Tweet
WHY THE WEST CHOSE SERZH SARGSYAN
Naira Hayrumyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26488.html
Published: 14:30:53 - 08/06/2012
It is already openly stated that the West is strengthening its
positions in Armenia. At the same time, both the positive and negative
factors of this process are mentioned.
As a positive factor, the integration in the West is mentioned for
which the management system will be necessary to change and a more
democratic order will be established. Economic reforms are mentioned
which should match the Armenian and European markets. Naturally,
the dependence on the "Russian mess" will decrease, as the editor of
Aravot Daily Aram Abrahamyan said.
As negative factors, the painful reaction by Russia is mentioned.
Many say that the Russian rocket Topol which caused confusion in
Armenia and other countries, was a sign to the painful reaction.
However, the oppositional Armenian National Congress notes one more,
even more important minus. ANC representative Gurgen Yeghiazaryan
thinks that the price for the westernization of Armenia may be the
surrender of two regions of Karabakh.
The fact that such a thing is possible may be concluded from the
leakages of the negotiation process but also proceeding from the
logic of the West's support to Serzh Sargsyan.
In Armenia, the situation is paradoxical. In other post soviet
countries, the West "raised" the opposition and tried to make it
get the power, to "westernize" the country. So happened in Georgia,
Ukraine, Kirgizia. In Armenia, apparently, a different scenario is
applied - the West bets on the ruling party, rather on Serzh Sargsyan.
How is such a paradox explained? Is it reasoned by the fact that
in the opposition, the West didn't find any good partners? Or
perhaps, Ter-Petrosyan didn't want to play someone else's game? Or,
maybe only Serzh Sargsyan accepted the West's conditions. What the
conditions there were- were they really related to the surrender of
the constitutional territory of Karabakh?
Evidently Armenia's westernization is so important for the West that
it could also not to ask such excessive steps by Serzh Sargsyan.
Serzh Sargsyan himself, as well as his Western partners know that any
agreement to territorial concessions will automatically bring about
Serzh Sargsyan's overthrow and not only.
Armenia is no longer the one it was five years ago when the majority
of the social-political class though the only way of settlement of
the conflict is the compromise and territorial concessions. A large
military-political and civil category has been formed which won't
allow even speak about territorial concessions.
The Armenian opposition thinks that the West has legitimized the
elections in Armenia for the sake of territorial concessions.
Perhaps, that's the way it is, but it is necessary to find out why
the West needs territorial concessions by Armenia sure if it can
achieve the same through other means.
Naira Hayrumyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26488.html
Published: 14:30:53 - 08/06/2012
It is already openly stated that the West is strengthening its
positions in Armenia. At the same time, both the positive and negative
factors of this process are mentioned.
As a positive factor, the integration in the West is mentioned for
which the management system will be necessary to change and a more
democratic order will be established. Economic reforms are mentioned
which should match the Armenian and European markets. Naturally,
the dependence on the "Russian mess" will decrease, as the editor of
Aravot Daily Aram Abrahamyan said.
As negative factors, the painful reaction by Russia is mentioned.
Many say that the Russian rocket Topol which caused confusion in
Armenia and other countries, was a sign to the painful reaction.
However, the oppositional Armenian National Congress notes one more,
even more important minus. ANC representative Gurgen Yeghiazaryan
thinks that the price for the westernization of Armenia may be the
surrender of two regions of Karabakh.
The fact that such a thing is possible may be concluded from the
leakages of the negotiation process but also proceeding from the
logic of the West's support to Serzh Sargsyan.
In Armenia, the situation is paradoxical. In other post soviet
countries, the West "raised" the opposition and tried to make it
get the power, to "westernize" the country. So happened in Georgia,
Ukraine, Kirgizia. In Armenia, apparently, a different scenario is
applied - the West bets on the ruling party, rather on Serzh Sargsyan.
How is such a paradox explained? Is it reasoned by the fact that
in the opposition, the West didn't find any good partners? Or
perhaps, Ter-Petrosyan didn't want to play someone else's game? Or,
maybe only Serzh Sargsyan accepted the West's conditions. What the
conditions there were- were they really related to the surrender of
the constitutional territory of Karabakh?
Evidently Armenia's westernization is so important for the West that
it could also not to ask such excessive steps by Serzh Sargsyan.
Serzh Sargsyan himself, as well as his Western partners know that any
agreement to territorial concessions will automatically bring about
Serzh Sargsyan's overthrow and not only.
Armenia is no longer the one it was five years ago when the majority
of the social-political class though the only way of settlement of
the conflict is the compromise and territorial concessions. A large
military-political and civil category has been formed which won't
allow even speak about territorial concessions.
The Armenian opposition thinks that the West has legitimized the
elections in Armenia for the sake of territorial concessions.
Perhaps, that's the way it is, but it is necessary to find out why
the West needs territorial concessions by Armenia sure if it can
achieve the same through other means.