One more "road map" or just another myth?

PanARMENIAN.Net - In the opinion of a number of experts, an impression was created that Armenia signed a second "road map", this time on the Karabakh issue. A little cleared the air Minister of Foreign Affairs of France Bernard Kouchner, who stated that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan held difficult talks on Nagorno Karabakh. "There is a lot of misunderstanding between the sides. Each insists on going his own way. But we shouldn't lose heart. Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan have still much to do," emphasized the French FM. As for the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia Elmar Mammadiarov and Edward Nalbandyan, they refused to comment on the results of the meeting. It is quite probable that Bryza in a pair of days will deny his own words, saying he was "improperly translated…" We are already accustomed to it.

It is here appropriate to note that before the meeting there were rumors, very reliable by the way, that the meeting might not take place. The reason was clear too - the USA was not able to duly press on both sides so that they would agree to sign just another "road map", this time on the Karabakh regulation issue. Let us remind that all these are surmises and observations, which, however, have had a recent tendency to come true if not completely, at least partially. Such was the case at the meeting in Prague, and before it at the BSEC summit in Yerevan. All these summits are interesting for the Armenian and Azerbaijani-Turkish societies from the point of view of one problem only: how far is it possible to push one's interests via diplomacy or other means, without resorting to force; or, to put it more simply, how much does a conflicting party yield to the pressure from the outside? By the way it is absolutely unimportant who presses: Russia or the USA. However strange it may sound, in the South Caucasus region the stances of Washington and Moscow in the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations have so far matched. The new US Administration has not yet gained confidence; for the last 20 years Russia has conducted no policy at all in the Caucasus, and she simply desires to preserve what remains. And remains only Armenia, which, by the way, is more and more frequently looking to the West. Under such circumstances no one will settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, especially since there is almost nothing to be settled. No president of Armenia, if he values his life, will ever sign a murderous agreement with Baku, whose fruits will be first of all used by Turkey, and then by great powers. Everybody knows it. As in the case of signing the Armenian-Turkish agreement, we can predict, draw conclusions, but it is always appropriate to remember that Armenia will sign no single document without the consent of the Nagorno-Karabakh people. At least it is what official Yerevan keeps saying.

But a strange thing happens: both of the alleged "road maps" are signed precisely on the eve of the days, which are significant for Armenia and the Armenian people both in the tragic and heroic sense of the word: April 24 and May 9. Coincidences, as is known, do not occur in the history, they are simply well prepared. The question is, how well Armenia and its leadership were aware of that "coincidence". The question is far from being empty, if we take into consideration the existing complex situation in the region. Just have a look: always unstable Georgia that was never able to become a state; a sultanate, indebted to natural reserves and therefore most dangerous and most vulnerable; Turkey, which is dangerous only by definition, and Iran, without which Armenia cannot actually survive, since, other conditions being equal, Teheran is more inclined to support "the unfaithful", than the Sunnis or the odd Georgians. Thus, it so happens that even a casually dropped word causes an ambiguous and sometimes also an inadequate reaction in Armenia and NKR. Unfortunately, once again we have to admit that Armenian diplomacy is not presently its best. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is very important indeed and it is necessary, but to make it one of the priorities of a country's foreign policy would be unreasonable. The priorities of a state must be based on physical realities of the region, and we shouldn't expect that with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey anything can be changed in the region. Nothing will be changed; the situation may even worsen, although this must be the limit. In the absence of the national idea, which has been being discussed for two decades already, even a tiniest victory in the diplomatic field might be received as defeat, because it is aimless and amuses only one's pride.

As far as the summit of "Eastern Partnership" is concerned, what can draw Armenia is only the absence of a postulate in the declaration, regarding "territorial integrity" of a country, participant in the program.

Karine Ter-Sahakyan