Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Dec 15 2007

PASQUINADE OR POLITICAL SABOTAGE

The speedier the pre-election campaign the more evident the libels
in the press belonging to Armenian Pan National Movement. But in our
view, the qualification `libel’ is too soft for the article published
in `Haykakan Jamanak’ yesterday, entitled `Will sign…will sign’,
because it is more like an attempt to `trouble the waters’.
The author of the pasquinade tried to appose the
statement-evaluation made by Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan, in
Brussels, regarding the basic principles for the regulation of
Karabakh conflict, recently introduced to the negotiating parties in
Madrid, to the foreign policy pursued by the leadership of the
Republic, trying to represent it as, nothing more than a
`pre-election deal with the international community’.
A question arises here, what facts did the author of the article
bring to make such serious accusations. Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan
has really given positive estimation to the document represented and
he didn’t exclude that most probably they will sign it before
February 19 Presidential elections. Lets try to clarify, to what
extent does all this appose to our country’s foreign policy.
We should remind you that still on November 29, after his meetings
in Madrid Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan estimated the
before mentioned document as `fair and balanced’ and the Spokesman of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs V. Karapetyan confirmed the fact that
the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh is also included in the
document.
We should also remind you that unlike his Armenian partners
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mamediarov, continuous to speak
about the disagreements as to one-two major issues and he links the
possible developments expected before the elections with the
settlement of those issues.
After all this, it’s more than clear that in this situation
Armenia doesn’t have any ground to estimate negatively the Madrid
document envisaging the basic principles for the regulation. There
are two reasons for it.
First: the represented written document concerns the basic
principles for the settlement of the conflict and not the concrete
contents of the future agreement. Thus if Azerbaijan recognizes the
right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to master their own fate, all
the other fundamental issues will be secondary.
Second: in such circumstances it is quite comprehensible that the
field of Armenian maneuvers in terms of the orientation of `Madrid
test’ is wider than that of Azerbaijan and it would have been very
strange of our officials not to estimate this document positively.
Therefore, it is quite natural that Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan
also gave his fundamental agreement and expressed belief that it is
possible to reach an agreement regarding the document, before
February 19, Presidential elections.
It is also natural that the corresponding announcements made by
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan in Madrid and the
statement-evaluation made by Armenian Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan
in Brussels reflect Armenia’s official position. Consequently one
must have a morbid imagination to look for contradictions or `a deal
with the international community’, in this situation.
Moreover one must have an organ of sense, yet unknown to the
science, to appose the equally positive estimations made by the
Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister to the standpoints of the
Chief Official responsible for the country’s foreign policy,
President Robert Kocharyan.
Trying to play similar tricks, `Haykakan Jamanak’ writes: `The
probability that Robert Kocharyan will sign under the document
represented in Madrid, before quitting his post of the President, is
equal to zero.’
A question arises here; if the probability that Robert Kocharyan
will sign under the document represented in Madrid is really `equal
to zero’ then did the author of the publication try to clarify,
whether Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev is ready to sign a document
that clearly envisages the right of the people of NKR to master their
own fate. Besides that if there are such encouraging points in the
document, then why should Armenian party give a negative estimation
to the document, when, at this stage our opponent doesn’t even want
to hear about the clarifications of NKR status.
Not only V.Oskanyan or S.Sargsyan, but also Minsk Group
co-President Yuri Merzliakov claims the fact that similar point or
even points really exist in the document represented in Madrid. In
his interview given to APA news agency on December 11, he announced:
‘The negotiations are hold on basic principles, part of which is
about the decision on the future status.’ And is it not clear why
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister E. Mamediarov delays the settlement of
the issue, why, even after Madrid, Azerbaijani side continuously
reminds about their readiness to grant nothing more than broad
sovereignty to NKR.
So where is the `unnecessary concession’ in the announcement made
by Serge Sargsyan in Brussels or even an insignificant deviation from
the principles of Armenia’s foreign policy.
When the libels reach such a sensitive topic as Karabakh issue,
the failure to keep sense of proportion and conclusions based on
empty presumptions turn into a pasquinade that reminds of a political
sabotage. The readers of the ridiculous article entitled `Will sign…
will sign’ became the observers of the before mentioned fact.

ARMEN TSATURYAN

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress