New year with old problems and vague future

PanARMENIAN.Net - Azerbaijan, in its turn, is well aware that in this case NKR will act as an independent entity, and no promises of President Ilham Aliyev on granting “broad autonomy” will be taken into account. In principle, these promises are not taken seriously even now, but sill they sound. This is probably one of the major flaws in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. And the likelihood that 2012 will mark a “breakthrough” in the conflict settlement, as European officials love saying, is too little.

Armenian-Turkish relations remained on the same level, i.e. on no level at all. Return of the Protocols to Parliament can be considered as pressure from Washington, which never left the attempts to reconcile Armenia and Turkey. However, on the other hand, no one really knows how exactly it must be done; the mere ratification of Protocols cannot settle all the problems.

A qualitative leap occurred in the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. French National Assembly passed a bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide. Only the bill still has to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president of the republic. In all likelihood, so will it be. The Israeli Knesset, too, discussed the issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the State of Israel. The U.S. Congress passed Resolution 306 on the return of Christian, and first of all Armenian, churches in Turkey to their true owners, i.e. to the Armenian community of Istanbul, who are the sole successors of one and a half million Armenians slaughtered in 1915-1923. The Resolution is non-binding for Ankara, but it, at least, patted the nerves of Turkey.

The race for regional leadership between Turkey and Iran intensified during the past year, but so far none of these countries can boast of achievements. Turkish hysteria over the Armenian issue may prove costly for Ankara, as well as Iran's persistent desire to do anything to spite the “big Satan”, i.e. the United States. But most significant were, of course, the events in the Middle East and North Africa. The year of 2011 will be remembered for the collapse of the Arab world that, for some reason, received the name “Arab spring”. Protests that rose into upheaval, overthrow of the existing governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, as well as unrests in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria led Arab leaders to seriously worry about future. Particularly this applies to the oil monarchies of the Gulf, which in case of adverse developments, risk being left without power, and hence without oil and money.

If the ultimate goal of the “Arab Spring” is the return to tribal relations and to the civil war, we can say that the goal has almost been reached. 350 million Arabs are anxious as to spite each other, and in this situation there increases Iran's role as a stakeholder in the instability of Sunni Arab world. Lately the Arab world, specifically Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah made a statement that sounded like a bombshell.

At a conference of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) the King said: “I urge you all to move from a phase of cooperation to a phase of union within a single entity. State Council must come together to form a strong union. We need to help all brothers in the Arab world and refrain from conflicts and bloodshed. We must stand united and vigilant. We have learned from history and experience not to stand still when faced with reality. Whoever remains a mere spectator, will be lost... That is something we will not accept for the sake of our countries, our people, our stability and security.” To put it bluntly, King Abdullah advocates the establishment of a new Arab caliphate with its capital in Riyadh. It is beyond doubt that this caliphate can bring no peace, as the main religion there will be Wahhabi Islam, which presupposes terrorist attacks, assassinations and other acts that do not add respect to any of the three ancient religions.

In 2012, presidential elections will be held in the U.S., France and Russia. And although some observers attach hopes and expectations to these elections, it is all in vain. The policy of world powers proceeds not from the president’s personality (although it plays a role, too), but from the strategic goals of the state. And although it’s a little complicated with Russia, Vladimir Putin will obviously be elected president. All the statements on “democracy and freedom” are mere words; the West needs not Russian riots, it has enough problems even without them.