News about Protocols... etc.

[Haykakan]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Funny how the guy went from davatchan to being cheered now on this forum. O what the hell ill say it again-i told you so.

[londontsi]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Funny how the guy went from davatchan to being cheered now on this forum. O what the hell ill say it again-i told you so.

Had he managed his vanity he would not have ended in that position.

His attitude that "I am majority and I can do what I like" got him in that sh.it.
For the good of the whole nation I hope that will be a good lesson for present and future leaders.

I do not believe he ever was a tavajan but that is the only way his decisions could have been described.

We have to be thankful for our constitution ( not S.S) for saving us from that catastrophic blunder.

[Armanen]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Had he managed his vanity he would not have ended in that position.

His attitude that "I am majority and I can do what I like" got him in that sh.it.
For the good of the whole nation I hope that will be a good lesson for present and future leaders.

I do not believe he ever was a tavajan but that is the only way his decisions could have been described.

We have to be thankful for our constitution ( not S.S) for saving us from that catastrophic blunder.

If it were not for Serj and Co, the CC of Armenia wouldn't have worded its decision the way it did. the judicial branch in Armenia is still quite closely connected with the executive. Give Serj and co their due, they have so far out-maneuvered the turks. Let's see how the final stages unfold.

[Federate]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Follow-up commentary on Serge's speech in London.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis: Does Aliyev mean what he says? And, who was that man in London?


Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev is fond of making war rhetoric concerning settling the long-running Armenia-Azeri conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.

He made one such statement in his interview to the pan-European TV news channel EuroNews prior to his Armenian counterpart’s visit to Great Britain.

The truth is, however, that the Azeri president probably opposes war more than anyone. He understands that resuming the war would mean breaking the peace created by his father.

He inherited that peace and during the recent few years repeatedly demonstrated that he would never risk it. Aliyev junior has a clear vision of the trajectory of an Armenian shell in case of war: it’d be directly targeted at a 40-inch diameter oil pipe.

Things would take a different turn if prices for oil on the world market dropped to some drastic level. In case of such juncture of events he might start thinking of war prospects, since he would have no other means of maintaining his family position – Aliyev’s throne has an oil smell and come crisis on the world fuel market he’d have to undertake something. Meanwhile, as long as the prices are high war is completely pointless.

Why, in that case, does he speak about it so often?

It is obvious that the Azeri president is solving several issues simultaneously: first of all he is creating an image of a true patriot in front of his electorate; secondly, he is exploring international sentiment; thirdly, he is minimizing his disappointment over the possible outcome of the Armenian-Turkish negotiation process.

Every now and then his statements hit their target. Last week Chief of US National Intelligence Dennis Blair did not exclude the possibility of a new war. That statement followed one made earlier by one of the leaders of the International Crisis Group Alain Délétroz in which he said that “the war might break out any minute now”.

In the spotlight of such statements Ilham Aliyev is positioning himself as a wise politician of great but not endless patience. Aliyev’s latest statement was timed to the Armenian president’s visit to London. On the whole, relations between Baku and London are approximately like those between Yerevan and Paris, Tbilisi and Berlin.

In the early 1990s three European states divided among themselves the spheres of influence in the Caucasus: Armenia fell to France’s lot, considering the rich tradition of friendship between the two countries. Georgia went to Germany (former chief of Soviet Foreign Ministry Edward Shevardnadze's role in Germany’s reunion became the decisive factor), and oil- rich Azerbaijan became the ‘domain’ of Great Britain, British Petroleum (BP) corporation of which had been dealing with regional oil wells since before the Russian revolution.

In September 1992 Great Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher visited Baku as BP’s representative and that’s when Azerbaijan’s ‘oil diplomacy’ started.

So, when declaring the possibility of resuming war Aliyev knew perfectly well what he was doing: Armenia’s possible counterblow at Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline would, first of all, mean a blow at British Petroleum, as 30.1 percent of the shares belongs to BP and only 25 percent to Azerbaijan’s State Oil Company.

Aliyev thought he was warning “his folks”.

Serzh Sargsyan intercepted Aliyev’s initiative in the air. Passing through Turkish airspace he sent a cable to Turkish authorities, which triggered a very strong reaction in Azerbaijan.

During his London visit President Sargsyan thrashed Azerbaijan in a manner his predecessor Robert Kocharyan used to from time to time and something he himself had never done before.

“Azerbaijan has not faced any substantial confrontation for having exceeded all the possible caps on conventional arms,” said the president in his speech at Chatham House British Royal Institute of International Affairs. “Even if not used in a war against Karabakh, the weapons Azerbaijan are stockpiling today will shoot somewhere. The only question is where and when.”

While on the topic, the President stressed that “Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash a war. However, we realize that we must be ready for war in case others wish to fight.”

“The truth is that Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan,” stated Sargsyan. “Why do you think that Azerbaijan could secede from the USSR, but Mountainous Karabakh could not? Why do you think that large empires should disintegrate, but small ones should persevere? What is the basis? Instability? I cannot perceive it. I do not accept it. Because unfair decisions are the very cause of instability.”

