Armenian paper accuses Azeri leader of provocative comments on ties with Russia

Ayots Ashkhar, Yerevan
22 Dec 04

Text of unattributed report by Armenian newspaper Ayots Ashkhar on
22 December headlined “Aliyev’s provocation”

We would not have paid attention to the statement made by the chairman
of the Russian State Duma, Boris Gryzlov, in Yerevan that Armenia is
Russia’s outpost in the South Caucasus, if it were not for [Azerbaijani
President] Ilham Aliyev’s comments.

Aliyev’s attempt to describe Boris Gryzlov’s idea as something that
allegedly casts a doubt on Armenia’s independence was a well-thought
out and careful provocation addressed to the world community, as well
as to relevant “listeners” of the “Armenian audience”.

Addressing the world community, Ilham Aliyev first aimed to attract
Western countries’ attention to the word “outpost”. As is known, in
the recent period, the main trend in processes in CIS countries has
been a certain limitation of Russia’s influence on the post-Soviet
area. So within the framework of this process of forming a negative
attitude towards Armenia, it was advantageous to Aliyev to change
intentionally the meaning of the word “outpost” used by Gryzlov,
describing it as something that questions Armenia’s independence.

But the point is that the word “outpost” means that a certain state
in any specific region is a reliable point of support for this or
that superpower. For instance, for tens of years Israel has been
considered to be the USA’s outpost in the Middle East, but this does
not at all mean that Arab countries are dealing with a state that
has lost its independence.

Incidentally, the West did not bother to reply to Aliyev’s
comments, while some forces in Armenia are speculating on them with
pleasure. They even tried to assess this fact as a slap in the face
of independent Armenia from the Azerbaijani president and as an
obvious disgrace.

Incidentally, how will they respond if these forces and functionaries,
which have obvious pro-Western orientation, come to power tomorrow and
if any American official says for instance that “Armenia is the USA’s
outpost in the South Caucasus” or “Armenia is an outpost of the West”.

Certainly, it was absolutely expectable that a member of the Armenian
Pan-National Movement, David Shakhnazaryan, commented on this, saying
that not Armenia, but its current authorities are Russia’s outpost
in the South Caucasus. But how should we understand the statements
of some top officials that “the Republic of Armenia is a sovereign
state and cannot be an outpost of any country”? And they make such
statements at the moment when, for instance, the leadership of Georgia
is trying to prove by all means that Georgia is an outpost of the
West in the South Caucasus. Can we conclude that Georgia is trying
to give up its sovereignty? Or is it really advantageous to Georgia
to have such status?

Incidentally, for many years Armenia has been an outpost of the West in
the whole of Asia. Maybe time has come for us to think that remaining
Russia’s outpost in parallel with the improvement of Russia-West
relations, we shall be able to restore our traditional status of the
West’s outpost as well and strengthen our own positions.

These responses to Ilham Aliyev’s simple provocation testify that due
to our politicians’ different orientation they do not understand or
do not want to accept the simple fact that in the modern world, being
an outpost of any superpower that has strong nuclear potential is not
only a serious security guarantee, but also an obvious advantage in
comparison with neighbours.