Tweet
ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN: ARRIVING AT A FAIR AND HONEST DISCOURSE
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/278803-armenia-and-azerbaijan-arriving-at-a-fair-and-honest-discourse
By Emil Agazade, European Azerbaijan Society -
01/23/13 11:45 AM ET
I am writing in response to the article by Harry Semerdjian "Christian
Armenia and Islamic Iran: An unusual partnership explained". While
I welcome the author's intention to be unbiased and balanced in his
explanation of geopolitics of the South Caucasus, I sense that his
valiant attempt did not quite come off.
Of course, it's every nation's prerogative and sovereign right to
choose its friends and allies. Countries are also free to house foreign
military bases on their soil and choose to be called someone's outpost
in the Caucasus. Justifying why you choose your friends is also normal
part of diplomatic or political discourse.
But the discourse has to be fair and honest if it aims at bringing
solutions and comes from an academic, not least the Oxford
University aspirant. I value Semerdjian's stating of the fact that
Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding regions of Azerbaijan have
been taken over by the Armenian forces. Alas, even acceptance of that
sad reality is often a scarce commodity.
But there's 'taking over' and there's 'taking over'. It would have
been fairer on behalf of Semerdjian to add that there are four UN
Security Council resolutions demanding withdrawal of Armenian forces
that have been ignored for over twenty years. How many hours did
it take for the Coalition to move against Colonel Gadhafi after the
passing of the required resolution?
Surely, they study what late British foreign secretary Robin Cook
dubbed 'an ethical foreign policy' at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy. After all, it was a pillar on which British involvement
in the Kosovo campaign and its stand against Slobodan Milosevic was
based on. But yet again, it's a nation's sovereign right to apply
that element of ethics in deciding to befriend pariahs or well-behaved
nations, alike.
I am not going to disprove or even argue with what Harry referred
to as several Armenian kingdoms in northern Iran. I will leave that
to Iranian historians to deal with, as well as the region's Assyrian
and Nestorian Christian communities. Such anecdotes have long caused
nothing but wry smiles amongst Georgians and Azerbaijanis. Although,
it's not at all funny when one of the Armenian presidential candidates
- Vardan Sedrakian - promises his voters to annex parts of Azerbaijani,
Turkish and Georgian territory if he wins next month's elections.
I understand it demands a special effort to think outside of
century-long prejudices and takes a certain type of courage to look at
facts and accept reality, rather than form opinions or, God forbid,
academic research based on what your granny in Glendale or New York
may have told you. However painful that step may be, this will be
necessary for a lasting peace in the South Caucasus, and in order to
end Armenia's isolation, that Harry understandably frets about.
Whether Harry sincerely believes in some of his arguments or not,
his reasoning behind his appeal to leaders in Washington to be
understanding of Armenia's flirtation with a neighboring country
is pretty clear. I would hate to resort to a classical quote, but in
matters such as this no-one beats good old Francois de La Rochefoucauld
who once proclaimed that we are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to
others that, in the end, we become disguised to ourselves. I reckon
Harry would have to do much better than what he said in his article
to embark on and accomplish the Ph.D research at Oxford - and I only
wish him success in his academic endeavors.
The author of this blog happened to be a duty editor of a political
breakfast show on the morning following 9/11. One of the things that
stuck in my mind from that long and eventful shift was when George W.
Bush said 'You're either with us or against us'. I guess, not only
because it was fairly unusual to hear such a Wild West rhetoric coming
from a head of state.
Now, you may agree or disagree with the neo-conservatives'
understanding of the global war on terror, but I sense president Bush
was right in that respect: there is a time in every man's life or a
nation's history when you have to choose your side. Azerbaijan has
chosen its side and has stuck with it. Armenia, on the other hand,
as the Russian saying goes, is trying to sit on two chairs at the same
time. It normally ends, as the same saying suggests, with falling down.
Agazade is a London-based journalist and head of media for the European
Azerbaijan Society.
