Tweet
WHY ARE THE PEOPLE OF KARABAKH RELUCTANT TO SOLVE THE DESTINY OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY?
Igor Muradyan
KarabakhOpen
22-05-2007 13:17:09
In a lot of publications the authors try to interpret the outcome
of the Armenian parliamentary election. Most of them who have been
hoping for so many years despite the abundant material for the
"free expression of will" of people, are asking questions after the
past election which the wise men of the ancient world would not
ask - "may people sell themselves out?" or "is it fair to accuse
people?" Answering these questions would be as idiotic a business as
to hope for an adequate behavior of the population which is usually
referred to as public. At the same time, I maintain that in any
country of Eastern Europe, which has stepped into a period of "formal
democracy" like Armenia, a similar behavior of voters is observed as
in Armenia. In these countries which hardly differ from the Armenian
people by social parameters there is a layer of population which
sell themselves out, as they put it. But these layers count very few,
they are underprivileged people who are involved in the capacity of an
"optional electoral program". In Armenia, hundreds of thousands, to be
more honest, millions sell themselves out. This type of democracy is
a convenient facility for the infinitely commercialized elite. Even
the Western community, getting convinced that there can be no other
results in Armenia, saves its previous financial, humanitarian and
political investments in Armenia, and decided to give up and build
up its geopolitical objectives together with this elite. In other
words, ours cornered the West. The judgments that Armenians used to
be different are bullshit. The Armenians are what they always were
and what they are everywhere, in all social formations and under
any regime. Another question that arises is whether it could have
been different.
The question arouses doubt but leaves space for hope. Armenians
transform very quickly, it takes them a wink to transform public
priorities and interests if a clear, justified, conscious and
meaningful but absolutely irrational idea is set before them. The
current type of Armenian politicians is unable to offer such an
idea. It is necessary to put up a politician whose psychological and
physical character would be that of a pragmatic idealist. The current
modern politicians able to achieve success in most earthly problems are
definitely of this type. It is a prescription for politicians of both
great powers and minor states. The given judgments, even though they
seem deviated, are essential to a realistic perception of the means of
solution of definite problems. In addition, realistic expectations
are highly doubtful; the Armenian nation will hardly be able to
solve the problem of the political elite, the political leader and
the choice of priorities, but it is worthwhile to make a try. At any
rate, some problems were solved, but there was a complete dissipation
of national forces, separate groups of people were highly active and
their activity is fruitful. The political and administrative resource
was not sufficient to complete the first stage of state building. The
country's leaders displayed personal intellectual and moral problems,
became engaged in economic activity, which after an obvious and
interesting dynamics led to economic stagnation and a social deadlock.
A clear political crime - the society which had the minimal ability
to political motivations and behavior was intentionally led into
political dystrophy.
There is only one universal means to change this miserable state - to
offer an idea to people. The political parties and leaders consciously
took the track for eliminating ideology from the political sphere for
they bewared and did not need an ideology, relying on the priority
of the "daily bread". The daily bread is also happiness when it
lacks, but when it becomes morality, justification, argument and a
"historical goal", the ideologists of the lack of ideology end up
in the rubbish bin. The society has been made to face to a " choice
without an alternative", by its own bourgeois or others. What ideology
can there be? The liberal ideology has already become a historical
damnation for the peoples which are used as raw materials in the
triune scheme of globalization leaders-partners-raw material. The
non-ordinary ideas overwhelming the Armenian society became funny
and any mentioning or discussion of them becomes a sign of almost
marginality and unimportance.
The political elite has shaken off the ideology of political
nationalism - the only opportunity for the Armenians, no matter where
they live. This nation, which has been waiting for so many years
in every election, like a prostitute, political nationalism and a
nationalist president. Not only the determined people will follow a
nationalist president but also those people who are far from the public
pathos. Robert Kocharyan had everything to fulfill this goal but he
focused too much on momentary issues, classifying politics among "
ideas". Robert Kocharyan could use the remaining time of presidential
office not for solving private problems but for making for the gaps
in politics. Now nobody expects any solutions in economy and the
social sphere from him, he could do something about foreign policies,
which is usually referred to as " foiling" the plans of opponents and
partners, which would help establish new principles in considering
the Karabakh issue and other priorities. The current situation, and
the current elite aspiring to absolute power will not let him do it,
and the failure of the Bargavach Hayastan project is evidence to this.