It should be noted that the Armenian president’s speech in London has become his best speech since coming to office. He managed to both take over Aliyev’s initiative and make use of the British stage as the most important international tribune for presenting Armenia’s standpoint to the world.

Maybe, the Armenian president should be visiting Great Britain more often.

http://armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/20829/does_aliyev_mean_what_he_says

[Anoush]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Had he managed his vanity he would not have ended in that position.

His attitude that "I am majority and I can do what I like" got him in that sh.it.
For the good of the whole nation I hope that will be a good lesson for present and future leaders.

I do not believe he ever was a tavajan but that is the only way his decisions could have been described.

We have to be thankful for our constitution ( not S.S) for saving us from that catastrophic blunder.

You are right on Londontsi. If even a little bit he at least talked to some of the political parties like the ARF and let them in on it; he would not have earned that "tavajan" title; even for 6 months up to a year. We were all scared for our Homeland and Artsakh and for a very good reason. I said so at least a couple of times on these forums; that at the end I hope that I will be wrong and the ones who believed in him were right. For the sake of course of our beloved Armenia and Artsakh.

Now I am very happy indeed that he came around or whatever it is it happened that he is very much pro Armenia and both his speeches at Chatham House were excellent. Thank God!!!!!! Now we can sleep in peace!!!!

[Eddo211]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

You are right on Londontsi. If even a little bit he at least talked to some of the political parties like the ARF and let them in on it; he would not have earned that "tavajan" title; even for 6 months up to a year. We were all scared for our Homeland and Artsakh and for a very good reason. I said so at least a couple of times on these forums; that at the end I hope that I will be wrong and the ones who believed in him were right. For the sake of course of our beloved Armenia and Artsakh.

Now I am very happy indeed that he came around or whatever it is it happened that he is very much pro Armenia and both his speeches at Chatham House were excellent. Thank God!!!!!! Now we can sleep in peace!!!!

Barev Anoush jan, good to see you post.

I think is very good that people and organizations started voicing their disapproval of the situation and that is what democracy is about, oesn't matter right or wrong. Plus is sends a message to our leaders that we are conscious and awake. As far as ARF, I won’t be surprised if they were in on it from beginning to create a false atmosphere in the eyes of our enemies. I am not saying this is true, just saying I won’t be surprised if it were true.

[Anoush]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Barev Anoush jan, good to see you post.

I think is very good that people and organizations started voicing their disapproval of the situation and that is what democracy is about, oesn't matter right or wrong. Plus is sends a message to our leaders that we are conscious and awake. As far as ARF, I won’t be surprised if they were in on it from beginning to create a false atmosphere in the eyes of our enemies. I am not saying this is true, just saying I won’t be surprised if it were true.

Parev Eddo jan, thanks it's good to be here.

I won't be surprised of anything anymore Eddo. Who knows, perhaps the government and all the parties knew how all this was going to work out, of course knowing the enemy good and well, and maybe ARF too did what they did to create a false atmosphere for the enemy... who know but it's a thought. Whatever it was I am beginning somehow to have a feeling of relief. I remember that Charles Aznavour and a few of our intellectuals were asking the nation (both Diasporans and from our Homeland) to go along with our government. It's all coming back to me now, those guys knew it and knowing how it was going to turn out, that's why they asked all of us to go along with Sarkissian.

[Jos]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

Barev Anoush jan, good to see you post.

I think is very good that people and organizations started voicing their disapproval of the situation and that is what democracy is about, oesn't matter right or wrong. Plus is sends a message to our leaders that we are conscious and awake. As far as ARF, I won’t be surprised if they were in on it from beginning to create a false atmosphere in the eyes of our enemies. I am not saying this is true, just saying I won’t be surprised if it were true.

When neighbors still persist with viewing each other as "enemies" what are the point of protocols anyway? No amount of clever wording or political maneuvering is going to lead to peace and prosperity.

[SevSpitak]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

When neighbors still persist with viewing each other as "enemies" what are the point of protocols anyway? No amount of clever wording or political maneuvering is going to lead to peace and prosperity.

No disagreement with what you just said, but we can legitimately say that they are our enemies. Not because we are stubborn, nor ignorant, but because it's a sad fact that we all wish wasn't. To say otherwise is ignorance, and 'no clever wording or political maneuvering is going to' change this fact. If that wasn't the case, why would Turkey blockade their border with Armenia? They are in no way involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "Azerbaijanis" always say "Turks and us are different." So then why is Turkey meddling in our affair with "Azerbaijan"? It's during that very conflict that Turkey spread the "one nation, two states" propaganda. Only to create an opportunity to suffocate Armenia. They used whatever reason they found to make it possible because Nagorno-Karabakh is more than a simple conflict. It's symbolic, too. Armenians always struggle to resist assimilation by trying to make a livable home for the scattered Armenians, to reach the dream of reconstructing a glorious Armenia. Our first step to reaching our goal was the independence of Armenia. Our second step was our victory in Nagorno-Karabakh. If this goes on, slowly, but surely, we are walking towards the rise of Armenia. Which is why Azerbaijan is so persistent about the conflict: Turks know that what will ultimately follow the rise of Armenia is the partitioning of Turkey. It's either this or the last pages of Armenian history.* And we know very well what works in favor of Turkey. Today, Turkey faces a UN member who accuses it of genocide. Armenia is the only wall between Turkey and their pan-turanist dream. The more Armenia is prosperous, the sharper the stone in Turkey's shoes (in other words, the more they will regret 1915). And that's what the blockade is for. To make Armenia non-livable, keep the diaspora away from it, and encourage Hayastancis to leave. We are not wanted in our homelands.

