Mischaracterization Of Nagorno-karabagh

[Nakharar]

US insistence on democracy or to put it correctly elected governments with a representative face is only a recent phenomenon. The Americans liked to work with dictatorships who were more receptive towards since it always turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and what not. But it changed during the Clinton presidency especially since they couldn't use the Cold War factor in justifying their acts. The spread of democracy, if one can call it as such, is concurrent with open markets and the market economy is essentially the sine qua non of American Foreign Policy. Now that closed markets are in essence non-democracies and cause increasing difficulties to US interests, the US prefers to work with countries that are relatively weak economically and don't have a strong democratic structure and thus are more malleable to its wishes.

[DominO123]

Saying something on purpose and appologising is not that rare in politics.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

US Assistant State Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Elizabeth Jones...

 

 

She is far from being a US offificial, she is on the bottom of the chene that made an irrelevent statment by naming regimes just to show she knew of what she was talking about and Artsakh happened to be in her list.

 

I don't think that this insignificant statment displayed any US intention... the claim is obviously wrong, and she understood in what position she was when she knew that the government she calls criminal was democratically elected and that there were international observers on the scene during the elections. The elections there were exemplary, unlike Armenia.

[DominO123]

US insistence on democracy or to put it correctly elected governments with a representative face is only a recent phenomenon. The Americans liked to work with dictatorships who were more receptive towards since it always turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and what not. But it changed during the Clinton presidency especially since they couldn't use the Cold War factor in justifying their acts. The spread of democracy, if one can call it as such, is concurrent with open markets and the market economy is essentially the sine qua non of American Foreign Policy. Now that closed markets are in essence non-democracies and cause increasing difficulties to US interests, the US prefers to work with countries that are relatively weak economically and don't have a strong democratic structure and thus are more malleable to its wishes.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Fine, but I still don't get what you were not agreeing with my statment.

[Nakharar]

A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this. But it's still no business of the US government and especially a minor American nitwit bureucrat to decide who is a criminal or not.

[kakachik77]

A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this. But it's still no business of the US government and especially a minor American nitwit bureucrat to decide who is a criminal or not.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

so you're saying that Artsakh government is "criminal" after all?

[DominO123]

A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this. But it's still no business of the US government and especially a minor American nitwit bureucrat to decide who is a criminal or not.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

BS! Let me requote: "for corruption to end there, for criminal secessionists who rule there"

 

The "criminality" here is not only because Artsakh government is not recognised... the government there has been democratically elected, those ruling are intellectuals whom have not used violence to take power. The corruption stories like the drug traphi stuff are nothing more than rumors waged by the Azeris side without any valid evidences.

[Armen]

A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

This sound like something from Radio Baku.

[Armen]

US Assistant State Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Elizabeth Jones...

 

 

She is far from being a US offificial, she is on the bottom of the chene that made an irrelevent statment by naming regimes just to show she knew of what she was talking about and Artsakh happened to be in her list.

 

I don't think that this insignificant statment displayed any US intention... the claim is obviously wrong, and she understood in what position she was when she knew that the government she calls criminal was democratically elected and that there were international observers on the scene during the elections. The elections there were exemplary, unlike Armenia.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Maybe US president does not view her as an important official but she definitely is an important US official for the foreign minister of Armenia who spoke with her. Or else he would assign some electrician of the ministry to handle her. I showed that she is very important. When she arrives to Armenia, the president meets her. Do you want any more proves?

 

I can't understand what do you want to say. You say she is wrong? Yes, she is. But you can't say that her statement does not have an impact. Just view what it caused back in Armenia.

[DominO123]

Maybe US president does not view her as an important official but she definitely is an important US official for the foreign minister of Armenia who spoke with her. Or else he would assign some electrician of the ministry to handle her. I showed that she is very important. When she arrives to Armenia, the president meets her. Do you want any more proves?

 

I can't understand what do you want to say. You say she is wrong? Yes, she is. But you can't say that her statement does not have an impact. Just view what it caused back in Armenia.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armen, correct me if I am wrong, the US financial help to Artsakh is administrated by its government. Is there many other non-recognised State whom the US financialy assist the government openly(not under the carpet) by letting it administrate all this money?

 

With a message like this, this women indirectly said that the US government finance a criminal government... and with the so-called anti-terrorist propaganda, I don't think that that was politicaly correct... So I have to conclude it was a mistake.

[Nakharar]

so you're saying that Artsakh government is "criminal" after all?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I wasn't referring to the Artsakh government specifically but most governments. I have a problem with saying democratic governments are synonymous with righteous conduct. It should be the case, but isn't in almost all countries.