The so-called ruling Republican Party is a conglomerate of
several groups which view a number of foreign political issues
differently. Even the Americans preferred in this absurd situation
remembering the dissident origin of this party. At any rate, without
a critical dose of political nationalism and a principled leader this
organization will dissolve. Too much burden has been assumed to be
able to stay at least visually within the frame of a desirable image.
Now the party is exposed to a major threat, and most members are
unlikely to assume too much. For instance, the Republican Party is
responsible why in the period of the parliamentary election there was
no discussion on the Karabakh issue. If there is a wish, this topic may
easily become a topic for discussion in the visible perspective. The
return of a square meter of territory of the Lowlands of Karabakh
will become the beginning of the agony of the Republican Party,
despite skeptics who think that someone will avoid responsibility. A
dictatorship has emerged in Armenia, and this dictatorship is
acknowledged as legitimate by the society and the external partners,
but the dictatorship is not hanging in the air and is also exposed
to internal and external threats and may not meet external challenges.
Getting finally lost in this absurdity and defeatism, 117 thousand
Armenians voted for the ARF Dashnaktsutyun in the past election,
making the last desperate move, which gave a surprise to the confused
and demoralized leadership of this party. Not only the Republican
Party's and Bargavach Hayastan's functionaries but also a Republican
member of parliament voted for the ARF Dashnaktsutyun. What a
fun! For Dashnaktsutyun, obeying and going on in the cartridge
of the government is the same as death. The leaders of the party,
despite being high, are able to evaluate the result of the election
objectively, perceive the real situation and the state their party
is in, which has been in a state of collapse and crisis for a long
time. One more step towards conformism, and subordination will turn the
party into a service personnel which count many in Armenia. Therefore,
it would be meaningless, for the Dashnaks offered services to the
government of NKR and would lead to divide of the party, which is
already becoming outlined. It is not accidental that the Dashnaks
in different countries do not accept cooperation of the party with
governments in the executive.
There are a number of peoples and countries in the world which have
resigned themselves to their historical and political fate, and
everywhere the political ideology, the idea is being reanimated. It
may be thanks to the improvement of nourishment all over the world,
but it is also possible that the political elite are interested in
it. In ruined Serbia and the well-off countries of Western Europe
the social ideology, that is the ideology of the "daily bread
", has been definitively discarded, and nationalistic, obviously
rightist ideologies are emerging with the synthesis of rightists and
collectivist values, otherwise they will not survive. The political
parties of the West and the East have no perspective without clear
ideologization of political programs.
Despite skeptics, the ideological differences are becoming deeper
in the United States, and a polarization of political forces
is underway. In Europe a process of formation of new or modified
ideological values is underway. Turkey and Iran became the centers of
spreading new ideologies, therefore what we observed in our election
in Armenia is impossible in both the countries we had arrogantly
considered as backward.
In our parliamentary and presidential elections in Armenia only one
thing is discussed - the possible expenses and the amount of ballot
stuffing. Neither our allies nor our foes heard an objective discussion
of the relation of Armenia with the great powers, NATO and the EU,
our role and importance in the world. These are highly dangerous and
uneasy topics for the Armenian politicians, especially that none of
the Armenian politicians has any idea of the essence of these problems.
In this miserable state, desperate minor functionaries are preparing
for another Sabbath in Karabakh, who introduce themselves as
the only lords of this country. A replication, projection of the
events in Yerevan is being prepared. The social problems are a great
topic. Who stole and misappropriated and how much is a special topic
the revelation of which will take too much time and will hardly be
effective. Although the society in Karabakh is mostly interested
in this topic, for the time being I am interested in foreign policy
and security.
The Karabakh movement began when the USSR existed, when there was
a different perception of the geopolitical perspective. At the same
time, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was never a state, and
it is unacceptable to judge or discuss any solutions on the basis
of that false political reality. The statements that the return
of the Lowlands of Karabakh as a stipulation in the so-called
settlement will help sustain peace and strengthen the eastern
border of Armenia are bullshit, and if the Armenian government
believes this, here is actually a moment of truth. The government
is trying either to distract people from this problem or to scare
with war. Both are but ways of holding on to power. NKR President
Arkady Ghukasyan offered as an argument the fact that "no political
party in Armenia considers keeping these territories." One more
argument is offered: "The mediators would not listen to anything
about the region of Shahumyan and the other lost territories." First
of all, the political parties of Armenia had better mind their own
business and care for their own asses. Second, our government has
never discussed the problem of Shahumyan and the other territories
with the mediators during the talks. These are absolutely invented
arguments and cannot be taken seriously. The actual borders is not a
caprice and ambitions but essential conditions to the existence of the
Armenians of Karabakh. As a defense minister, secretary of the Council
of Security and prime minister, Serge Sargsyan has stated for a number
of times the expediency of returning the Lowlands of Karabakh, citing
the argument that the people of Karabakh wanted to unite with Armenia,
not to occupy these territories. Now only God knows what the people of
Karabakh wanted at that time. And thanks God the people of Karabakh
have forgotten what they wanted at that time. (Otherwise they would
remember God knows what.) As to those who had initiated the movement
never imagined Karabakh without its Northern part and unification
with Armenia via the well-known territories. Those who hoped for a
party and Soviet career now have difficulty to understand this.
Generally, most people would like to delete the past and start the
present with their triumphs. Many judge as if we all are already
dead. It is not true, not everyone is dead. There is considerable
information on the essence of the talks, even when it is impossible
to find out all the nuances at once, it will be possible later; in
addition, some circumstances are found out which never become known
to the Armenian officious, including some behavioral episodes of
separate diplomats. Frankly speaking, there are not many claims. It
is not definitely true that the talks are not professional, but
professionalism is not enough. The problem of Karabakh defies
only the tricks of reaction to the challenges that come in. The
Armenian leadership publicly announces quite appropriate theses
on the principles of settlement, but often on the next day it
starts discussing with the foe and the mediators absolutely useless
conditions, which has been the case over the past years. President
Kocharyan has not got reliable information on the real values of the
stakeholders for a lasting period, for which the ministry of foreign
affairs is to blame, which would not lift the responsibility from
the president.
Now the reader needs to be highly attentive. A friend of mine
from Baku says: "It's not for mediocrities." "Our man" in Yerevan,
who aspires to be president of the Republic of Armenia, states the
territories of the Lowlands of Karabakh need to be returned to the
enemy "in return for peace". In NKR, another "our man" co-opts for
presidency, in the capacity of a friend and man of "our man's" in
Yerevan. Besides them, there is another man who is in the capacity of
an unrecognized president in no one's territory, much more unrecognized
than Nagorno-Karabakh Republic itself. This man is eager to remain in
" foreign policy" after leaving the post of president unrecognized in
Yerevan even, in other words, to remain where he has never been. Now
in an effort to present me as an irresponsible, destructive and maybe
an offended person who blackens noble Karabakh people, he forgets
(or on the contrary, remembers with pity) that over the past few
years I have been trying to make him interested in foreign policy. He
talked to me for 8 or 10 hours during every meeting, and my impression
was that he is ready to make every effort not to deal with foreign
policies. And nobody disturbs to think why the NKR president was barred
from foreign policies. I dare state that over the past 10 years no one
from the Armenian reality, our and your reality, has had such broad
and various foreign political contacts as I have had. I cannot state
that as a result of this exploration everything became clear but the
budgets of the programs I have participated were ten times more than
the budget of not only the NKR foreign ministry but also the receipts
of the NKR budget. At any rate, there was something to share with
the Karabakh leadership, possibly even to refill the budget of the
NKR foreign ministry. There were also opportunities to buy apartments
for the Karabakh officials in Yerevan. But those were not bought.
In the modern world the states lose their sovereignty quickly,
and even the major and powerful states have to reestablish their
sovereignty. However, this tendency enables introducing virtual bodies
of power first, then informal government in the face of well-organized
public groups. In this very Armenian reality there were a number of
people who realized this reality a long time ago and implemented
some, though limited, objectives for conducting a foreign policy
of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. A lot has been done, this project may
develop, set up new obliging contacts, reach new arrangements. The
international community gets information on the situation in the South
Caucasus from corporations of young people in a number of countries,
which got excellent education and were brought up in patriotic (in a
number of cases also traditionally Dashnak families). This information
and not the demonstrative talks of the NKR president underlies the
important government papers.
Did it occur to these unconscious elements in Stepanakert that they
have the prerogative to represent the interests of Karabakh? Let
nobody forget that NKR is an unrecognized state, which means that
this state can be represented by those who have proved to their
external partners their right, actuality and ability. International
politics has many facets, besides the public politics there is
also a non-public politics, and though the essence is in details,
the details are not for everyone. A friend of mine from Baku says:
"It is not for mediocrities."
It is possible to guarantee the success of the NKR election. Each
candidate for president will have to explain in detail their attitude
towards the factual borders of NKR. By the way, the problem of
settlement does not need to be explained, it is pointless. But they
will have to explain the problem of factual borders. We will try to
prompt an idea to our compatriots, a great and indisputable idea
which distinguishes great nations. This is the strongest idea in
the human society. Today these people accept sops and sell not only
their vote but also the future of their children, and tomorrow they
do a revolution of world importance. It is important to understand
what we want in reality, in this definite situation, without fools,
but it is also possible with fools. I guess Albert Camus said:
"Diagnosis is above everything except honor."
Igor Muradyan
KarabakhOpen
22-05-2007 13:17:09
In a lot of publications the authors try to interpret the outcome
of the Armenian parliamentary election. Most of them who have been
hoping for so many years despite the abundant material for the
"free expression of will" of people, are asking questions after the
past election which the wise men of the ancient world would not
ask - "may people sell themselves out?" or "is it fair to accuse
people?" Answering these questions would be as idiotic a business as
to hope for an adequate behavior of the population which is usually
referred to as public. At the same time, I maintain that in any
country of Eastern Europe, which has stepped into a period of "formal
democracy" like Armenia, a similar behavior of voters is observed as
in Armenia. In these countries which hardly differ from the Armenian
people by social parameters there is a layer of population which
sell themselves out, as they put it. But these layers count very few,
they are underprivileged people who are involved in the capacity of an
"optional electoral program". In Armenia, hundreds of thousands, to be
more honest, millions sell themselves out. This type of democracy is
a convenient facility for the infinitely commercialized elite. Even
the Western community, getting convinced that there can be no other
results in Armenia, saves its previous financial, humanitarian and
political investments in Armenia, and decided to give up and build
up its geopolitical objectives together with this elite. In other
words, ours cornered the West. The judgments that Armenians used to
be different are bullshit. The Armenians are what they always were
and what they are everywhere, in all social formations and under
any regime. Another question that arises is whether it could have
been different.
The question arouses doubt but leaves space for hope. Armenians
transform very quickly, it takes them a wink to transform public
priorities and interests if a clear, justified, conscious and
meaningful but absolutely irrational idea is set before them. The
current type of Armenian politicians is unable to offer such an
idea. It is necessary to put up a politician whose psychological and
physical character would be that of a pragmatic idealist. The current
modern politicians able to achieve success in most earthly problems are
definitely of this type. It is a prescription for politicians of both
great powers and minor states. The given judgments, even though they
seem deviated, are essential to a realistic perception of the means of
solution of definite problems. In addition, realistic expectations
are highly doubtful; the Armenian nation will hardly be able to
solve the problem of the political elite, the political leader and
the choice of priorities, but it is worthwhile to make a try. At any
rate, some problems were solved, but there was a complete dissipation
of national forces, separate groups of people were highly active and
their activity is fruitful. The political and administrative resource
was not sufficient to complete the first stage of state building. The
country's leaders displayed personal intellectual and moral problems,
became engaged in economic activity, which after an obvious and
interesting dynamics led to economic stagnation and a social deadlock.
A clear political crime - the society which had the minimal ability
to political motivations and behavior was intentionally led into
political dystrophy.
There is only one universal means to change this miserable state - to
offer an idea to people. The political parties and leaders consciously
took the track for eliminating ideology from the political sphere for
they bewared and did not need an ideology, relying on the priority
of the "daily bread". The daily bread is also happiness when it
lacks, but when it becomes morality, justification, argument and a
"historical goal", the ideologists of the lack of ideology end up
in the rubbish bin. The society has been made to face to a " choice
without an alternative", by its own bourgeois or others. What ideology
can there be? The liberal ideology has already become a historical
damnation for the peoples which are used as raw materials in the
triune scheme of globalization leaders-partners-raw material. The
non-ordinary ideas overwhelming the Armenian society became funny
and any mentioning or discussion of them becomes a sign of almost
marginality and unimportance.
The political elite has shaken off the ideology of political
nationalism - the only opportunity for the Armenians, no matter where
they live. This nation, which has been waiting for so many years
in every election, like a prostitute, political nationalism and a
nationalist president. Not only the determined people will follow a
nationalist president but also those people who are far from the public
pathos. Robert Kocharyan had everything to fulfill this goal but he
focused too much on momentary issues, classifying politics among "
ideas". Robert Kocharyan could use the remaining time of presidential
office not for solving private problems but for making for the gaps
in politics. Now nobody expects any solutions in economy and the
social sphere from him, he could do something about foreign policies,
which is usually referred to as " foiling" the plans of opponents and
partners, which would help establish new principles in considering
the Karabakh issue and other priorities. The current situation, and
the current elite aspiring to absolute power will not let him do it,
and the failure of the Bargavach Hayastan project is evidence to this.
The so-called ruling Republican Party is a conglomerate of
several groups which view a number of foreign political issues
differently. Even the Americans preferred in this absurd situation
remembering the dissident origin of this party. At any rate, without
a critical dose of political nationalism and a principled leader this
organization will dissolve. Too much burden has been assumed to be
able to stay at least visually within the frame of a desirable image.
Now the party is exposed to a major threat, and most members are
unlikely to assume too much. For instance, the Republican Party is
responsible why in the period of the parliamentary election there was
no discussion on the Karabakh issue. If there is a wish, this topic may
easily become a topic for discussion in the visible perspective. The
return of a square meter of territory of the Lowlands of Karabakh
will become the beginning of the agony of the Republican Party,
despite skeptics who think that someone will avoid responsibility. A
dictatorship has emerged in Armenia, and this dictatorship is
acknowledged as legitimate by the society and the external partners,
but the dictatorship is not hanging in the air and is also exposed
to internal and external threats and may not meet external challenges.
Getting finally lost in this absurdity and defeatism, 117 thousand
Armenians voted for the ARF Dashnaktsutyun in the past election,
making the last desperate move, which gave a surprise to the confused
and demoralized leadership of this party. Not only the Republican
Party's and Bargavach Hayastan's functionaries but also a Republican
member of parliament voted for the ARF Dashnaktsutyun. What a
fun! For Dashnaktsutyun, obeying and going on in the cartridge
of the government is the same as death. The leaders of the party,
despite being high, are able to evaluate the result of the election
objectively, perceive the real situation and the state their party
is in, which has been in a state of collapse and crisis for a long
time. One more step towards conformism, and subordination will turn the
party into a service personnel which count many in Armenia. Therefore,
it would be meaningless, for the Dashnaks offered services to the
government of NKR and would lead to divide of the party, which is
already becoming outlined. It is not accidental that the Dashnaks
in different countries do not accept cooperation of the party with
governments in the executive.
