Tweet
WHERE WAS SELF-DETERMINATION WHEN KOCHARYAN WAS APPOINTED?
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics22338.html
Published: 12:45:57 - 23/06/2011
In a recent interview with the Moskovskiye Novosti the first
president of Armenia dwelt on the Armenian and Turkish relations and
the settlement of the Karabakh issue. Ter-Petrosyan particularly said
that he doesn't link these two issues but also noted that Turkey will
normalize its relations with Armenia, only if the Karabakh issue is
solved. Ter-Petrosyan says the Armenian diplomacy has never been able
to separate these issues except the period preceding the capture of
Kelbadjar. Ter-Petrosyan says he thinks Serzh Sargsyan's step to
normalize relations between Armenia and Turky is right, while the
proposal on the commission of historians is wrong.
The first president said the settlement of the Karabakh issue proposed
13 years ago was better than the current one. According to him, the
settlement proposed 13 years ago has been the best so far because
in this period Armenia and Azerbaijan have different economic
developments, and Azerbaijan is ahead of Armenia.
In answer to the reporter's question regarding the disadvantage
that Karabakh does not participate in the process of settlement,
Ter-Petrosyan answered: "It's a disaster. And this is the most
stupid, if not criminal mistake of the Armenian diplomacy to agree
with the absence of Karabakh in the negotiations." Ter-Petrosyan said
they struggled for the participation of Karabakh for four years when
in 1994, with the help of Russia, Karabakh became the third party
to the negotiations and received an international mandate. He says
if Armenia states to support self-determination how can it sign a
document on the destiny of Karabakh? "Where is self-determination
in that case?" he asks.
The first president is, of course, right. But he has to answer
where self-determination was when he appointed the president of the
self-determined Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as prime minister of Armenia.
Didn't the de facto violation of the fact of Karabakh's being a
subject start in this period? Or didn't this decision eliminate
Karabakh as a subject?
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics22338.html
Published: 12:45:57 - 23/06/2011
In a recent interview with the Moskovskiye Novosti the first
president of Armenia dwelt on the Armenian and Turkish relations and
the settlement of the Karabakh issue. Ter-Petrosyan particularly said
that he doesn't link these two issues but also noted that Turkey will
normalize its relations with Armenia, only if the Karabakh issue is
solved. Ter-Petrosyan says the Armenian diplomacy has never been able
to separate these issues except the period preceding the capture of
Kelbadjar. Ter-Petrosyan says he thinks Serzh Sargsyan's step to
normalize relations between Armenia and Turky is right, while the
proposal on the commission of historians is wrong.
The first president said the settlement of the Karabakh issue proposed
13 years ago was better than the current one. According to him, the
settlement proposed 13 years ago has been the best so far because
in this period Armenia and Azerbaijan have different economic
developments, and Azerbaijan is ahead of Armenia.
In answer to the reporter's question regarding the disadvantage
that Karabakh does not participate in the process of settlement,
Ter-Petrosyan answered: "It's a disaster. And this is the most
stupid, if not criminal mistake of the Armenian diplomacy to agree
with the absence of Karabakh in the negotiations." Ter-Petrosyan said
they struggled for the participation of Karabakh for four years when
in 1994, with the help of Russia, Karabakh became the third party
to the negotiations and received an international mandate. He says
if Armenia states to support self-determination how can it sign a
document on the destiny of Karabakh? "Where is self-determination
in that case?" he asks.
The first president is, of course, right. But he has to answer
where self-determination was when he appointed the president of the
self-determined Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as prime minister of Armenia.
Didn't the de facto violation of the fact of Karabakh's being a
subject start in this period? Or didn't this decision eliminate
Karabakh as a subject?