[Armen]

Armen, correct me if I am wrong, the US financial help to Artsakh is administrated by its government. Is there many other non-recognised State whom the US financialy assist the government openly(not under the carpet) by letting it administrate all this money?

 

With a message like this, this women indirectly said that the US government finance a criminal government... and with the so-called anti-terrorist propaganda, I don't think that that was politicaly correct... So I have to conclude it was a mistake.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

This is what I wrote several posts back:

 

As one of my friends pointed out, how is it that US government provides governmental aid (if I am not mistaken US12 mln directly yo Karabagh) to a entity it thinks is a "criminal". Isen't it absurdity?

 

However, you were saying that she's not that big of a fish. She is a big fish.

 

Now you're saying that she made a mistake... To that I will answer that US officials can make mistakes in your face and not be accountable or responsible for them if they don't want to (what's the constraint?), the US president being a clear example of that. If I am a US official and you call me and complain about my mistakes I have plenty of ways to make you be very sorry for what you did. So, I will appologise only if I want to. So, the question rather is, why do I want to appologise?

[DominO123]

Armen, I admit not having read your past statment.

 

About the mistake, I meant to say that it was not her intention, and not something she said to make a point(it wasn't a wanted mistake).

Edited January 26, 2005 by Fadix

[Armen]

I wasn't referring to the Artsakh government specifically but most governments. I have a problem with saying democratic governments are synonymous with righteous conduct. It should be the case, but isn't in almost all countries.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

And how was Artsakh "a shining example" of that?

[Armen]

it wasn't a wanted mistake

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, I am saying you don't know that. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I think we will have the answer in couple of weeks.

[phantom]

Armen, I admit not having read your past statment.

 

About the mistake, I meant to say that it was not her intention, and not something she said to make a point(it wasn't a wanted mistake).

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I agree with Domino. This statement that some retarded third rate supposed diplomat/politician made was not directed to NK. And even if it was, which it wasn't, does it further our interests to rehash it and publicize it to the nth degree. I think we should completely ignore it, otherwise it brings us negative attention. This statement wasn't even directed at NK, but those who know nothing about NK might assume that it was directed at NK because of all the stink we are making about it, and they will further assume that since a US diplomat said it, it must be true. Not all publicity is good publicity, and this is not good publicity. If we hadn't made a stink about it, nobody (other than the Azeris) would have bothered to read into it the way we have, and nobody would have thought it was directed to NK.

[Armen]

Agency WPS

DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)

February 9, 2005, Wednesday

 

ARMENIA LEFT WITHOUT ALLIES

 

SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, February 7, 2005, p. 11

 

by Viktoria Panfilova

 

RESOLUTION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY ON Artsax IS PUTTING

ARMENIA IN A TIGHT CORNER

 

 

Foreign ministers of Armenia (Vardan Oskanjan) and Azerbaijan (Elmar

Mamedjarov) will meet in Prague to discuss the Nagorno-Artsax

problem on March 2. Most observers believe that the meeting of the

diplomats representing warring parties will take place in the

situation favoring Azerbaijan. Meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly

a week ago passed a resolution on Nagorno-Artsax, putting official

Yerevan in a difficult position.

 

The Strasbourg Resolution based on the report made by David Atkinson

(Great Britain) upset Armenia and Nagorno-Artsax but elated

Azerbaijan. To quote President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, "Baku did

it, the report to the Parliamentary Assembly recognizes the fact of

occupation of a part of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia." Indeed, this

is the first official international document to call Armenia an

aggressor. Moreover, Atkinson in his comments denied Nagorno-Artsax

the right to self-determination. "If Azerbaijan agreed to give

Nagorno-Artsax sovereignty, the European Union will not object," he

said. "It is clear, however, that the authorities of Azerbaijan will

never give their consent to it."

 

A better gift to Azerbaijan cannot be imagined. No wonder official

Yerevan immediately said that, "Atkinson's report reeks of oil",

clearly hinting at the interest of the West in the Caspian energy

resources.

 

Atkinson's report gives Armenia something to ponder. The failure of

the Armenian diplomacy is clear even though official Yerevan is

speaking of "diplomatic triumph" to muffle it.

 

Armenian experts are convinced that the fiasco is a corollary of the

faulty concept defining Yerevan's stand on the matter in the last

several years. Between 1988, when the confrontation began and the

late 1990's, the problem of Artsax was viewed on all levels as the

struggle of local Armenians for self-determination and the

self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Artsax was a fully fledged

participant of all negotiations. Armenia was always an "involved

party" but not a warring party. This state of affairs was specified

by an OSCE document in 1992.