There are a number of peoples and countries in the world which have
resigned themselves to their historical and political fate, and
everywhere the political ideology, the idea is being reanimated. It
may be thanks to the improvement of nourishment all over the world,
but it is also possible that the political elite are interested in
it. In ruined Serbia and the well-off countries of Western Europe
the social ideology, that is the ideology of the "daily bread
", has been definitively discarded, and nationalistic, obviously
rightist ideologies are emerging with the synthesis of rightists and
collectivist values, otherwise they will not survive. The political
parties of the West and the East have no perspective without clear
ideologization of political programs.
Despite skeptics, the ideological differences are becoming deeper
in the United States, and a polarization of political forces
is underway. In Europe a process of formation of new or modified
ideological values is underway. Turkey and Iran became the centers of
spreading new ideologies, therefore what we observed in our election
in Armenia is impossible in both the countries we had arrogantly
considered as backward.
In our parliamentary and presidential elections in Armenia only one
thing is discussed - the possible expenses and the amount of ballot
stuffing. Neither our allies nor our foes heard an objective discussion
of the relation of Armenia with the great powers, NATO and the EU,
our role and importance in the world. These are highly dangerous and
uneasy topics for the Armenian politicians, especially that none of
the Armenian politicians has any idea of the essence of these problems.
In this miserable state, desperate minor functionaries are preparing
for another Sabbath in Karabakh, who introduce themselves as
the only lords of this country. A replication, projection of the
events in Yerevan is being prepared. The social problems are a great
topic. Who stole and misappropriated and how much is a special topic
the revelation of which will take too much time and will hardly be
effective. Although the society in Karabakh is mostly interested
in this topic, for the time being I am interested in foreign policy
and security.
The Karabakh movement began when the USSR existed, when there was
a different perception of the geopolitical perspective. At the same
time, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was never a state, and
it is unacceptable to judge or discuss any solutions on the basis
of that false political reality. The statements that the return
of the Lowlands of Karabakh as a stipulation in the so-called
settlement will help sustain peace and strengthen the eastern
border of Armenia are bullshit, and if the Armenian government
believes this, here is actually a moment of truth. The government
is trying either to distract people from this problem or to scare
with war. Both are but ways of holding on to power. NKR President
Arkady Ghukasyan offered as an argument the fact that "no political
party in Armenia considers keeping these territories." One more
argument is offered: "The mediators would not listen to anything
about the region of Shahumyan and the other lost territories." First
of all, the political parties of Armenia had better mind their own
business and care for their own asses. Second, our government has
never discussed the problem of Shahumyan and the other territories
with the mediators during the talks. These are absolutely invented
arguments and cannot be taken seriously. The actual borders is not a
caprice and ambitions but essential conditions to the existence of the
Armenians of Karabakh. As a defense minister, secretary of the Council
of Security and prime minister, Serge Sargsyan has stated for a number
of times the expediency of returning the Lowlands of Karabakh, citing
the argument that the people of Karabakh wanted to unite with Armenia,
not to occupy these territories. Now only God knows what the people of
Karabakh wanted at that time. And thanks God the people of Karabakh
have forgotten what they wanted at that time. (Otherwise they would
remember God knows what.) As to those who had initiated the movement
never imagined Karabakh without its Northern part and unification
with Armenia via the well-known territories. Those who hoped for a
party and Soviet career now have difficulty to understand this.
