"MEA CULPA" de Tigran Torosyan

RETREAT WITH A SONG



Most recent developments in the South Caucasus
In order to prevent various comments, it is first necessary to put down that this article only aims at outlining the picture that has been formed by the Armenian foreign policy in the "new" period – from April 9, 2008 and after the stormy developments in the South Caucasus, leaving the comparative analysis of the previously carried out policy for the future.

At first glance, the period that embraces only six months may seem very short for the analyses, but it is distinguished by unprecedented activity and saturation that embraces all the basic directions of the Armenian foreign policy interests – Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, Armenian-Turkish relations including the issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide, regional conflicts, geopolitical alterations, etc. Moreover, in April after the formation of the new government, Armenia got two new main performers of its foreign policy – the President of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and expectations of new emphases became quite actual.

Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement
More remarkable is President S. Sargsian’s speech at the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly about the issue that is of vital importance to Armenia. Unfortunately, that part of the speech is not only the most unsuccessful but also problematic with its three basic principles.

According to the first one, "self-determination right that is one of the fundamental tenets of the international law is the reason for banishment of the peoples, ethnic purges and genocides" (this and following quotations from September 26 issue of "Hayastani Hanrapetutyun" daily). It is hard to say who prepared the text of the speech, the Foreign Ministry or the President’s Staff, but it is evident that the reality is turned upside down. The right of self-determination is not the reason for ethnic purges and genocides but the actions against recognition and application of it. When Indonesia was not recognizing East Timor’s self-determination right for a long time and was persecuting the people claiming for self-determination, the UN not only coerced Indonesia into recognizing the right of self-determination but also not hindering from applying it. Otherwise, it threatened to recognize Indonesia as a country that committed genocide. Therefore, to declare that the right to self-determination is the reason for ethnic purges and genocides is quite consonant with the Azerbaijani well-known viewpoints.

According to the second principle of the speech of the Republic’s President, "We are far from the conception that the outcome of every claim for self-determination should be separation" contradicts directly both the Armenian party’s interests and the Principles of International Law; the application of self-determination right. Self-determination right is an international norm that has unreserved and mandatory erga omnes and jus cogens status. According to the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" the aim of application of that right may be one of these three cases freely chosen by the self-determined people, a/ creation of a sovereign and independent state, b/ free joining with an independent state or unification with it, c/ some other political status". It means that the international norms define that only the self-determined people can decide which case of self-determination to chose. No country and international organization is competent to interfere in it.

The third principle used in the President’s speech on settlement of Nagorno Karabakh issue is the most unsuccessful, "In order to be efficient and stable the implementation of self-determination right through separation should get all parties’ consent". It is easy to notice that in essence this approach also contradicts the above-mentioned principles of international law. Moreover, it conditions the efficient implementation of self-determination right by the Azerbaijani consent, and by this logic, implementation of Nagorno Karabakh’s right of separation will never be efficient, as Azerbaijan will never give its consent to it. Azerbaijan may hardly dream of more desirable wording by Armenia.

What is the reason of these blunders? Ignorance (of those who prepared the speech) about the Principles of International Law and the invulnerable arguments about the independence of Nagorno Karabakh? Aspiration for inappropriate manifestation of "endurance" and "broad-mindedness" in front of the international community? Superficial and careless attitude towards the issues of vital importance to the country?

Armenian-Turkish relations
Similar questions of the recent developments in Armenian-Turkish relations arise as well. Turkish President Abdullah Gul a few days later after visiting Yerevan announced in Baku that after meeting with President Sargsian he got impression that "Armenians are ready to return the occupied territories". The Armenian side didn’t respond to it in any way. While, in connection with such important issues, after the bilateral meetings the sides either comment on the meetings with similar formulations or if one of the sides has made an inadmissible comment, the other side refutes it or gives its own viewpoint. In this case, silence may be perceived not only as consent but also may raise new questions – Which territories? In return for what? When? etc. If in case of settlement negotiations reticence is an understandable and acceptable principle, then after bilateral meetings the comments of one of the sides should receive adequate response. Probably, Gul’s later statement that "Turkey may improve its relations with Armenia only if the latter sets free the Azerbaijani territories" was the answer to the silence.

Of course, Armenia should conduct a policy full of initiative and in this context, inviting Gul to Armenia may be observed as a successful step. Though that step was qualified as "football diplomacy", it shouldn’t start and end in football meeting. While the developments after Gul’s visit confirm that there were no preparatory meetings (it is not about the meetings for fixing of technical problems of the visit, but for the issues that would be discussed by the two presidents and possible arrangements) and they will not be, as the preconditions of the Turkish side remain unchangeable.

Moreover, the Armenian side took one more reverence announcing that after establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of borders they may set up a commission to discuss the issues of the Genocide. It’s a pity, but we should admit that Armenia is taking the bait.

Creation of the commission is meaningless in itself, as in scientific circles there are magazines, seminars, conferences, etc. that discuss various issues. Scientific discussions don’t need creation of intergovernmental institutions. At the same time, it is evident that even in case of creation of similar commission it will be fruitless as the two states will involve scientists to present their viewpoints that will keep their (their states’) positions up to the end. Similar commission can have only one meaning and aim; during the whole period of its existence Turkey will gain a strong factor to suspend the subsequent recognition of the Genocide; to show other states that "if Armenia is ready to discuss the issues of those "incidents" then by what logic are you going to recognize the Genocide?"

An example of Armenia’s involvement in those fruitless initiatives was the tripartite meeting of the foreign ministers in New York. Usually representatives of three states meet when one of them becomes a mediator in case of strained relations, or if there are complex issues referring to the three sides equally. Turkish mediation in the issue of Karabakh conflict settlement may be hardly admitted seriously not only because of its preconditions but also showing no less interests in the solution of the conflict than Azerbaijan, which, according to Azerbaijani official viewpoint, excludes discussion of any issue with Armenia. What was the topic of those discussions? In what scopes of principles? What was Armenia’s position on the solutions of the discussed issues? If Karabakh issue was discussed, where was the representative of the most interested side – Nagorno Karabakh? General, customary explanations don’t give answers to any of these questions. Similar meetings are not only fruitless but they also devalue Armenia’s announcements of respect for the right of Nagorno Karabakh people to self-determination. In this connection, the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh have the exclusive right to declare the position on it. If Armenian authorities really want to increase the significance of the National Assembly, they should at least take into consideration the proposals of the National Assembly April 29 statement for the process of Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, including provision of participation of Nagorno Karabakh representatives in the process as internationally recognized party. As long as Armenia does not realize this plain truth and does not take rational steps to return Nagorno Karabakh to the table of negotiations, Bryzas of different calibers will continue to talk nonsense that the issue will be settled in the framework of Azerbaijani territorial integrity, and the official representatives of Armenia will keep silence with "broad-mindedness". Turkey will continue collecting parts of its mosaic picture as a regional leader or at least an important "player". Only in this scope become meaningful both Gul’s visit and tripartite meeting of the foreign ministers, also Turkish initiative to create "Stability and Cooperation Platform", which is and will be nothing than a title, as a country that keeps closed the borders with its neighbor and makes preconditions for establishment of normal relations should at least renounce its preconditions in order to affirm its sincerity. But it could be in a case when as a result of Armenia’s serious and substantial arguments Turkey saw that its efforts were in vain. The slogans for establishment of good-neighborly relations and not passing on a painful heritage to future generations cannot win Turkey over. Quite the reverse, Turkey feels like a fish in water especially during the review of the borderlines of the areas of influences in the region. In the beginning of the 20th century when almost the same processes were taking place in the South Caucasus with almost the same performers, Turkey crashed down by Antanta was able to present false "documents" to Russia creating favorable conditions for itself.

Today, when the United States and Russia push one another to settle down in the South Caucasus, Turkey actively weave its picture to affirm its important role in the region. A striking illustration of it is Turkish President’s speech at the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. But what does Armenia gain from participating in all of these? Nothing; with the exception of a short-term PR-action and several "encouraging" announcements of foreign officials.