Read more:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/278803-armenia-and-azerbaijan-arriving-at-a-fair-and-honest-discourse#ixzz2Ios60JUT
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/278803-armenia-and-azerbaijan-arriving-at-a-fair-and-honest-discourse
By Emil Agazade, European Azerbaijan Society -
01/23/13 11:45 AM ET
I am writing in response to the article by Harry Semerdjian "Christian
Armenia and Islamic Iran: An unusual partnership explained". While
I welcome the author's intention to be unbiased and balanced in his
explanation of geopolitics of the South Caucasus, I sense that his
valiant attempt did not quite come off.
Of course, it's every nation's prerogative and sovereign right to
choose its friends and allies. Countries are also free to house foreign
military bases on their soil and choose to be called someone's outpost
in the Caucasus. Justifying why you choose your friends is also normal
part of diplomatic or political discourse.
But the discourse has to be fair and honest if it aims at bringing
solutions and comes from an academic, not least the Oxford
University aspirant. I value Semerdjian's stating of the fact that
Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding regions of Azerbaijan have
been taken over by the Armenian forces. Alas, even acceptance of that
sad reality is often a scarce commodity.
But there's 'taking over' and there's 'taking over'. It would have
been fairer on behalf of Semerdjian to add that there are four UN
Security Council resolutions demanding withdrawal of Armenian forces
that have been ignored for over twenty years. How many hours did
it take for the Coalition to move against Colonel Gadhafi after the
passing of the required resolution?
Surely, they study what late British foreign secretary Robin Cook
dubbed 'an ethical foreign policy' at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy. After all, it was a pillar on which British involvement
in the Kosovo campaign and its stand against Slobodan Milosevic was
based on. But yet again, it's a nation's sovereign right to apply
that element of ethics in deciding to befriend pariahs or well-behaved
nations, alike.
I am not going to disprove or even argue with what Harry referred
to as several Armenian kingdoms in northern Iran. I will leave that
to Iranian historians to deal with, as well as the region's Assyrian
and Nestorian Christian communities. Such anecdotes have long caused
nothing but wry smiles amongst Georgians and Azerbaijanis. Although,
it's not at all funny when one of the Armenian presidential candidates
- Vardan Sedrakian - promises his voters to annex parts of Azerbaijani,
Turkish and Georgian territory if he wins next month's elections.
I understand it demands a special effort to think outside of
century-long prejudices and takes a certain type of courage to look at
facts and accept reality, rather than form opinions or, God forbid,
academic research based on what your granny in Glendale or New York
may have told you. However painful that step may be, this will be
necessary for a lasting peace in the South Caucasus, and in order to
end Armenia's isolation, that Harry understandably frets about.
Whether Harry sincerely believes in some of his arguments or not,
his reasoning behind his appeal to leaders in Washington to be
understanding of Armenia's flirtation with a neighboring country
is pretty clear. I would hate to resort to a classical quote, but in
matters such as this no-one beats good old Francois de La Rochefoucauld
who once proclaimed that we are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to
others that, in the end, we become disguised to ourselves. I reckon
Harry would have to do much better than what he said in his article
to embark on and accomplish the Ph.D research at Oxford - and I only
wish him success in his academic endeavors.
The author of this blog happened to be a duty editor of a political
breakfast show on the morning following 9/11. One of the things that
stuck in my mind from that long and eventful shift was when George W.
Bush said 'You're either with us or against us'. I guess, not only
because it was fairly unusual to hear such a Wild West rhetoric coming
from a head of state.
Now, you may agree or disagree with the neo-conservatives'
understanding of the global war on terror, but I sense president Bush
was right in that respect: there is a time in every man's life or a
nation's history when you have to choose your side. Azerbaijan has
chosen its side and has stuck with it. Armenia, on the other hand,
as the Russian saying goes, is trying to sit on two chairs at the same
time. It normally ends, as the same saying suggests, with falling down.
Agazade is a London-based journalist and head of media for the European
Azerbaijan Society.
Read more:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/278803-armenia-and-azerbaijan-arriving-at-a-fair-and-honest-discourse#ixzz2Ios60JUT
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress