THE ELECTIONS AND THE FATE OF LIBERATED TERRITORIES
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
23-05-2007 10:03:18
The Armenian parliamentary election ended: lots of speeches, lots
of opinions. One of those opinions interested me – some analysts
and oppositionists say the international observers gave a positive
evaluation of the election because a recognized legitimate government
is needed in Armenia to be able to implement the resolution on
Karabakh, which has been arranged already. And the resolution is that
Armenia agrees to withdraw force from the territories around the former
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, international force is deployed
there, Azerbaijani refugees return (therefore only the Azerbaijani
refugees are considered), and the issue of the status of NKAR is put
off. In 15 years, either the donkey will die or its master. Moreover,
they say 15 years was not chosen at random: by that time all of the
oil of Baku will have been pumped.
We can not only guess but also maintain this because the talks over
Karabakh have stopped being confidential. Before the meeting with
the parties the mediators are not shy to tell the details. Now two
co-chairs of the Minsk Group are visiting the region, and apparently
they will be discussing this question. And the Armenian government
does not deny having agreed to make compromises.
The election in Karabakh is drawing nearer. It is true that the world’s
" rulers of destinies" leave the greater role in resolving the problem
up to Karabakh. Although it is possible that soon a "concession" will
be made to Karabakh; namely, some post, something like "Karabakh’s
special representative to the CoE". Karabakh may even be granted a
status, such as an associate member of international organizations,
and some retired official will be appointed there. But only in case
Karabakh "behaves" himself. It is already clear what "behaving" is –
agreeing to pull out force from the liberated territories.
Are there any Armenian political leaders and forces able to give
a sensible explanation to the people living in Karabakh why the
territories should be returned? Many say let us give it to them,
maybe they will calm down. But will they?
I will not resort to historical, legal arguments, because those are
blurred and have no importance in politics. I am speaking about
the reality – what may make people who guaranteed their security
and a normal life to give up this real guarantee for security and
rights? Only political amenability, foolishness and personal interests.
Yesterday I watched Nahapet, a program on the public channel of
Artsakh. The host Norek Gasparyan said lots of nice things one cannot
deny. He also said the external policy of Karabakh will depend on the
internal, therefore it is necessary to become stronger and develop. We
wish we lived in a country where the internal policy determines the
foreign policy. Unfortunately, however, our situation is such that
we are too dependent on foreign policy, what is more, on the other
country’s foreign policy rather than ours.
Why do we need to pretend living in an invisible island in the middle
of the ocean, and that we can decide on our own at what time to get
up and what to do in the morning? Unfortunately, there are too many
eyes on our "island" or "enclave". Everyone thinks they can handle
our island the way they want – someone for our benefit, another in our
detriment. More in our detriment, more for their benefit. Someone is
thinking about creating an offshore zone here, the other is considering
disposing of nuclear wastes, the third considers a military base. They
have already decided how we should live. They have decided that former
NKAR and the small corridor, plus a special representative to the
CoE and some few million dollars is enough for us to be happy. Is it
really enough? Let us view in real light, which cannot be disputed
(like patriotic or historical points of view) – what will happen if
the territories are returned? It would be excellent if in Karabakh
they did not come together around one candidate or another, did not
divide people, but expressed a opinion on proposals on the settlement
of the conflict. Offended excuses "we do not take part in the talks,
so we will not say anything" won’t do. Tomorrow we may have to face
up to the fact. This is where we need unity, because the point is
not the first step towards resolution – "the pull-out of force". No
other step may follow the first. This is the "resolution" we avoided
in 1988, 1994, 1996, 1998. Do we want such a resolution?