It is time to understand that any visit, meeting or negotiation is given a meaning and aim when the scope of issues to be discussed are worked out beforehand; the preparatory groups come to an agreement with each other about the solutions (if not final solution then they take steps toward it ) of the issues. After, all of these are presented to the public.

Geopolitical alterations and Armenian-Georgian relations
The Russian-Georgian war in August not only gave rise to exposure of the struggle for the areas of influences in the South Caucasus between Russia and the United States, but also became a serious geopolitical issue having a relation to the review of Russia’s role in the world policy, settlement of the conflicts, etc. Though various variants and comments were made about the motives for starting a war by the President Saakashvili, it seems more probable that the following schema was the basis of the initiative – Georgia started the war on the threshold of the World Olympic Games that could have two ways out: either the factor of the Games become decisive and under the pressure of the international community the war stops and Georgia has a symbolic achievement (Saakashvili keeps his promise of land-gathering), or what happened in reality – Georgia "got rid of" Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which were obstacles to being integrated into NATO; Georgia got real perspectives of voluminous investments. Russia gained the above-mentioned territories and appealed for a new role in the world processes. The United States entirely "tore" Georgia from Russia and gained a real territory in the South Caucasus to settle down fully. Of course, the people of Georgia need time to "understand" that it was the best variant for them.

What did Armenia gain and lose? Until now different analysts speak of only one achievement – Azerbaijan probably understood that it is impossible to settle the conflicts by military way, though the history of mankind testifies that the conclusions after the wars have a short life, at the same time, the conflicts of Georgia in spite of everything got a military solution in favor of more powerful Russia.

The losses of Armenia – damaged and not fully reconstructed transport links with Georgia, loss of 670 mln US dollars, leading of a crusade by the West in favor of the principle of territorial integrity that will complicate the settlement of Karabakh issue. Of course, we should take into account the objective difficulties – geopolitical unfavorable position, the most unfavorable confrontation of the Russian-Georgian couple, etc. Anyway, Armenia cannot change those factors and the solutions should be found under those circumstances. Armenia chose the passive neutrality – silence, in contrast to its neighbor Turkey, which took a position of active neutrality. Future developments once again proved that passivity may only decrease the losses at best, but it cannot provide achievements, all the more in relations like Armenian-Georgian, where the outward and content differ abruptly. The statements of the centuries-old friendship of the Armenian and Georgian people don’t even arouse a smile. The relations between the neighboring states cannot be established on the basis of similar primitive formulas. Isn’t it time to see that Georgia prefers to deal with not Armenia in case of any alternative? Are the issues of mutual interests formulated? Which is Georgia’s interest that will induce the latter to cooperate actively with Armenia? When will the provincial thinking and primitive policy on the issue of Javakhk end?

Development of Armenian-Russian relations after Russian-Georgian war is a separate issue. New and important stresses are laid on the issue by Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov in an interview published in October 7 issue of "Rossiyskaya gazeta". By the way, a perceptible change is noticeable in the Russian position on Turkey and Azerbaijan.

