Tweet
Armenia's Hands Freed
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27268.html
Published: 16:01:55 - 01/09/2012
A geopolitical framework is outlining around Ramil Safarov's
extradition. This story could not be without such a shade because no
matter how willing Hungary was to agree with Azerbaijan out of
economic interests or cash, they must know the geopolitical importance
of this issue in the context of Karabakh and geopolitical interests in
the South Caucasus.
The Hungarian authorities would hardly extradite Safarov without
silent support of one of the OSCE Minsk Group countries and a
guarantee that Hungary would not be targeted by the great powers.
Interestingly, the Azerbaijani media reported the great contribution
of Putin's classmate, Russia-based Azerbaijani millionaire Ilham
Raghimov.
It is not a secret that Raghimov is Putin's business partner, like all
the other millionaires and billionaires who have not been exiled or
arrested. So, he is related to Putin not only in the past but also in
the present.
Another interesting fact was observed on the official website of the
Russian Vesti news channel. The information on Armenia's decision to
suspend diplomatic relations with Hungary was posted on the website
with outrageous misinformation. It stated that Armenia suspends
diplomatic relations because Hungary refused to extradite Safarov to
Armenia.
Vesti kept this news for several hours running. Was it the mistake of
the reporter or editor or translator or was it a implicit provocation?
Is it possible that Raghimov's name was not a retrospective necessity
for Azerbaijan in this story to evoke the name of the Russian
president, certainly not without his awareness?
Perhaps, it was not accidental that Safarov's extradition was followed
by opinions that it may spoil the relations between the West and
Armenia which have been especially close recently.
In this context, some statements from the remarks of Serzh Sargsyan
during his meeting with the envoys of UN member states and
international organizations were remarkable: `This has happened
because the Government of Hungary, a member State of the European
Union and NATO, has made a deal with the authorities of Azerbaijan.'
And then: `Immediately after this crime had been perpetrated the
Hungarian authorities as well as our partners - EU and NATO member
States, were continually urging us to refrain from politicizing that
process. We were continually urged to trust the judiciary of Hungary,
a member State to those important alliances.'
Serzh Sargsyan's transparent remarks and statements show that Armenia
is aware of the motive or context of the developments and is trying to
open the cards and ask the questions directly: `We expect a precise
and unambiguous response by all our partners with regard to this
incident. Anyone who tolerates this will tomorrow be held responsible
to history. Half-measures and circumlocution are not acceptable. We
will judge the attitude of our partners towards the security of the
Armenian nation by their response to this incident.'
Apparently, Serzh Sargsyan anticipates support of the West, practical
support, specific support, otherwise he will review the expediency of
his policy of rapprochement with the West because this policy boosts
Sargsyan's internal and external political risks.
First echoed the United States. Their NSS spokesman used tough wording
to express the disappointment and indignation with the decision on
Safarov.
The EU and NATO are silent, so are the Minsk Group co-chairs France
and Russia. In early September Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary
General, arrives in Armenia as part of his regional visit. No doubt he
will respond to Safarov's issue and Serzh Sargsyan's message during
his regional visit if silence continues till his visit.
NATO's circumstance is important because the Azerbaijani criminal
killed the Armenian officer during a NATO event. At least NATO's moral
responsibility comes forth. NATO should think about the fulfillment of
its responsibility. Otherwise, it will be perceived as irresponsible
in building relations with Armenia, in public consciousness.
It does not mean that the West must take Safarov back to Hungary. What
matters is statements of what level, nature and content will be heard
from the West. As to actions, whatever is to be done will be done by
Armenia.
Armenia is given freedom to act on the international political arena.
For example, the response of the United States unties Armenia's hands
not limiting its actions with cautiousness or whatever.
How Armenia will handle its freedom and build on it depends on some
objective and subjective factors.
However, the president of Armenia has made serious statements and
announced that half-measures and circumlocutions are unacceptable.
There seems to be no space to retreat not only due to his words but
also the situation and the atmosphere it created.
There was a clear offensive on the Republic of Armenia, both political
and moral. `Half-measures and circumlocutions' may quickly transform
this offensive to a physical offensive. This is the issue.
