REPETITIA MATER STUDIORUM EST. WHO IS THE FATHER THEN?

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
23 May 05

The peace talks on Karabakh – Azerbaijan conflict lasting for over a
decade have not brought about any tangible results. And no positive
changes are expected at least in the several upcoming months, judging
by the stiff, non-constructive standpoint of the conflict parties,
especially Azerbaijan.This state of things will perpetuate, for
Azerbaijan keeps maneuvering around the effective ways of resolution
of the conflict, and putting forward secondary problems, which will
practically prejudice the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
and the importance of the talks on the whole. Not very long ago the
top officials of Azerbaijan used to put forward an argument at
pertinent or impertinent occasions, especially at international
meetings and different European organizations. The argument was `the
occupation of 20 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan’, as they
used to put it. 20 per cent itself is already a significant figure,
and it would not but form certain associations among diplomats, as
well as heads of different countries, in brief, the international
community. Assuming the role of a victim, all in tears, not only did
Azerbaijan strivefor arousing pity in the world powers but also tryed
to get rid of the mantle of aggressor and then wait for a convenient
occasion to cast it on the shoulders of Armenia. It would not be
difficult to guess the tendencies of shaping and bringing into being
the idea, as well as the following steps. In every epoch the cause of
the war is forgotten unlike the actuality resulting from the war,
which is fixed in the memory of people. The result of the Karabakh –
Azerbaijan armed conflict was the proclamation of Nagorno Karabakh as
an independent state. The defence army was formed as the guarantee for
its security and due to the armed forces a reliable area of security
was created around its territory. For Azerbaijan the consequence of
the war was the loss of 20 per cent of its territory, and refugees. It
does not matter much that 20 per cent is greatly exaggerated, for 20
is more impressive than 12, or 13, for example. The first declarations
on the loss of territories looked like preparations for an airraid.
In reality, becoming convinced that the international community and
the European organizations had comprehended and swallowed the
information about20 per cent, Azerbaijan took the next step. They had
to have any of the European organizations officially recognize Armenia
as an aggressor. Azerbaijan spends enormous efforts and means to
achieve this aim but all in vain. The plan, thoroughly worked out and
launched in the course of years, proved uneffective. Practically, the
diplomacy of the neighbour state lost again, this time theimaginary
battle with the international organizations. However, it is necessary
to appreciate the foreign ministry of this country for which the
fossilized principles of the peculiar resolution of the Karabakh
conflict remain primary. Additional steps have been planned to
disguise the failure of the foreign ministry. The militaristic
statements of the Azerbaijani statesmen at the end of the past year
and at the beginning of this year had been planned. The contents of
these statements can be summed up in a single sentence: if the
Karabakh problem is not solved by the scenario of official Baku, the
resumption of military actions is inevitable. No sophisticated surveys
are needed to find out the results of these irresponsible
declarations. On those days over twenty visitors of the website of the
newspaper Azat Artsakh, among them also Azerbaijanis, gave us the same
question, `Is it true that military actions are expected? If not, why
are the Azerbajiani young men leaving Azerbaijan in large
numbers?’This is what the populist declarations may result in in the
society. The same method has been used in reference to the refugees
and the people resettled by force. That is to say, the recipe of
resolution of the Karabakh conflict of official Baku remains
unchanged. It is not accidental that at the summit in Warsaw the
president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev declaired that Azerbaijan was
willing to give Nagorno Karabakh sovereignty in return for territory
and restoration of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. And
sticking to the tradition, as in all his other addresses abroad, once
again he reminded about the 20 per cent ofte rritory and `1 million’
refugees. In answer the foreign minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanian
declared at the summit that Armenia turned down the proposal of
sovereignty characterizing it as a past stage. The speech of Aliev
Jr. did not contain anything new. Naturally, the answer of Vardan
Oskanian could not contain new principles either. Perhaps, it is
appropriate to recall the well-known proverb here: `Repetition is
mother of cognition.’ Who is the father then?’ Once again we became
convinced that official Baku is not ready for an effective dialogue,
and in order to hide its inability to solve the conflict through peace
talks, it often resorts to falsification in the home consumer market
of information, forms the impression that the problem of returning
territoriesis a matter of days. In order to impart disinformation with
a realistic shade the government adopts `weighty’ decisions on
reconstruction of the regions to be returned, and even the time limits
and names of building companies and their addresses are pointed
out. Nevertheless, the top officials of Azerbaijan are well aware that
the public is always suspicious about similar statements, therefore,
in order to relieve the distrust of the community, neglecting the role
of the local mass media, they turned to the authoritative newspaper
`Milliet’ and the public television of brotherly Turkey. The latter
unanimously presented the false information, first to the Turkish
community, then to the international community through the Internet,
that Armenia allegedly gave asignal to return the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan and extended a resolution of coming out of Nagorno
Karabakh to Baku. If the idea of this disinformation had occurred in
Turkey, we might suppose that it was aimed to justify the meeting of
presidents Erdoghan and Kocharian in Warsaw before the Turkish
community. However, since the source of the disinformation is
Azerbaijani, and the author is Azimov, it should be concluded that it
is first of all directed at instilling the belief in the Azerbaijani
community that the present authorities of Azerbaijan, particularly the
foreign ministry, work conscientiously and efficiently, and there is
no reason to doubt of their patriotism. However, one circumstance is
overlooked; are there statesmen in Turkey who will realize that the
Azerbaijani diplomat and his behavious damage the reputation of
`Milliet’ and the public television of a country striving for
Europe. Anyway, let us be patient and wait for new dilettante
`dimplomatic’ performance of official Baku until the election to Milli
Mejlis.

MARCEL PETROSSIAN.
23-05-2005