It is already the second month that Russia takes a pretty cautious attitude towards Azerbaijan. First, immediately after recognition of independences of Abkhazia and South Ossetia Mr. Lavrov hurried to announce that Nagorno Karabakh is a different case as in connection of the first two one a war, ethnic purges, attempt of genocide took place. In the interview published in "Rossiyskaya gazeta" Mr. Lavrov touched upon the settlement of Karabakh conflict in full details saying almost nothing of Azerbaijan. Of course, after "losing" Georgia Russia’s sensitivity to Azerbaijan is quite comprehensible, as in case of losing it Russia will not only lose its influence on Azerbaijani power-bearing substances but also will have to renounce its ideas of expanding areas of influences in the south of the Caucasus. At present, it is not even important to Russia that Armenia is a member of CIS countries in contrary to Azerbaijan. While speaking of the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict S. Lavrov underlined several times, "Armenia’s colossal difficulties in contacts with the outer world", underscoring that "there are not many geographical and political ways out" of that situation. "As soon as Karabakh conflict settlement becomes a fact, Turkey will be ready to help Armenia in establishing of normal relations with the outer world", said Russian Foreign Minister at the same time reminding that only two-three issues remain unsolved (first` the issue of Lachin) in the issue of Karabakh conflict settlement. It is easy to take the hint – solve those two-three issues in the way that is acceptable to your neighbors and you will achieve the "Turkish way of life". But why does Russian Foreign Minister direct Armenia towards Turkey? Maybe Lavrov really believes in the "traditional course of Ankara" (according to it, regional countries should be given the right to solve the issues of Caucasian and contiguous countries independently) or the future of the Turkish "Stability and Cooperation Platform"? Assuredly, no! Russia should see that it is only a bluff like the program to propagate the Communist ideology in the East at the beginning of the last century. The main aim is clear: Turkey has problems with Armenia, which is greatly influenced by Russia, the latter has expectations of Azerbaijan that is strongly influenced by Turkey. Solution of Turkish problems does not contradict the Russian interests and vice versa. Consequently, Russia and Turkey have an opportunity of agreement driven by their interests and they try to realize it. The price that Armenia will pay for it will be not so much the issue of the Armenian Genocide but the schema of Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, when each element and detail is of exceptional and unprecedented importance. Armenia has no right to be mistaken. Artsakh may not endure a new 70-year temptation. In this case, it will not be difficult to deal with Armenia.

The situation in the South Caucasus gains new qualities and the perspectives of further developments change abruptly because of the United States that settled down irretrievably, the unprecedented activation of the European Union and Russian-Turkish recurrent cohabitation. In this case, Armenia needs a foreign policy of a new quality both on regional developments and the issue of Karabakh conflict settlement in order not only to record a success but also to avoid failure.

The results of the last six months testify that the changes in the foreign policy of Armenia have only advocating and PR nature and it cannot meet the forthcoming challenges on the basis of it. Even if it is attractive in a short period of time, it is fraught with serious consequences for the continuous period of time.

While today the foundation of the long-term developments are being laid down in the region.

By Tigran Torosian, Doctor of Political Sciences, former Speaker of the National Assembly, Translated by L.H
http://www.azg.am/EN/2008101401

Retraite avec une chanson



Plus récents développements dans le Caucase du Sud
Afin d'éviter les diverses observations, il est d'abord nécessaire de laisser cet article ne vise à encadrer la photo qui a été formé par la politique étrangère arménienne dans les "nouveaux" période - à partir du 9 avril 2008 et après la tempête dans l'évolution le Caucase du Sud, laissant l'analyze comparative de l'précédemment réalisés politique pour l'avenir.

À première vue, la période qui embrasse seulement six mois mai sembler très court pour ces travaux, mais il se distingue par activité sans précédent et la saturation qui englobe tous les éléments de base des orientations de la politique étrangère arménienne intérêts - Haut-Karabakh le règlement des conflits, arméno-turque relations y compris la question de la reconnaissance du génocide arménien, les conflits régionaux, les modifications géopolitiques, etc En outre, en avril, après la formation du nouveau gouvernement, l'Arménie a obtenu deux nouveaux artistes interprètes ou exécutants principaux de sa politique étrangère - le Président de la République et le ministre de l' Affaires étrangères, et les attentes de nouveaux accents est devenu tout à fait réel.

Haut-Karabakh le règlement des conflits
Plus remarquable est le président S. Sargsian l 'discours à la 63e session de l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies sur la question qui est d'une importance vitale pour l'Arménie. Malheureusement, cette partie du discours est non seulement le plus succombé problématique, mais aussi avec ses trois principes de base.

Selon la première, "l'autodétermination droit qui est l'un des principes fondamentaux du droit international est la raison de l'éloignement des peuples, de purges ethniques et les génocides" (et citations suivantes de Septembre 26 question de la "Hayastani Hanrapetutyun" tous les jours). Il est difficile de dire qui a préparé le texte du discours, le ministère des Affaires étrangères ou le président du personnel, mais il est évident que la réalité est bouleversée. Le droit à l'autodétermination n'est pas la raison de purges ethniques et les génocides, mais les actions contre la reconnaissance et l'application de celui-ci. Lorsque l'Indonésie a été de ne pas reconnaître le Timor oriental de l'auto-détermination droit pendant une longue période et a été de persécuter les personnes pour revendiquer l'autodétermination, l'ONU a non seulement contraint l'Indonésie en reconnaissant le droit à l'autodétermination, mais aussi de ne pas entraver son application. Sinon, il menace de reconnaître l'Indonésie comme un pays qui a commis des actes de génocide. Par conséquent, à déclarer que le droit à l'autodétermination est la raison de purges ethniques et les génocides est tout à fait en accord avec l'Azerbaïdjan bien connu des points de vue.

Selon le deuxième principe de l'intervention du Président de la République, «Nous sommes loin de la conception que les résultats de chaque revendication de l'autodétermination doit être la séparation" contredit directement à la fois la partie arménienne intérêts et les principes de International Droit, l'application de l'autodétermination droit. L'autodétermination est un droit norme internationale qui a sans réserve et obligatoire erga omnes et de jus cogens. Selon la "Déclaration relative aux principes du droit international touchant les relations amicales et la coopération entre les États conformément à la Charte des Nations Unies" le but de l'application de ce droit mai être l'une de ces trois cas, librement choisis par les auto-déterminé de personnes, a / la création d'un État souverain et indépendant, b / libre de se joindre à un État indépendant ou l'unification avec lui, c / un autre statut politique ". Cela signifie que les normes internationales qui définissent seulement l'auto-déterminé de personnes qui peuvent décider de cas auto-détermination de choisir. Aucun pays et organisme international est compétent pour intervenir dans celui-ci.

Le troisième principe utilisé dans le discours du Président sur le règlement de la question du Haut-Karabakh est le plus succombé, "Pour être efficace et stable, la mise en oeuvre de l'autodétermination à travers la séparation devrait obtenir toutes les parties" consentement ". Il est facile de remarquer que, en substance, cette approche également en contradiction avec les principes mentionnés ci-dessus du droit international. En outre, il conditionne la mise en œuvre efficace de l'auto-détermination par le droit d'Azerbaïdjan consentement, et par cette logique, la mise en œuvre du Haut-Karabakh le droit de la séparation ne sera jamais efficace, que l'Azerbaïdjan ne pourra jamais donner son consentement à elle. Azerbaïdjan mai à peine rêver de plus souhaitable libellé par l'Arménie.

Quelle est la raison de ces bavures? L'ignorance (de ceux qui ont préparé le discours) sur les principes du droit international et la invulnérable arguments au sujet de l'indépendance du Haut-Karabakh? Aspiration à la manifestation de inappropriée "endurance" et "large d'esprit" en face de la communauté internationale? Superficiel et attitude négligente à l'égard des questions d'une importance vitale pour le pays?

Arméno-turque relations
Des questions similaires de l'évolution récente de arméno-turques se poser ainsi. Le président turc Abdullah Gul, quelques jours plus tard, après avoir visité Erevan à Bakou, a annoncé que, après rencontre avec le Président Sargsian il a l'impression que «les Arméniens sont prêts à retourner dans les territoires occupés". La partie arménienne n'a pas répondu à cela en aucune façon. Alors que, dans le cadre de ces questions importantes, après les réunions bilatérales les côtés, soit des observations sur les réunions avec des formulations ou si l'une des parties a fait un commentaire irrecevable, de l'autre côté, il réfute ou de donner son propre point de vue. Dans ce cas, le silence mai être perçu non seulement comme un consentement, mais aussi mai soulèvent de nouvelles questions - Quels territoires? En échange de quoi? Quand? etc si, en cas de négociations de règlement est une réticence compréhensible et acceptable principe, puis, après les réunions bilatérales des commentaires de l'un des côtés doit recevoir une réponse. Probablement, Gul côté de la déclaration que "la Turquie mai améliorer ses relations avec l'Arménie que si celui-ci définit la libre territoires azerbaïdjanais» a été la réponse à la question du silence.

Bien sûr, l'Arménie doit mener une politique intégrale de l'initiative et, dans ce contexte, en les invitant à l'Arménie Gul mai être observé comme une étape réussie. Bien que cette mesure a été qualifiée de "diplomatie du football", il ne devrait pas début et de fin de séance dans le football. Bien que l'évolution de la situation après la visite de Gul confirmer qu'il n'y avait pas de réunions préparatoires (il ne s'agit pas de réunions pour la fixation de problèmes techniques de la visite, mais pour les questions qui seront examinées par les deux présidents et, éventuellement, arrangements) et ils ne pas être, comme les conditions préalables de la partie turque reste immuable.

En outre, la partie arménienne a pris une révérence annonçant que, après établissement de relations diplomatiques et l'ouverture des frontières mai ils mis en place une commission chargée d'examiner les questions du génocide. C'est dommage, mais nous devons admettre que l'Arménie est de prendre l'appât.

Création de la Commission n'a pas de sens en soi, comme dans les milieux scientifiques il ya des magazines, des séminaires, des conférences, etc discuter de diverses questions. Discussions scientifiques n'ont pas besoin de création d'institutions intergouvernementales. Dans le même temps, il est évident que, même en cas de la création de la commission similaire, il sera vain tant que les deux Etats implique des scientifiques de présenter leurs points de vue qui ne manquera pas de tenir leur (leurs états ») les positions jusqu'à la fin. Commission similaire ne peut avoir qu'un seul sens et l'objectif, au cours de l'ensemble de la période de son existence en Turquie d'un partenaire fort facteur de suspendre la reconnaissance du génocide, de montrer d'autres États que «si l'Arménie est prête à discuter des questions de ces« incidents », Puis par quelle logique allez-vous reconnaître le génocide?"

Un exemple de l'Arménie de la participation à ces initiatives a été infructueux de la réunion tripartite des ministres des Affaires étrangères à New York. Habituellement, les représentants de trois Etats se réunissent lorsque l'un d'eux devient un médiateur en cas de relations tendues, ou si il ya des questions complexes se référant aux trois parties égales. Turque de médiation dans la question du règlement du conflit du Karabakh mai difficilement être admis au sérieux non seulement en raison de ses conditions préalables, mais aussi moins ne montrant aucun intérêt à la solution du conflit que l'Azerbaïdjan, qui, selon les officiels azerbaïdjanais point de vue, exclut toute discussion de la question avec l'Arménie . Quel a été le sujet de ces discussions? Dans ce champ d'application des principes? Quelle a été la position de l'Arménie sur les solutions de l'discuté de questions? Si Karabakh question a été discutée, où était le représentant de la plupart des intéressés côté - le Haut-Karabakh? Général, coutumier explications ne donnent pas de réponses à l'une de ces questions. Des réunions similaires ne sont pas seulement vaine, mais ils ont aussi dévaluer l'Arménie annonces du respect du droit du Haut-Karabakh à l'autodétermination. À cet égard, les représentants du Haut-Karabakh ont le droit exclusif de déclarer la position à ce sujet. Si les autorités arméniennes voulez vraiment augmenter l'importance de l'Assemblée nationale, ils devraient au moins prendre en considération les propositions de l'Assemblée nationale le 29 avril pour le processus du Haut-Karabakh le règlement des conflits, y compris la fourniture de la participation des représentants du Haut-Karabakh dans le processus internationalement reconnu comme partie. Tant que l'Arménie ne se rend pas compte de cette vérité simple et ne prend pas des mesures pour rationnelle retour Haut-Karabakh à la table des négociations, Bryzas de différents calibres continuera à parler non-sens que la question sera réglée dans le cadre de l'intégrité territoriale de l'Azerbaïdjan, et les représentants officiels de l'Arménie à garder le silence "large d'esprit". La Turquie continuera de recueillir une partie de sa mosaïque photo comme un chef de file régional ou au moins un «joueur». Ce n'est que dans le cadre de ce devenir des deux Gul et de la visite tripartite de la réunion des ministres des affaires étrangères, également turc initiative de créer "la stabilité et la coopération Plate-forme", qui est et ne sera rien que le titre, comme un pays qui maintient fermé les frontières avec son voisin et fait des conditions préalables à l'établissement de relations normales devrait à tout le moins renoncer à ses conditions préalables, afin d'affirmer sa sincérité. Mais il pourrait être dans un cas où à la suite de l'Arménie sérieux et substantiel des arguments que la Turquie a vu ses efforts ont été vains. Les slogans pour l'établissement de bonnes relations de bon voisinage-et non pas sur un passage douloureux héritage aux générations futures ne peut pas gagner plus de la Turquie. Bien au contraire, la Turquie se sent comme un poisson dans l'eau en particulier au cours de l'examen de la frontière des zones d'influence dans la région. In the beginning of the 20th century when almost the same processes were taking place in the South Caucasus with almost the same performers, Turkey crashed down by Antanta was able to present false "documents" to Russia creating favorable conditions for itself. Today, when the United States and Russia push one another to settle down in the South Caucasus, Turkey actively weave its picture to affirm its important role in the region. A striking illustration of it is Turkish President’s speech at the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. But what does Armenia gain from participating in all of these? Nothing; with the exception of a short-term PR-action and several "encouraging" announcements of foreign officials.

It is time to understand that any visit, meeting or negotiation is given a meaning and aim when the scope of issues to be discussed are worked out beforehand; the preparatory groups come to an agreement with each other about the solutions (if not final solution then they take steps toward it ) of the issues. After, all of these are presented to the public.

Geopolitical alterations and Armenian-Georgian relations
The Russian-Georgian war in August not only gave rise to exposure of the struggle for the areas of influences in the South Caucasus between Russia and the United States, but also became a serious geopolitical issue having a relation to the review of Russia’s role in the world policy, settlement of the conflicts, etc. Though various variants and comments were made about the motives for starting a war by the President Saakashvili, it seems more probable that the following schema was the basis of the initiative – Georgia started the war on the threshold of the World Olympic Games that could have two ways out: either the factor of the Games become decisive and under the pressure of the international community the war stops and Georgia has a symbolic achievement (Saakashvili keeps his promise of land-gathering), or what happened in reality – Georgia "got rid of" Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which were obstacles to being integrated into NATO; Georgia got real perspectives of voluminous investments. Russia gained the above-mentioned territories and appealed for a new role in the world processes. The United States entirely "tore" Georgia from Russia and gained a real territory in the South Caucasus to settle down fully. Of course, the people of Georgia need time to "understand" that it was the best variant for them.

What did Armenia gain and lose? Until now different analysts speak of only one achievement – Azerbaijan probably understood that it is impossible to settle the conflicts by military way, though the history of mankind testifies that the conclusions after the wars have a short life, at the same time, the conflicts of Georgia in spite of everything got a military solution in favor of more powerful Russia.

The losses of Armenia – damaged and not fully reconstructed transport links with Georgia, loss of 670 mln US dollars, leading of a crusade by the West in favor of the principle of territorial integrity that will complicate the settlement of Karabakh issue. Of course, we should take into account the objective difficulties – geopolitical unfavorable position, the most unfavorable confrontation of the Russian-Georgian couple, etc. Anyway, Armenia cannot change those factors and the solutions should be found under those circumstances. Armenia chose the passive neutrality – silence, in contrast to its neighbor Turkey, which took a position of active neutrality. Future developments once again proved that passivity may only decrease the losses at best, but it cannot provide achievements, all the more in relations like Armenian-Georgian, where the outward and content differ abruptly. The statements of the centuries-old friendship of the Armenian and Georgian people don’t even arouse a smile. The relations between the neighboring states cannot be established on the basis of similar primitive formulas. Isn’t it time to see that Georgia prefers to deal with not Armenia in case of any alternative? Are the issues of mutual interests formulated? Which is Georgia’s interest that will induce the latter to cooperate actively with Armenia? When will the provincial thinking and primitive policy on the issue of Javakhk end?