The Armenian authorities were careless, unviable, inadequate to
prevent Safarov's extradition. Now Armenia should not be retroactively
adequate, careful and viable. It needs to be proactive to prevent the
transformation of the political and moral offensive marked by Safarov
into a physical offensive or to prepare to face it.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27268.html
Published: 16:01:55 - 01/09/2012
A geopolitical framework is outlining around Ramil Safarov's
extradition. This story could not be without such a shade because no
matter how willing Hungary was to agree with Azerbaijan out of
economic interests or cash, they must know the geopolitical importance
of this issue in the context of Karabakh and geopolitical interests in
the South Caucasus.
The Hungarian authorities would hardly extradite Safarov without
silent support of one of the OSCE Minsk Group countries and a
guarantee that Hungary would not be targeted by the great powers.
Interestingly, the Azerbaijani media reported the great contribution
of Putin's classmate, Russia-based Azerbaijani millionaire Ilham
Raghimov.
It is not a secret that Raghimov is Putin's business partner, like all
the other millionaires and billionaires who have not been exiled or
arrested. So, he is related to Putin not only in the past but also in
the present.
Another interesting fact was observed on the official website of the
Russian Vesti news channel. The information on Armenia's decision to
suspend diplomatic relations with Hungary was posted on the website
with outrageous misinformation. It stated that Armenia suspends
diplomatic relations because Hungary refused to extradite Safarov to
Armenia.
Vesti kept this news for several hours running. Was it the mistake of
the reporter or editor or translator or was it a implicit provocation?
Is it possible that Raghimov's name was not a retrospective necessity
for Azerbaijan in this story to evoke the name of the Russian
president, certainly not without his awareness?
Perhaps, it was not accidental that Safarov's extradition was followed
by opinions that it may spoil the relations between the West and
Armenia which have been especially close recently.
In this context, some statements from the remarks of Serzh Sargsyan
during his meeting with the envoys of UN member states and
international organizations were remarkable: `This has happened
because the Government of Hungary, a member State of the European
Union and NATO, has made a deal with the authorities of Azerbaijan.'
And then: `Immediately after this crime had been perpetrated the
Hungarian authorities as well as our partners - EU and NATO member
States, were continually urging us to refrain from politicizing that
process. We were continually urged to trust the judiciary of Hungary,
a member State to those important alliances.'
Serzh Sargsyan's transparent remarks and statements show that Armenia
is aware of the motive or context of the developments and is trying to
open the cards and ask the questions directly: `We expect a precise
and unambiguous response by all our partners with regard to this
incident. Anyone who tolerates this will tomorrow be held responsible
to history. Half-measures and circumlocution are not acceptable. We
will judge the attitude of our partners towards the security of the
Armenian nation by their response to this incident.'
Apparently, Serzh Sargsyan anticipates support of the West, practical
support, specific support, otherwise he will review the expediency of
his policy of rapprochement with the West because this policy boosts
Sargsyan's internal and external political risks.
First echoed the United States. Their NSS spokesman used tough wording
to express the disappointment and indignation with the decision on
Safarov.
The EU and NATO are silent, so are the Minsk Group co-chairs France
and Russia. In early September Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary
General, arrives in Armenia as part of his regional visit. No doubt he
will respond to Safarov's issue and Serzh Sargsyan's message during
his regional visit if silence continues till his visit.
NATO's circumstance is important because the Azerbaijani criminal
killed the Armenian officer during a NATO event. At least NATO's moral
responsibility comes forth. NATO should think about the fulfillment of
its responsibility. Otherwise, it will be perceived as irresponsible
in building relations with Armenia, in public consciousness.
It does not mean that the West must take Safarov back to Hungary. What
matters is statements of what level, nature and content will be heard
from the West. As to actions, whatever is to be done will be done by
Armenia.
Armenia is given freedom to act on the international political arena.
For example, the response of the United States unties Armenia's hands
not limiting its actions with cautiousness or whatever.
How Armenia will handle its freedom and build on it depends on some
objective and subjective factors.
However, the president of Armenia has made serious statements and
announced that half-measures and circumlocutions are unacceptable.
There seems to be no space to retreat not only due to his words but
also the situation and the atmosphere it created.
There was a clear offensive on the Republic of Armenia, both political
and moral. `Half-measures and circumlocutions' may quickly transform
this offensive to a physical offensive. This is the issue.
The Armenian authorities were careless, unviable, inadequate to
prevent Safarov's extradition. Now Armenia should not be retroactively
adequate, careful and viable. It needs to be proactive to prevent the
transformation of the political and moral offensive marked by Safarov
into a physical offensive or to prepare to face it.