 

Everything changed when ex-leader of Artsax Robert Kocharjan became

president of Armenia. Yerevan assumed the role of a participant in

the confrontation, and Artsax was ousted from the process of

negotiations with Yerevan's consent. As a result, the entire problem

shifted to the plane of a territorial dispute. Needless to say, all

of that weakened Armenia's position in the international arena.

Restoration of this position is not going to be easy now.

 

A certain role was also played by official Baku's dissatisfaction

with the OSCE Minsk Group, which in Azerbaijan's opinion had not done

anything at all in its 10 years of existence. In fact, this is not

so. The OSCE Minsk Group and its chairmen (Russia, the United States,

and France) offered variants of settlement more than once, but either

Baku turned them down or other intermediaries objected to a too high

level of Artsax's involvement in the talks. It was precisely the

"pro-Armenian" bias of the OSCE Minsk Group that irked Azerbaijan and

fortified it in the conviction that the format of the talks should be

changed, and the intermediaries too.

 

In other words, the Parliamentary Assembly and its decision benefits

Azerbaijan enormously. With this backing, Baku will certainly try to

minimize the role of the OSCE Minsk Group and insist on the transfer

of the debates to the UN (where it can count on the unequivocal

support from most Arab countries) and to the International Court.

Moreover, some specialists fear that the latest diplomatic triumph

may provoke Azerbaijan into trying to settle the problem by sheer

strength of arms again. Atkinson said in his report that there were

three solutions to the problem, including a military solution where

Azerbaijan would send its army to liberate its own territories.

 

The chance of the use of force is slim, dealing the Artsax and much

less the Armenian army will be difficult indeed, but official Yerevan

does not rule out this possibility all the same. In any case,

Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisjan warned Azerbaijan the other

day that should it decide to settle the matter by force, it would

have to lament "40% of the territory, not 20%."

 

Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly are essentially

recommendations but Baku, Yerevan, and Stepanakert understand the

moral significance of the document. That is probably why

Nagorno-Artsax TV went to the trouble of finding an interview with

Atkinson dated 1993 when he was chairman of the commission for

non-CIS countries. Atkinson said after a visit to Nagorno-Artsax

then that, "Azerbaijan began this war and the European Commission

will not accept it as a member unless the war is stopped." He said in

the same interview that, "residents of Nagorno-Artsax have the

right to decide their lot... Our Organization and I myself will do

everything possible to make sure that the Artsax Armenians live on

their land without duress..." All of that shows that Atkinson's view

has changed diametrically. Even Western experts ascribe the

Europeans' eagerness to interfere with the longest conflict in Europe

to economic interests as well as political. The words of Bernard

Fasiet, the new French chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, confirm it.

On a visit to Baku last week he said that, "the unresolved

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict affects stability of the region and

interferes with economic projects on a broader scale including

Central Asia." It should be noted that Western representatives and

the Russian delegation backed the anti-Armenian resolution of the

Parliamentary Assembly. It means that Armenia does not have allies it

can rely on at this point. References to "oil", "transport", and

other interests do no apply. It will be much better to think why the

once unquestionable sympathies with Armenia in Europe and Russia are

gradually giving way to disinterest in the Armenian interests...

 

Translated by A. Ignatkin

[Armat]

When a country thinks like a pawn it will be moved around and kicked around like one. I had hoped that Diaspora Armenians could of united and boosted Armenian's economy etc. and made it possible to think independently but unfortunately that is a dream still unfulfilled and Armenia is still a vessel for Russia.

I am not a politician nore an expert on this field but even to a lay person it is pretty obvious what steps must be taken

Edited February 11, 2005 by Armat

[Armen]

Agree, it is very stupid situation. When I look back and realize how much could be done that would put us in a very different strategic situation at present ... But there are no "if"s in history.

[DominO123]

When a country thinks like a pawn it will be moved around and kicked around like one. I had hoped that Diaspora Armenians could of united and boosted Armenian's economy etc. and made it possible to think independently but unfortunately that is a dream still unfulfilled and Armenia is still a vessel for Russia.

I am not a politician nore an expert on this field but even to a lay person it is pretty obvious what steps must be taken

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Armenia is situated on the East, sandwitched between a NATO country that is the sixth most armed country in the world, and another waiting to get its oil exploited. The country is landlocked and blocked. I don`t think the Diaspora can do miracles. We are all at the hand of hypocrith world politicians that will take decisions based on everything beside justice.

 

I think the best thing is to work on Artakh, make of it a model of democracy, and make it shine compared to Azerbaijan, loby and get investors, starting with Armenian investors. Renovate and make of it a land of the 21nt century.

 

When observers could go there and see by themselves, they'll understand that Artakh and Azerbaijan are two different worlds.