WHAT PRICE THE PEOPLE OF KARABAKH WILL HAVE TO PAY
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir
Jan 10 2008
Armenia
On January 9 the foreign minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan claimed
that the people of Karabakh would never accept the option of resolution
of the conflict offered by Levon Ter-Petrosyan in 1997.
The foreign minister explained his confidence that he often gets in
touch with the government and people of Karabakh. No doubt the foreign
minister gets in touch with the government, whereas the fact of Vardan
Oskanyan’s contacts with the people of Karabakh is highly doubtful
for the simple reason that the foreign minister does not even get in
touch with the people of Armenia, which is explained by his work: he
does not deal with internal issues, and he often goes abroad. Vardan
Oskanyan gets in close touch with the Diasporan part of the Armenian
people. Usually, foreign ministers cannot even get in touch with their
family because they mostly have to deal with government officials
and international organizations. Such is their job, and nothing can
be done about it. Perhaps this is the reason why several months ago
Vardan Oskanyan said ten years in foreign ministry is exhausting,
and it is necessary to have someone replace him. It should be noted,
however, that he has already stopped speaking about it.
However, this has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to dwell
on. The problem is that Vardan Oskanyan is not quite frank when he says
that he gets in touch with the people of Karabakh. If we assume that
contacts with the government of Karabakh mean contacts with the people
of Karabakh, it is a misperception which most people of Karabakh can
confirm. In fact, 90 percent of votes that the government of Armenia
got may allow Oskanyan to say so, noting that the government enjoys
the sympathy of people. In the world, however, after getting the vote
of the society the government usually departs from the society rather
than comes closer to it. Therefore, perhaps, the mechanism of elections
was invented not to let the government depart from the society much
and make it come close to it at least once in four or five years.
Nevertheless, Vardan Oskanyan’s claim is true. In fact, the people of
Karabakh would not accept the option of resolution offered by Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. Vardan Oskanyan is also right when he says he would
not like to describe one of them as good and the other as bad.
However, the fact that he negotiates on this option means that
Vardan Oskanyan considers the present option better. Although it
should be noted that with a lower-ranking position Vardan Oskanyan
had participated in the negotiations on the proposals by Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, and he had participated without any complaint and
dissatisfaction. He may say that at that time he had to negotiate,
although he disagreed with that approach. But is it honest? It is
impossible to imagine the success of negotiations in which diplomats
take part who disagree with the topic of negotiations.
However, it is also a deviation from the topic of the day. And the
topic is the agreement or disagreement of the people to Karabakh
to one option or another. If Vardan Oskanyan claims that the people
of Karabakh would never accept Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s proposal, and
does not claim that the same awaits the current option negotiated by
Vardan Oskanyan and Robert Kocharyan, and Serge Sargsyan is aware of
it and agrees to it, it means that at least Vardan Oskanyan assumes
that the people of Karabakh may agree to the presently negotiated
proposal. It is interesting to know what Vardan Oskanyan’s expectations
are based on. Perhaps, as he says, the principle of self-determination
underlying the talks currently. But is the principle enough for the
people of Karabakh to agree? What will the price of this principle
be? The price which Vardan Oskanyan is fond of mentioning, namely
with regard to lifting of the blockade, saying that we have to pay
a high price for lifting the blockade, and this is not a reasonable
price. Will the price be reasonable for the people of Karabakh that
must be paid for the right for self-determination? After all, nothing
is free except cheese in the trap. It is notable that the recognition
of self-determination is not concerned but the recognition of the
right for self-determination.