Tweet
PREPARING SOCIETIES FOR PEACE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY SITUATIONAL FACTORS
Karabakh Open
Oct 9 2007
Interview with Rita Karapetyan, officer of the NKR MFA Political
Department
Karabakh Open: On October 10 the U.S. House of Representatives will
discuss the resolution on the Armenian Genocide. How is likelihood of
discussion and adoption of this document and what consequences will its
adoption or rejection have for the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?
As of today, 226 representatives and 31 senators have supported
Resolution 106, which is enough to put the resolution to vote and
adopt. This caused worry in official Washington which insists on
canceling voting out of national security in the region under the
influence of the Russian lobby. In this context, the statement by the
8 ex-state secretaries urging the Speaker of the U.S. House to prevent
the resolution from voting should also be taken into consideration,
which aroused indignation not only in the Diaspora but also in Armenia.
Actually, the U.S. ex-diplomats questioned morality and human rights
underlying their country. The Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan
mentioned righteously in his letter to Ms. Pelosi that viewing the
acknowledgement of the truth as an obstacle to political relations
is cynicism.
Prognosis is not rewarding but the recent political tendencies and
the disposition of the Congress allow hoping that the Democrats led
by their principled speaker will resist to powerful pressure of the
U.S. president administration, and the Committee of External Relations
will discuss and adopt the resolution. It is more difficult to predict
the further movement of the document through the U.S. House.
The adoption of the resolution by the U.S. House will help defeat
the policy of rejection of the Genocide by Turkey and enhance the
U.S. stance on the rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh for
self-determination and development through the process of settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Karabakh Open: During the recent international conference in London
entitled Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Prospects of Peace the idea was
spelled out that no breakthrough should be expected toward settlement
until 2009 and the focus will be on NGOs. What should the publics
prepare for, peace or settlement?
During the peace talks the mediators, politicians and diplomats
express different opinions on the current stage of the talks which
do not always match. The international community said the years 2006
and 2007 were a window of opportunities for the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. Some underlined that the lasting settlement is
close, whereas now the high-ranking European officials forecast that
we should expect no resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue until
after the presidential elections in Armenia, Azerbaijan, as well as
Russia and the United States in 2008.
Politically, it is positive that the consultations in the framework
of the Prague process continue, although the amplitude varies. It
also important that the NKR government has been able to convey to
the international community that a lasting solution is impossible
without the participation of Karabakh.
As to the idea that no breakthrough should be expected in the talks,
and the emphasis should be on work with the publics of the conflict
parties, it is faulty. The preparation of the publics for peace as
an underlying factor of confidence building between publics cannot be
determined by situational factors or the ongoing stage of settlement
and should be carried on permanently.
Work with the publics, propaganda of peace, confidence building should
go in parallel with the talks independent from their success but as an
underlying assisting element. It is another problem that revenge and
anti-Armenian propaganda have become a government policy in Azerbaijan,
therefore it is hopeless to talk about confidence building Armenia
has been calling for.
It is true that the recent visit of the Armenian and Azerbaijani
intelligentsia to Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, recent
statements by Azerbaijani human rights activists indicate changes
in the home policies of Azerbaijan, however, time will show. The
settlement of the conflict is impossible without a favorable climate
in the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies, which is possible to
create only through confidence building, joint economic projects,
meetings and dialogue on both governmental and non-governmental levels.
Karabakh Open
Oct 9 2007
Interview with Rita Karapetyan, officer of the NKR MFA Political
Department
Karabakh Open: On October 10 the U.S. House of Representatives will
discuss the resolution on the Armenian Genocide. How is likelihood of
discussion and adoption of this document and what consequences will its
adoption or rejection have for the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?
As of today, 226 representatives and 31 senators have supported
Resolution 106, which is enough to put the resolution to vote and
adopt. This caused worry in official Washington which insists on
canceling voting out of national security in the region under the
influence of the Russian lobby. In this context, the statement by the
8 ex-state secretaries urging the Speaker of the U.S. House to prevent
the resolution from voting should also be taken into consideration,
which aroused indignation not only in the Diaspora but also in Armenia.
Actually, the U.S. ex-diplomats questioned morality and human rights
underlying their country. The Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan
mentioned righteously in his letter to Ms. Pelosi that viewing the
acknowledgement of the truth as an obstacle to political relations
is cynicism.
Prognosis is not rewarding but the recent political tendencies and
the disposition of the Congress allow hoping that the Democrats led
by their principled speaker will resist to powerful pressure of the
U.S. president administration, and the Committee of External Relations
will discuss and adopt the resolution. It is more difficult to predict
the further movement of the document through the U.S. House.
The adoption of the resolution by the U.S. House will help defeat
the policy of rejection of the Genocide by Turkey and enhance the
U.S. stance on the rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh for
self-determination and development through the process of settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Karabakh Open: During the recent international conference in London
entitled Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Prospects of Peace the idea was
spelled out that no breakthrough should be expected toward settlement
until 2009 and the focus will be on NGOs. What should the publics
prepare for, peace or settlement?
During the peace talks the mediators, politicians and diplomats
express different opinions on the current stage of the talks which
do not always match. The international community said the years 2006
and 2007 were a window of opportunities for the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. Some underlined that the lasting settlement is
close, whereas now the high-ranking European officials forecast that
we should expect no resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue until
after the presidential elections in Armenia, Azerbaijan, as well as
Russia and the United States in 2008.
Politically, it is positive that the consultations in the framework
of the Prague process continue, although the amplitude varies. It
also important that the NKR government has been able to convey to
the international community that a lasting solution is impossible
without the participation of Karabakh.
As to the idea that no breakthrough should be expected in the talks,
and the emphasis should be on work with the publics of the conflict
parties, it is faulty. The preparation of the publics for peace as
an underlying factor of confidence building between publics cannot be
determined by situational factors or the ongoing stage of settlement
and should be carried on permanently.
Work with the publics, propaganda of peace, confidence building should
go in parallel with the talks independent from their success but as an
underlying assisting element. It is another problem that revenge and
anti-Armenian propaganda have become a government policy in Azerbaijan,
therefore it is hopeless to talk about confidence building Armenia
has been calling for.
It is true that the recent visit of the Armenian and Azerbaijani
intelligentsia to Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, recent
statements by Azerbaijani human rights activists indicate changes
in the home policies of Azerbaijan, however, time will show. The
settlement of the conflict is impossible without a favorable climate
in the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies, which is possible to
create only through confidence building, joint economic projects,
meetings and dialogue on both governmental and non-governmental levels.