"Armenia cannot speak on Karabakh's behalf." Will the Armenian Deputy FM get a Nobel award for the discovery?

Wed 23 May 2018 02:59 GMT | 06:59 Local Time

Text size: bigger smaller

If Armenia can not negotiate in place of Nagorno-Karabakh, then what is this country doing for all those years?

Professional geneticist, mathematician-engineer and simultaneously the deputy foreign minister of Armenia Shavarsh Kocharyan made a discovery in the parliament that could turn the world of genetics and biology. Kocharyan said Armenia can not negotiate on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh. I suggest acquainting with the speech of the politician who it is time to nominate for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

"I am amazed by the stir. Obviously, without the participation of the main party to the conflict [Nagorno-Karabakh?], it is impossible to achieve any progress. Non-participation of Karabakh is conditioned by Azerbaijan's opposition. On the other hand, the co-chairs are well aware that Armenia can not negotiate in place of Nagorno-Karabakh, "Kocharyan shared with the journalists a revelation that apparently visited him in a dream, saying that "the three countries" should work together on a peace treaty.

And really, what is that stir? Is there anything surprising about it? There is! Kocharyan's statement is truly a sensation, as it raises many questions that call into question the essence of the negotiation processes of the last two decades. It is not known which section of biology Mr. Kocharyan's thoughts were in during a conversation with journalists, but he should have read what he said at least three times.

The first question is: if Armenia can not negotiate in place of Nagorno-Karabakh, then what is this country doing for all those years? Why are the statements about Nagorno-Karabakh heard from the lips of various politicians and functionaries of Armenia? Kocharyan, apparently, either decided to pretend to be such a fool, or he considers readers and listeners as such.

Absolutely everything that happens in Nagorno-Karabakh is controlled directly from Armenia. Nagorno-Karabakh has no statehood or internationally recognized political institutions. Even no own phone code. And do not squint towards Kazakhstan or Canada - the case is not the same.

Conscripts from Armenia serve and die in Nagorno-Karabakh. Armament in the region appears as a result of Armenia's purchases from Russia. International communications are carried out by Armenia. The interests of the separatist regime are expressed by the mouths of politicians from Armenia. But unexpectedly a revelation comes to Kocharyan, and he suddenly understands that Yerevan can not speak on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Yes, in fact the politician-geneticist is right: Armenia can not and should not speak on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh, since Karabakh is the territory of Azerbaijan and was a political formation within the Azerbaijan SSR. But it was necessary to talk and think about it in the distant 1988, when the Yerevan politicians promoted the idea of ​​"miatsum" - the Anschluss in Armenian.

The second question: which three countries is the respected Kocharyan speaking about? Azerbaijan, Armenia and? .. Does he really mean Nagorno-Karabakh? But wait! The genetics genius, apparently, forgot that Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized by any country in the world. Even Armenia itself did not recognize the "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh! I find it strange when a person with a mathematical education makes an official statement, calling a political formation, not recognized by anyone, 'a country'. However, Armenian politicians have suffered from this for several years already.

Question three: if Armenia can not speak at the talks on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh, why did it take part in the development of political decisions on the conflict, which, by the way, led to the resignation of the country's government in 1997-1998? For the past twenty years, it is Armenia that has been making political decisions about Karabakh. Could this happen if Nagorno Karabakh was really an independent political entity?

It is evident that the "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh is nothing more than an attempt to untie the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict directly from the image of Armenia. Like, Armenia is not involved in the conflict at all, and aggression against Azerbaijan was not carried out by Yerevan.

On the other hand, even if we admit that the Armenian politicians are sincere in their desire to see representatives of the separatist regime at the negotiating table, it is not entirely clear why they believe that only Armenians should and can speak on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh. How to be with a million Azerbaijanis, expelled from their own lands?

Why did they in Yerevan decide that Nagorno-Karabakh should be purely an Armenian political formation? After all, the current population of Nagorno-Karabakh is the most ordinary Armenians, who are not a separate nation able to exercise the right to self-determination. If, in the minds of Armenian politicians, the notion of the nation is identical with the concept of the population, why do not the "people of Karabakh" include the Azerbaijanis who were forced to flee there?

The answers to all these questions lie in the trivial truth that "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh is a secondary factor in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The war was started with the easy hand of Armenian politicians, driven by the desire to annex the territory of Karabakh to Armenia.

These intentions have not gone anywhere. However, the political situation has changed: what was shouted at the Yerevan rallies in 1988 cannot be spoken of loudly in the international arena, as Armenia will simply not be understood. So, cunning geneticists, mathematicians and other specialists decided to come up with a convenient formulation - "struggle for independence".

All these formulations are extremely convenient for serving to internal audience for breakfast, lunch and dinner. However, as British political analyst Thomas de Waal noted in his article "The Armenian Revolution and the Karabakh Conflict," the "obsolete and weakened negotiation process needs a new breath".

It only remains to agree with de Waal and advise the Armenian leaders to be cautious with how they use legitimacy won on the streets, because the process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is very fragile, and its collapse only leads in one direction-a new conflict.

Fikret Dolukhanov, Trend reviewer




Most read articles

More from Karabakh

In The Region

Editor's Picks

Azerbaijan Cuisine

Explore the food of Azerbaijan - from sherbet to succulent kebab, from baklava to fragrant pilaff

Follow us

Find us on Facebook

Real estate

Virtual karabakh