there is no such thing yet. Meanwhile,
we almost constantly face the fact of existence of the Azerbaijani
diplomacy, especially over the past few years when statements on the
settlement of the Karabakh issue and Karabakh as a "disputable area"
are made at the international rostrums. Certainly these issues do not
presuppose a resolution which is not in our interests, but obviously
they express the tendencies of the international politics.
Meanwhile, the visit of the Azerbaijani ambassador is a move towards
choosing a tactics that matches these tendencies that Azerbaijan
makes considering the situation. And the situation is that the
countries which mediate the talks wish to involve Karabakh in the
talks because they realize there is no other way of resolution,
especially that the resolution is viewed on the basis of the principle
of self-determination, although the order and borders of this
self-determination is not clear. This is the reason why the Armenian
side has recently started to state more frequently and resolutely that
Karabakh must be a party in the talks. However, unlike the statements
of the Armenian side, Azerbaijan tries to fit into the international
political tendencies not only through statements but also through
moves. No doubt the Azerbaijani ambassador to Russia had the approval
of the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev to visit Karabakh and meet
with Arkady Ghukasyan. Hence, Azerbaijan makes the first step towards
direct relations. It appears that Armenia and Karabakh which made
statements on the necessity of participation of Nagorno-Karabakh in
the talks are now respondents. In fact, Azerbaijan again took the
initiative, showing that it has a constructive stance on Karabakh,
and it is not Azerbaijan's fault that Karabakh is not participating
in the negotiations.
The Armenian side will have difficulty responding because over these
years its tactics was built on the idea that Azerbaijan will say no,
consequently they could speak about anything, knowing that Azerbaijan
would reject. Now it is clear that Azerbaijan may sometimes make
other moves besides no. in other words, Aliyev says to the government
of Karabakh as well as Armenia: "So, you wanted me to negotiate with
Karabakh. I am here now. My conditions are the same. I want all. Now
I am listening to you." In this context, it is obvious that the
statements on becoming a party in the talks are groundless unless
they are based on clear tactical and strategic moves.
If the issues are going to be the same, if the proposals are going
to be the same, in the long run, the participation of Karabakh will
make no difference. The participation of Karabakh must bring not
only a new party but also new, fresh approaches into the process of
negotiations. Therefore, Karabakh should have offered new proposals,
new approaches of settlement over these years, and it should do
now. Otherwise, nothing will change.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
KarabakhOpen
02-07-2007 13:50:30
Recently there has been an unnoticed but in fact a breakthrough in
the settlement of the Karabakh issue. The visit of the Azerbaijani
ambassador to Russia to Karabakh and the meeting with the president
of Karabakh Arkady Ghukasyan can be considered as some format of the
Azerbaijan-Karabakh relation which might not have been accidental or
related to the negotiations, but it was a fact which is difficult to
ignore. This event sparked debate in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. In
Azerbaijan it met strong a backlash, namely the nationalists led by
Akif Nagi described the move of the ambassador as treason. The Armenian
propaganda presented it as some diplomatic victory of the Armenian
diplomacy in the sense that the visit of the Azerbaijani ambassador
to Karabakh means recognition of the sovereignty of Karabakh.
In reality, however, it is the victory of the Azerbaijani diplomacy
rather than the Armenian diplomacy. And the reason for this suggestion
is not my desire to use every opportunity to criticize the Armenian
diplomacy.
Generally, it is difficult to criticize the Armenian diplomacy
for the simple reason that there is no such thing yet. Meanwhile,
we almost constantly face the fact of existence of the Azerbaijani
diplomacy, especially over the past few years when statements on the
settlement of the Karabakh issue and Karabakh as a "disputable area"
are made at the international rostrums. Certainly these issues do not
presuppose a resolution which is not in our interests, but obviously
they express the tendencies of the international politics.
Meanwhile, the visit of the Azerbaijani ambassador is a move towards
choosing a tactics that matches these tendencies that Azerbaijan
makes considering the situation. And the situation is that the
countries which mediate the talks wish to involve Karabakh in the
talks because they realize there is no other way of resolution,
especially that the resolution is viewed on the basis of the principle
of self-determination, although the order and borders of this
self-determination is not clear. This is the reason why the Armenian
side has recently started to state more frequently and resolutely that
Karabakh must be a party in the talks. However, unlike the statements
of the Armenian side, Azerbaijan tries to fit into the international
political tendencies not only through statements but also through
moves. No doubt the Azerbaijani ambassador to Russia had the approval
of the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev to visit Karabakh and meet
with Arkady Ghukasyan. Hence, Azerbaijan makes the first step towards
direct relations. It appears that Armenia and Karabakh which made
statements on the necessity of participation of Nagorno-Karabakh in
the talks are now respondents. In fact, Azerbaijan again took the
initiative, showing that it has a constructive stance on Karabakh,
and it is not Azerbaijan's fault that Karabakh is not participating
in the negotiations.
The Armenian side will have difficulty responding because over these
years its tactics was built on the idea that Azerbaijan will say no,
consequently they could speak about anything, knowing that Azerbaijan
would reject. Now it is clear that Azerbaijan may sometimes make
other moves besides no. in other words, Aliyev says to the government
of Karabakh as well as Armenia: "So, you wanted me to negotiate with
Karabakh. I am here now. My conditions are the same. I want all. Now
I am listening to you." In this context, it is obvious that the
statements on becoming a party in the talks are groundless unless
they are based on clear tactical and strategic moves.
If the issues are going to be the same, if the proposals are going
to be the same, in the long run, the participation of Karabakh will
make no difference. The participation of Karabakh must bring not
only a new party but also new, fresh approaches into the process of
negotiations. Therefore, Karabakh should have offered new proposals,
new approaches of settlement over these years, and it should do
now. Otherwise, nothing will change.