These protocols are nothing. There is nothing about peace in them. The only reason Turkey would want their ratification is because so-called Eastern Anatolia (aka occupied and ethnically cleansed Armenia) suffers because of the blockade. But Turkey goes beyond simply opening the borders to develop its east, it takes advantage of its power in order to impose unfair conditions on Armenia (put the reality of the genocide to question, and forget Western Armenia).** Kill three birds with one stone. In other words, all this talk about "historical event: long time enemies beginning friendship" is bull excrement. It's what you were referring to as 'clever wording.'

* "If we lose Karabakh [Artsakh], we will be turning the last pages of our history."
-Monte Melkonian

** "In this world, you need power to have a say."
-Khrimian Hayrig

[Jos]

Re: News about Protocols... etc.

No disagreement with what you just said, but we can legitimately say that they are our enemies. Not because we are stubborn, nor ignorant, but because it's a sad fact that we all wish wasn't. To say otherwise is ignorance, and 'no clever wording or political maneuvering is going to' change this fact. If that wasn't the case, why would Turkey blockade their border with Armenia? They are in no way involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "Azerbaijanis" always say "Turks and us are different." So then why is Turkey meddling in our affair with "Azerbaijan"? It's during that very conflict that Turkey spread the "one nation, two states" propaganda. Only to create an opportunity to suffocate Armenia. They used whatever reason they found to make it possible because Nagorno-Karabakh is more than a simple conflict. It's symbolic, too. Armenians always struggle to resist assimilation by trying to make a livable home for the scattered Armenians, to reach the dream of reconstructing a glorious Armenia. Our first step to reaching our goal was the independence of Armenia. Our second step was our victory in Nagorno-Karabakh. If this goes on, slowly, but surely, we are walking towards the rise of Armenia. Which is why Azerbaijan is so persistent about the conflict: Turks know that what will ultimately follow the rise of Armenia is the partitioning of Turkey. It's either this or the last pages of Armenian history.* And we know very well what works in favor of Turkey. Today, Turkey faces a UN member who accuses it of genocide. Armenia is the only wall between Turkey and their pan-turanist dream. The more Armenia is prosperous, the sharper the stone in Turkey's shoes (in other words, the more they will regret 1915). And that's what the blockade is for. To make Armenia non-livable, keep the diaspora away from it, and encourage Hayastancis to leave. We are not wanted in our homelands.

These protocols are nothing. There is nothing about peace in them. The only reason Turkey would want their ratification is because so-called Eastern Anatolia (aka occupied and ethnically cleansed Armenia) suffers because of the blockade. But Turkey goes beyond simply opening the borders to develop its east, it takes advantage of its power in order to impose unfair conditions on Armenia (put the reality of the genocide to question, and forget Western Armenia).** Kill three birds with one stone. In other words, all this talk about "historical event: long time enemies beginning friendship" is bull excrement. It's what you were referring to as 'clever wording.'

* "If we lose Karabakh [Artsakh], we will be turning the last pages of our history."
-Monte Melkonian

** "In this world, you need power to have a say."
-Khrimian Hayrig

Your view of 'enemies' is a sad indictment on the state of relations between Turks and Armenians 95 years after the events. Without a change of mentality first, no document will ever guarantee security or prosperity. So the only benefit with these protocols that I could see was that it would have facilitated greater interaction via open borders, trade etc, with the rest being lots of empty words (like you said, bull excrement). Nothing was ever going to stop Armenians from seeking recognition anyway.

And you’re wrong about a prosperous Armenia being a sharp stone in Turkey’s shoes. Quite the contrary, it would be like a soft cushion in Turkey's shoe. The region needs a prosperous Armenia, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Greece, Turkey etc. Prosperous neighbors do not start wars, they do not threaten each others security, they don't undermine each other, blockade or damage each other economies. Wealthy neigbors protect each other because it's in their own interests to keep stable neighbors. Poor countries start trouble and hurt each other because they have nothing to lose.

The breakdown of the protocols could be disastrous for Armenia. It could leave it more economically isolated in the region and increase the possibility of conflict with Azerbaijan. Other than the diaspora who get to keep the 'dream alive' i.e. siege mentality, I don't see anything good coming out of it. I like Sarkissian but think he's played this very poorly in this instance. He should have waited till Turkey ratified the protocols before getting the constitutional ruling. He may have showed his cards to early.