Tweet
DANGEROUS PROPOSAL REGARDING TERRITORIES
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
06-07-2007 11:39:59
The recent frequent statements that the liberated territories
must be settled have an obvious drawback. Nobody who states has
tried at least to outline how the settlement should be launched,
what project or approaches will be used. In this context, a recent
statement could be noted, the author of which is the adviser to NKR
President Arkady Ghukasyan. According to him, it is necessary to
grant the Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan the right of possession
of these territories. Certainly, the approach is clear and maybe even
perceptible. However, if we have a closer look at it, we will notice
that this proposal is but an attempt to legalize the situation in
these territories.
What is the problem? The right of possession does not solve the problem
of settlement of these territories because people do not have finance
and other resources to use this land. Almost the same situation will
occur as during the privatization of land in Armenia. Most people
who owned land could not afford to work it and sold it to richer
people. Meanwhile, it was in the Ararat Valley where working the
land and selling the produce is easier. Now imagine how difficult
it is going to be in the liberated territories where there are no
infrastructures because whatever there was over the past few years
was robbed and appeared in the streets of Yerevan and other cities of
the country in the form of goods. The refugees who will get land will
have to sell it or at best they may be hired to work for the owner who
will buy this land. The buyers of the land in fact own it now. However,
if now this "ownership" does not have a legal or moral ground, in the
case of the offered model people will sell their property or their
portion of the liberated territory to the rich man. In other words,
presently a moral solution of the problem is given.
But will it be helpful to the settlement of the territories? The
author of the proposal thinks if the rich people buy this land,
they will set up businesses, create jobs and found settlements
for their employees. In other words, a business approach is
offered. Consequently, the authors of the proposal want to
interest businessmen rather than refugees to settle down in these
territories. Meanwhile, it contradicts to the approach of the authors
of the proposal that the liberated territories must be compensation for
the Armenian refugees. It will be very difficult and it will appear
very obscure to the world when the refugees sell their compensation
and leave, and the territories are left to some businessmen. Or
they provide compensation to the refugees and then take away the
compensation from them through business methods and turn them into
hired labor whose only interest to live in the liberated territories
is the salary. In other words, they may find a better job and a higher
pay and leave.
Besides, what will happen if Azerbaijan suddenly agrees to provide
compensation to the Armenian refugees? Will the territories lose
their meanng in this case? If we are guided by this logic, they will.
Consequently, this logic is not so "solid" as it may seem. Moreover,
it is highly vulnerable. What is the problem? The problem is that the
world will understand the settlement of the liberated territories
if the humanitarian interests underlies it and not the business
interests. And for Armenia and the Armenians, this settlement will
be effective if instead of hired labor dignified citizens live in
these territories who fell they belong there.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
06-07-2007 11:39:59
The recent frequent statements that the liberated territories
must be settled have an obvious drawback. Nobody who states has
tried at least to outline how the settlement should be launched,
what project or approaches will be used. In this context, a recent
statement could be noted, the author of which is the adviser to NKR
President Arkady Ghukasyan. According to him, it is necessary to
grant the Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan the right of possession
of these territories. Certainly, the approach is clear and maybe even
perceptible. However, if we have a closer look at it, we will notice
that this proposal is but an attempt to legalize the situation in
these territories.
What is the problem? The right of possession does not solve the problem
of settlement of these territories because people do not have finance
and other resources to use this land. Almost the same situation will
occur as during the privatization of land in Armenia. Most people
who owned land could not afford to work it and sold it to richer
people. Meanwhile, it was in the Ararat Valley where working the
land and selling the produce is easier. Now imagine how difficult
it is going to be in the liberated territories where there are no
infrastructures because whatever there was over the past few years
was robbed and appeared in the streets of Yerevan and other cities of
the country in the form of goods. The refugees who will get land will
have to sell it or at best they may be hired to work for the owner who
will buy this land. The buyers of the land in fact own it now. However,
if now this "ownership" does not have a legal or moral ground, in the
case of the offered model people will sell their property or their
portion of the liberated territory to the rich man. In other words,
presently a moral solution of the problem is given.
But will it be helpful to the settlement of the territories? The
author of the proposal thinks if the rich people buy this land,
they will set up businesses, create jobs and found settlements
for their employees. In other words, a business approach is
offered. Consequently, the authors of the proposal want to
interest businessmen rather than refugees to settle down in these
territories. Meanwhile, it contradicts to the approach of the authors
of the proposal that the liberated territories must be compensation for
the Armenian refugees. It will be very difficult and it will appear
very obscure to the world when the refugees sell their compensation
and leave, and the territories are left to some businessmen. Or
they provide compensation to the refugees and then take away the
compensation from them through business methods and turn them into
hired labor whose only interest to live in the liberated territories
is the salary. In other words, they may find a better job and a higher
pay and leave.
Besides, what will happen if Azerbaijan suddenly agrees to provide
compensation to the Armenian refugees? Will the territories lose
their meanng in this case? If we are guided by this logic, they will.
Consequently, this logic is not so "solid" as it may seem. Moreover,
it is highly vulnerable. What is the problem? The problem is that the
world will understand the settlement of the liberated territories
if the humanitarian interests underlies it and not the business
interests. And for Armenia and the Armenians, this settlement will
be effective if instead of hired labor dignified citizens live in
these territories who fell they belong there.