Tweet
IN WHAT SENSE THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ARMENIA WILL BECOME PROACTIVE
10-06-2008 14:16:19
KarabakhOpen
In Saint Petersburg the first meeting of the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan took place. The only result was the commitment to
continue the OSCE Minsk Group-mediated talks.
Before the meeting, as usual, the sides made some statements, outlining
their stance. In particular, Azerbaijan "confirmed" that the "bias" for
a military settlement of the conflicts is becoming more tangible. And
Armenia underlined that it denies proposals which doubt the right of
Karabakh for self-determination.
The experts say the stance of Azerbaijan is clear, recently Baku
stated on top level that the settlement of the problem is viewed in
the context of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The stance
of Armenia is more complicated. Armenia insists on three issues:
Karabakh cannot be subject to Azerbaijan, land communication between
NKR and Armenia, and international guarantees of security of the
people of Karabakh. These statements may carry various contents,
experts say. And if in the good sense this "uncertainty" gives Armenia
room to maneuver, in case of a tough stance of Azerbaijan this room
is confined to Armenia's own half of the field. In addition, this
half is becoming smaller all the time.
On Sunday the representatives of the Karabakh-based NGOs and government
agencies took part in a discussion at Stepanakert Resource Center
on the challenges and possibilities of popular democracy, trying
to find out how and why the tactics of Azerbaijan regarding the
settlement changes.
Evidently, since the recognition of Kosovo Azerbaijan has been
using every means to create a negative image of Karabakh which is
unable to exist without Armenia. Azerbaijan does not spare Armenia
either, trying to prove that it cannot support Karabakh. The entire
information and propaganda resource of Baku is employed now to instill
several primitive but essential stereotypes in the consciousness of
the international community - Armenia is an aggressor, Karabakh is a
militarized uncontrollable territory with drug trafficking and other
phenomena. To diplomats and people who are engaged in politics and
political science, the aims and methods of work of the propaganda
machine of Azerbaijan are so clear you can look through them.
However, multiple repetition of the same idea is perceived as a fact
some time later.
This is what happened in the information sphere around the settlement
of Karabakh. In Karabakh they say: "We won the war, now let them
think". Outside Karabakh they say something else. And even in Armenia
there are no clearly defined foreign political priorities. In an effort
to define them, most diplomats look to the "international community".
Even in a narrow Armenian circle many fear to talk about their
own interests. Any "tolerant" theory is immediately defined as
defensive. Hence, not only diplomatic mistakes are justified but also
efforts which pose threat to the entire system of national security.
Such a policy continues. It is possible that the "promise of the new
minister of foreign affairs of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan will conduct
a more proactive policy, change something in the current situation."
10-06-2008 14:16:19
KarabakhOpen
In Saint Petersburg the first meeting of the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan took place. The only result was the commitment to
continue the OSCE Minsk Group-mediated talks.
Before the meeting, as usual, the sides made some statements, outlining
their stance. In particular, Azerbaijan "confirmed" that the "bias" for
a military settlement of the conflicts is becoming more tangible. And
Armenia underlined that it denies proposals which doubt the right of
Karabakh for self-determination.
The experts say the stance of Azerbaijan is clear, recently Baku
stated on top level that the settlement of the problem is viewed in
the context of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The stance
of Armenia is more complicated. Armenia insists on three issues:
Karabakh cannot be subject to Azerbaijan, land communication between
NKR and Armenia, and international guarantees of security of the
people of Karabakh. These statements may carry various contents,
experts say. And if in the good sense this "uncertainty" gives Armenia
room to maneuver, in case of a tough stance of Azerbaijan this room
is confined to Armenia's own half of the field. In addition, this
half is becoming smaller all the time.
On Sunday the representatives of the Karabakh-based NGOs and government
agencies took part in a discussion at Stepanakert Resource Center
on the challenges and possibilities of popular democracy, trying
to find out how and why the tactics of Azerbaijan regarding the
settlement changes.
Evidently, since the recognition of Kosovo Azerbaijan has been
using every means to create a negative image of Karabakh which is
unable to exist without Armenia. Azerbaijan does not spare Armenia
either, trying to prove that it cannot support Karabakh. The entire
information and propaganda resource of Baku is employed now to instill
several primitive but essential stereotypes in the consciousness of
the international community - Armenia is an aggressor, Karabakh is a
militarized uncontrollable territory with drug trafficking and other
phenomena. To diplomats and people who are engaged in politics and
political science, the aims and methods of work of the propaganda
machine of Azerbaijan are so clear you can look through them.
However, multiple repetition of the same idea is perceived as a fact
some time later.
This is what happened in the information sphere around the settlement
of Karabakh. In Karabakh they say: "We won the war, now let them
think". Outside Karabakh they say something else. And even in Armenia
there are no clearly defined foreign political priorities. In an effort
to define them, most diplomats look to the "international community".
Even in a narrow Armenian circle many fear to talk about their
own interests. Any "tolerant" theory is immediately defined as
defensive. Hence, not only diplomatic mistakes are justified but also
efforts which pose threat to the entire system of national security.
Such a policy continues. It is possible that the "promise of the new
minister of foreign affairs of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan will conduct
a more proactive policy, change something in the current situation."