Tweet
WHAT IF ALIYEV AGREES?
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
06-06-2007 12:56:43]
More and more people in Karabakh and Armenia become involved in the
discussion on the territories surrounding the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region. Politicians, civil society activists, simply people
express their stance on how expedient it is for the government to
discuss the fate of the liberated territories. These opinions show
there are no forces in Karabakh and Armenia which think the return of
territories has any meaning. If there are such forces, at least they
do not express their stance openly. As to the NKR government, on the
one hand, they do not state directly that the return of territories is
"inevitable". On the other hand, they say the talks should continue.
In an interview with Regnum the speaker of the NKR parliament
Ashot Ghulyan commented on the rumored possibility of return of the
territories of the lowlands of Karabakh in return for a referendum
without a clear timing. He expressed disappointment that nobody
refers to the basic law of NKR which holds: "Until the restoration of
integrity of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and drawing
of borders public administration will be carried out within the
territories which is in the jurisdiction of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"
(Article 142).
It is not clear why the speaker is disappointed because now
is the moment of "restoration of integrity of the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and drawing of borders." If agreement is
reached in Saint-Petersburg the co-chairs are speaking about, the
borders will be "drawn".
What's the point in discussing after that? And who will care for the
stance of "the government and public of Karabakh" when peacekeeping
force will be stationed on the border of Fizuli and Hadrut?
The discussion on territories was kicked off by the visit of the
co-chairs to the region who made important statements. In addition,
they stated clearly that the first step in the proposal is the pullout
of the Armenian force from the territories. The co-chairs stated
(and nobody refuted) that the sides had agreed on territories and
pullout. Baku's statement ensued that it will agree to the status
of Karabakh within the framework of the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. Apparently, to make Armenia sure that Baku will never
agree to compromise, and the plan becomes moot. In this case, the
"defeatist" stance on the return of territories will be justified. We
agreed, Baku rejected.
However, the reality has changed. Over the past period the Azerbaijani
government has succeeded persuading influential people in their
country that the proposal of the international mediators, even if
former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region is granted independence,
is favorable for Azerbaijan. If the territories and refugees return,
the rest is a matter of "technique".
In Baku they enjoy watching the Armenians argue on sacrificing their
security or not. It is obvious that Aliyev will agree to the proposal
of the mediators in Saint-Petersburg despite his "categorical"
statements.
What will the Armenian government be doing then? Will it slam the
door and leave? It is also a way.
For the first time over the past 15 years the settlement sparked a
heated discussion in Karabakh. Rumors on possible agreement alerted
the society.
Everyone tried to imagine what may happen and understood that the
proposal on settlement is either a war or the end. And everyone started
seeking reliable information, inquiring, asking why nobody speaks
about it, why this issue is not discussed in Karabakh, especially
on television.
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
06-06-2007 12:56:43]
More and more people in Karabakh and Armenia become involved in the
discussion on the territories surrounding the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region. Politicians, civil society activists, simply people
express their stance on how expedient it is for the government to
discuss the fate of the liberated territories. These opinions show
there are no forces in Karabakh and Armenia which think the return of
territories has any meaning. If there are such forces, at least they
do not express their stance openly. As to the NKR government, on the
one hand, they do not state directly that the return of territories is
"inevitable". On the other hand, they say the talks should continue.
In an interview with Regnum the speaker of the NKR parliament
Ashot Ghulyan commented on the rumored possibility of return of the
territories of the lowlands of Karabakh in return for a referendum
without a clear timing. He expressed disappointment that nobody
refers to the basic law of NKR which holds: "Until the restoration of
integrity of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and drawing
of borders public administration will be carried out within the
territories which is in the jurisdiction of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"
(Article 142).
It is not clear why the speaker is disappointed because now
is the moment of "restoration of integrity of the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and drawing of borders." If agreement is
reached in Saint-Petersburg the co-chairs are speaking about, the
borders will be "drawn".
What's the point in discussing after that? And who will care for the
stance of "the government and public of Karabakh" when peacekeeping
force will be stationed on the border of Fizuli and Hadrut?
The discussion on territories was kicked off by the visit of the
co-chairs to the region who made important statements. In addition,
they stated clearly that the first step in the proposal is the pullout
of the Armenian force from the territories. The co-chairs stated
(and nobody refuted) that the sides had agreed on territories and
pullout. Baku's statement ensued that it will agree to the status
of Karabakh within the framework of the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. Apparently, to make Armenia sure that Baku will never
agree to compromise, and the plan becomes moot. In this case, the
"defeatist" stance on the return of territories will be justified. We
agreed, Baku rejected.
However, the reality has changed. Over the past period the Azerbaijani
government has succeeded persuading influential people in their
country that the proposal of the international mediators, even if
former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region is granted independence,
is favorable for Azerbaijan. If the territories and refugees return,
the rest is a matter of "technique".
In Baku they enjoy watching the Armenians argue on sacrificing their
security or not. It is obvious that Aliyev will agree to the proposal
of the mediators in Saint-Petersburg despite his "categorical"
statements.
What will the Armenian government be doing then? Will it slam the
door and leave? It is also a way.
For the first time over the past 15 years the settlement sparked a
heated discussion in Karabakh. Rumors on possible agreement alerted
the society.
Everyone tried to imagine what may happen and understood that the
proposal on settlement is either a war or the end. And everyone started
seeking reliable information, inquiring, asking why nobody speaks
about it, why this issue is not discussed in Karabakh, especially
on television.