Development of Armenian-Russian relations after Russian-Georgian war is a separate issue. New and important stresses are laid on the issue by Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov in an interview published in October 7 issue of "Rossiyskaya gazeta". By the way, a perceptible change is noticeable in the Russian position on Turkey and Azerbaijan.

It is already the second month that Russia takes a pretty cautious attitude towards Azerbaijan. First, immediately after recognition of independences of Abkhazia and South Ossetia Mr. Lavrov hurried to announce that Nagorno Karabakh is a different case as in connection of the first two one a war, ethnic purges, attempt of genocide took place. In the interview published in "Rossiyskaya gazeta" Mr. Lavrov touched upon the settlement of Karabakh conflict in full details saying almost nothing of Azerbaijan. Of course, after "losing" Georgia Russia’s sensitivity to Azerbaijan is quite comprehensible, as in case of losing it Russia will not only lose its influence on Azerbaijani power-bearing substances but also will have to renounce its ideas of expanding areas of influences in the south of the Caucasus. At present, it is not even important to Russia that Armenia is a member of CIS countries in contrary to Azerbaijan. While speaking of the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict S. Lavrov underlined several times, "Armenia’s colossal difficulties in contacts with the outer world", underscoring that "there are not many geographical and political ways out" of that situation. "As soon as Karabakh conflict settlement becomes a fact, Turkey will be ready to help Armenia in establishing of normal relations with the outer world", said Russian Foreign Minister at the same time reminding that only two-three issues remain unsolved (first` the issue of Lachin) in the issue of Karabakh conflict settlement. It is easy to take the hint – solve those two-three issues in the way that is acceptable to your neighbors and you will achieve the "Turkish way of life". But why does Russian Foreign Minister direct Armenia towards Turkey? Maybe Lavrov really believes in the "traditional course of Ankara" (according to it, regional countries should be given the right to solve the issues of Caucasian and contiguous countries independently) or the future of the Turkish "Stability and Cooperation Platform"? Assuredly, no! Russia should see that it is only a bluff like the program to propagate the Communist ideology in the East at the beginning of the last century. The main aim is clear: Turkey has problems with Armenia, which is greatly influenced by Russia, the latter has expectations of Azerbaijan that is strongly influenced by Turkey. Solution of Turkish problems does not contradict the Russian interests and vice versa. Consequently, Russia and Turkey have an opportunity of agreement driven by their interests and they try to realize it. The price that Armenia will pay for it will be not so much the issue of the Armenian Genocide but the schema of Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, when each element and detail is of exceptional and unprecedented importance. Armenia has no right to be mistaken. Artsakh may not endure a new 70-year temptation. In this case, it will not be difficult to deal with Armenia.

The situation in the South Caucasus gains new qualities and the perspectives of further developments change abruptly because of the United States that settled down irretrievably, the unprecedented activation of the European Union and Russian-Turkish recurrent cohabitation. In this case, Armenia needs a foreign policy of a new quality both on regional developments and the issue of Karabakh conflict settlement in order not only to record a success but also to avoid failure.

The results of the last six months testify that the changes in the foreign policy of Armenia have only advocating and PR nature and it cannot meet the forthcoming challenges on the basis of it. Even if it is attractive in a short period of time, it is fraught with serious consequences for the continuous period of time.

While today the foundation of the long-term developments are being laid down in the region.

By Tigran Torosian, Doctor of Political Sciences, former Speaker of the National Assembly, Translated by LH

Թուրքիայի նախագահ Գյուլը Երեւան այցելելուց մի քանի օր անց Բաքվում հայտարարեց, որ նախագահ Սարգսյանի հետ հանդիպումից տպավորություն է ստացել, որ «հայերը պատրաստ են վերադարձնել Ադրբեջանի գրավյալ տարածքները»...







http://www.azg.am/AR/2008101401