NALBANDIAN’S COMMENTS RAISE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
Ara Khachatourian
asbarez
Jul 21st, 2009
In his haste to respond to detractors, Armenia’s Foreign Minister,
Eduard Nalbandian, Monday, speaking for the first time since the
two-day Moscow presidential meetings, attempted to clarify Armenia’s
position on matters of urgent importance. However, his statements
raised more questions than provided answers.
One of the points Nalbandian attempted to clarify was refuting
statements by his Azeri counterpart regarding the existence of a
timetable for the withdrawal from the liberated territories surrounding
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. "I can tell you that this issue has
not been discussed at the Moscow meeting," insisted Nalbandian.
What the foreign minister did not clarify is whether Armenia is
engaged in any discussion related to withdrawal from any territory
surrounding Karabakh. Last week when Nalbandian was in Stepanakert for
talks with Karabakh leaders, he told a press conference that Armenia
has always insisted on ensuring there is land corridor connecting
Armenia and Karabakh.
Furthermore, the foreign minister added that without the consent of the
people and leadership of Karabakh no agreement will be signed. Will
the leadership and people Karabakh ever consent to conceding any
territory that was liberated during the war?
Then there is the other elephant in the room: the so-called "roadm ap"
agreement announced on April 22.
Nalbandian on Monday said that Armenia has not agreed to the formation
of a historical commission to study the Genocide, but almost in the
same breath detailed the formation of an inter-governmental commission,
whose sub-commissions will be tasked to "deal with various issues,
including the issue of the restoration of mutual trust between the
two peoples."
"The restoration of mutual trust" is a loaded statement given that
even in this climate of détente official Ankara continues to place
preconditions. As recently as Monday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu said that Turkey-Armenia borders will not open until the
resolution of the Karabakh conflict.
Furthermore, in pursuing this agenda, official Yerevan has shown its
willingness to compromise on critical principles. First, there was
the complete disregard for the fact that Turkey closed its border
and blockaded Armenia [the word blockade seems to have disappeared
from Armenia’s vernacular], so President Serzh Sarkisian’s initial
gesture for rapprochement was ill-conceived; second was the "roadmap"
announcement, which came two days before April 24; and, third is
the nebulous posturing of the Armenian authorities regarding the
historical commission.
Evidently, putting those who dare to disagree with Yerevan’s policies
in their place is more of a priority to Nalbandian than providin g
an honest and comprehensive assessment of realities that will impact
all Armenians.