Generally, most people would like to delete the past and start the
present with their triumphs. Many judge as if we all are already
dead. It is not true, not everyone is dead. There is considerable
information on the essence of the talks, even when it is impossible
to find out all the nuances at once, it will be possible later; in
addition, some circumstances are found out which never become known
to the Armenian officious, including some behavioral episodes of
separate diplomats. Frankly speaking, there are not many claims. It
is not definitely true that the talks are not professional, but
professionalism is not enough. The problem of Karabakh defies
only the tricks of reaction to the challenges that come in. The
Armenian leadership publicly announces quite appropriate theses
on the principles of settlement, but often on the next day it
starts discussing with the foe and the mediators absolutely useless
conditions, which has been the case over the past years. President
Kocharyan has not got reliable information on the real values of the
stakeholders for a lasting period, for which the ministry of foreign
affairs is to blame, which would not lift the responsibility from
the president.
Now the reader needs to be highly attentive. A friend of mine
from Baku says: "It's not for mediocrities." "Our man" in Yerevan,
who aspires to be president of the Republic of Armenia, states the
territories of the Lowlands of Karabakh need to be returned to the
enemy "in return for peace". In NKR, another "our man" co-opts for
presidency, in the capacity of a friend and man of "our man's" in
Yerevan. Besides them, there is another man who is in the capacity of
an unrecognized president in no one's territory, much more unrecognized
than Nagorno-Karabakh Republic itself. This man is eager to remain in
" foreign policy" after leaving the post of president unrecognized in
Yerevan even, in other words, to remain where he has never been. Now
in an effort to present me as an irresponsible, destructive and maybe
an offended person who blackens noble Karabakh people, he forgets
(or on the contrary, remembers with pity) that over the past few
years I have been trying to make him interested in foreign policy. He
talked to me for 8 or 10 hours during every meeting, and my impression
was that he is ready to make every effort not to deal with foreign
policies. And nobody disturbs to think why the NKR president was barred
from foreign policies. I dare state that over the past 10 years no one
from the Armenian reality, our and your reality, has had such broad
and various foreign political contacts as I have had. I cannot state
that as a result of this exploration everything became clear but the
budgets of the programs I have participated were ten times more than
the budget of not only the NKR foreign ministry but also the receipts
of the NKR budget. At any rate, there was something to share with
the Karabakh leadership, possibly even to refill the budget of the
NKR foreign ministry. There were also opportunities to buy apartments
for the Karabakh officials in Yerevan. But those were not bought.
In the modern world the states lose their sovereignty quickly,
and even the major and powerful states have to reestablish their
sovereignty. However, this tendency enables introducing virtual bodies
of power first, then informal government in the face of well-organized
public groups. In this very Armenian reality there were a number of
people who realized this reality a long time ago and implemented
some, though limited, objectives for conducting a foreign policy
of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. A lot has been done, this project may
develop, set up new obliging contacts, reach new arrangements. The
international community gets information on the situation in the South
Caucasus from corporations of young people in a number of countries,
which got excellent education and were brought up in patriotic (in a
number of cases also traditionally Dashnak families). This information
and not the demonstrative talks of the NKR president underlies the
important government papers.
Did it occur to these unconscious elements in Stepanakert that they
have the prerogative to represent the interests of Karabakh? Let
nobody forget that NKR is an unrecognized state, which means that
this state can be represented by those who have proved to their
external partners their right, actuality and ability. International
politics has many facets, besides the public politics there is
also a non-public politics, and though the essence is in details,
the details are not for everyone. A friend of mine from Baku says:
"It is not for mediocrities."
It is possible to guarantee the success of the NKR election. Each
candidate for president will have to explain in detail their attitude
towards the factual borders of NKR. By the way, the problem of
settlement does not need to be explained, it is pointless. But they
will have to explain the problem of factual borders. We will try to
prompt an idea to our compatriots, a great and indisputable idea
which distinguishes great nations. This is the strongest idea in
the human society. Today these people accept sops and sell not only
their vote but also the future of their children, and tomorrow they
do a revolution of world importance. It is important to understand
what we want in reality, in this definite situation, without fools,
but it is also possible with fools. I guess Albert Camus said:
"Diagnosis is above everything except honor."