Tweet
What U.S. Co-Chair Meant To Say
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - Friday, 09 May 2014, 17:08
The U.S. Embassy has made some interesting Twits in response to
critics of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Warlick's speech and his
suggested outcomes of settlement of the NK conflict. In fact, Warlick
has not authored, only voiced these outcomes because these are the
recommendations that have been on the table of negotiations for about
two decades, and their recent packaging is the Principles of Madrid of
2007 which the Armenian government accepted as a basis for talks in
the same year.
`To those who criticize Ambassador Warlick's speech, remember: any
negotiated settlement has to have compromise on both sides for NK
peace There are three possible outcomes: a negotiated settlement,
prolong unacceptable status quo, or war,' the U.S. Embassy writes.
This is a very interesting observation. The embassy seems to make it
clear that the Armenian society has not understood the context of the
American co-chair's speech. The point is that if the Armenian society
understood them, the reaction of the Armenian society would not be
criticism of the co-chair who utters the approaches that are on the
table but would follow him and voice its own approach.
OK, let them criticize. But what will its outcome be? What have the
Armenian society and nation done to have a different proposal on the
table? Has anything significant been done over the past 22 years
besides translating the victory in Artsakh to immense wealth of
several families, besides introducing electoral fraud mechanisms and
justifying usurpation under the name of victory, besides using Artsakh
victory for domestic manipulations, besides instilling in the society
the destructive psychology and philosophy of saving through
surrendering and besides declaring irreversible subjection to the
Russian empire as the only salvation to form a different approach
towards Armenia, bring about a different role and importance for
Armenia?
The process of talks is equal to what we have turned the victory of
Artsakh to. Why are we criticizing Warlick now? Because he did not do
anything except from warning about threat?
`If the sides hold out to get everything they want, they will be
waiting for a long, long time,' the U.S. Embassy states, hinting that
first one needs to have a better state which does not surrender its
sovereignty and security to an empire, where the idea of sovereignty
is not an object for trade-off under the veil of security but a
standard value which is the key to solution of all the national,
social and civil problems.
One has to be more to get more. It's been a long time the United
States has been trying to hinder Russia to shift the status quo. The
United States prevented Medvedev from doing it who had invented a
three-party format to hand over Karabakh in Kazan, it is not allowing
Putin to do it who has proclaimed a goal of consolidation of Russian
territories and is obviously considering Artsakh, counting on the
government and political parties of Armenia. The United States hinders
Russia so much that the Kremlin-based political scientists are nagging
and complaining of the United States.
Now the United States declares that it cannot hinder Russia all the
time and Armenia with its posture is helping Russia to seize Artsakh
and hand over the liberated territories to Azerbaijan. Does Armenia
intend to prevent this prospect or not? Of course, they cannot ask the
question directly because there are a lot of diplomatic and political
nuances. Besides, they talk directly to a donkey only, the Armenian
saying is.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32407#sthash.xsGN5XOX.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - Friday, 09 May 2014, 17:08
The U.S. Embassy has made some interesting Twits in response to
critics of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Warlick's speech and his
suggested outcomes of settlement of the NK conflict. In fact, Warlick
has not authored, only voiced these outcomes because these are the
recommendations that have been on the table of negotiations for about
two decades, and their recent packaging is the Principles of Madrid of
2007 which the Armenian government accepted as a basis for talks in
the same year.
`To those who criticize Ambassador Warlick's speech, remember: any
negotiated settlement has to have compromise on both sides for NK
peace There are three possible outcomes: a negotiated settlement,
prolong unacceptable status quo, or war,' the U.S. Embassy writes.
This is a very interesting observation. The embassy seems to make it
clear that the Armenian society has not understood the context of the
American co-chair's speech. The point is that if the Armenian society
understood them, the reaction of the Armenian society would not be
criticism of the co-chair who utters the approaches that are on the
table but would follow him and voice its own approach.
OK, let them criticize. But what will its outcome be? What have the
Armenian society and nation done to have a different proposal on the
table? Has anything significant been done over the past 22 years
besides translating the victory in Artsakh to immense wealth of
several families, besides introducing electoral fraud mechanisms and
justifying usurpation under the name of victory, besides using Artsakh
victory for domestic manipulations, besides instilling in the society
the destructive psychology and philosophy of saving through
surrendering and besides declaring irreversible subjection to the
Russian empire as the only salvation to form a different approach
towards Armenia, bring about a different role and importance for
Armenia?
The process of talks is equal to what we have turned the victory of
Artsakh to. Why are we criticizing Warlick now? Because he did not do
anything except from warning about threat?
`If the sides hold out to get everything they want, they will be
waiting for a long, long time,' the U.S. Embassy states, hinting that
first one needs to have a better state which does not surrender its
sovereignty and security to an empire, where the idea of sovereignty
is not an object for trade-off under the veil of security but a
standard value which is the key to solution of all the national,
social and civil problems.
One has to be more to get more. It's been a long time the United
States has been trying to hinder Russia to shift the status quo. The
United States prevented Medvedev from doing it who had invented a
three-party format to hand over Karabakh in Kazan, it is not allowing
Putin to do it who has proclaimed a goal of consolidation of Russian
territories and is obviously considering Artsakh, counting on the
government and political parties of Armenia. The United States hinders
Russia so much that the Kremlin-based political scientists are nagging
and complaining of the United States.
Now the United States declares that it cannot hinder Russia all the
time and Armenia with its posture is helping Russia to seize Artsakh
and hand over the liberated territories to Azerbaijan. Does Armenia
intend to prevent this prospect or not? Of course, they cannot ask the
question directly because there are a lot of diplomatic and political
nuances. Besides, they talk directly to a donkey only, the Armenian
saying is.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32407#sthash.xsGN5XOX.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian