These is no “international community”. This is just internationalist jargon. There are bloks of countries with common interests that fight other bloks. “International community” is once again a chaos like in 19th century. And international situation is moving towards big calamities: a coming world financial crisis, worsening regional conflicts (Russia-Georgia-US, US-Myanmar-China, Iraq-Kurds-Turkey, Iran, etc., etc), increasing oil prices, dollar inflation and a possible boycot of 2008 Olympic Games.

Should I draw some parallels or you will guess it?

What countries like Armenia have to do in all this mess is gather some foodstuffs and become enthusiastic observers.

Few people, it would seem, although I would say that Tom does genuinely believe in peace even if the hawks elsewhere might not. What concerns me more, however, is that the way things are going, if this conflict is left to drag on without any pressure for a real compromise solutions, then really, when a deal is signed, some high degree of autonomy inside Azerbaijan will be the most that Armenians there can get.

Still, as one who does not believe in nationalist land grabs, I am not against that in principle. However, I do believe that after a war the right to self-determination should take precedence. Then again, I also realize the validity of your argument that this would be a dangerous precedent for the international community to allow to happen. Well, anyway, I think we can forget about a new push for peace before next year’s presidential elections in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but I would prefer this situation resolved sooner rather than later.

And when do you foresee the recognition of the election - after the Karabakh conflict resolution?

Yes, after the conflict settlement. I mean the fact is that legally Nagorno-Karabakh is seen as an occupied territory. Legally it is part of Azerbaijan. I support the territorial integrity of all the member countries Caspian Cooperation, Armenia, as well as Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is not part of Armenia. Georgia may be of Armenian origin but that does not mean to recognize it as part of Armenia. Serbia has majority of Albanians and it does not mean they are part of Serbia. Cyprus has Turkish population and that does not mean that they are part of Cyprus. I support territorial integrity of all member countries, that includes Cyprus, that includes Georgia, that includes Russia, that includes Moldova, that includes Azerbaijan. I exclude the people of Armenia. But I am telling the truth. That is what people outside Armenia think of it.

http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=50602

The so-called “West” is not going to be recognizing Artsakh. And this puts us, Armenians, in a difficult situation:

1. I agree with Onnik that the borders have to be opened. But,
2. The opening of the borders is contingent upon concessions to Azerbaijan, the giving up of territory that belongs to Armenians, that is not acceptable, generally speaking about Armenians.

This kind of situation is, of course, called a “problem.” We have a “problem” here. A very big, rather severely copulations-intensive, seemingly unsolvable problem.

Who is going to solve this problem? You? Me? Well, if we are going to solve this problem then we have to take into consideration what it means in the wider context, what it means in the global, meaning in the US/Europe, Russia, Iran, China/India context.

The “West,” meaning the US and its effeminate hangers-on, meaning the Brits, Inc., doesn’t want the Gharabagh war to end, just like it doesn’t want the Albanian-Serbian conflict to end: Why end the opportunity to put one Other against another? Why not let them continue to kill each other? Kissinger said that explicitly about the Iran-Iraq War. To boot, the “west” has a very good reason to keep the Gharabagh conflict going: In that case, it can offer to Azerbaijan the categorization of Armenians in Artsakh as “terrorists” in exchange for its cooperation in Iran, meaning destabilization of the government, in coordination with the Kurds to the west and the Arabs in the south and the Afghans in the east.

The big boys are in town, and you have to ask yourself, what can Armenia do for them. And the answer is pretty much nothing.

Armenia’s situation is contingent upon what I’ve said here and previously on this blog, in addition to the fact that Armenia gets its natural gas from Russia. Armenian cars run on natural gas, as I’m sure you know.

So, as I see it, that is copulation-intensive problem that is before us. It seems pretty impossible to solve, but, on the other hand, nothing is impossible.

Bizarre, and I have to question why people such as Shahnazaryan speak as “experts” on matters they obviously know nothing about. I mean, I wonder what all those hundreds of landmines I saw in the region were? Maybe Shahnazaryan will accuse HALO Trust of burying them themselves or something years before, chigidem. Stupid, but amazing to hear people still quote him despite photographs of minefields posted on this blog.

http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2006/08/25/meghvadzor-kashatagh-region/
http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2006/08/26/meghvadzor-kashatagh-region-2/
http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2006/08/26/suarassy-kashatagh-region/

You mean if Armenia recognizes NK independence eveything is going to be smooth? That’s a cause of war right there!

No, I meant if the international community including Azerbaijan recognized the independence of Nagorno Karabakh as part of a negotiated peace deal.

BTW: Regarding Tom’s interview, could you hear his English or was it overdubbed in Armenian? I know Tom spoke through a translator during the interview when it was recorded on Tuesday, but it’s interesting to know whether his answers and the translation can be compared in the final broadcast interview.

Armenia is not going to increase its security by making concessions to Azerbaijan. History has proved and it is our national experiece that Azerbaijan understands only power and killing. Any concession will be a sign of weekness for them. And they will not interpret it otherwise.

Maybe Fisk and Waal understand the sitation better than you but I would refrain for generalizing. The fact that they write lot of articles does not mean anything to me. They are getting paid for that.

Onnik, I realy don’t understand the logic of saying this: “What Armenia needs is recognition of independence for Nagorno Karabakh and the end to the conflict. ”

You mean if Armenia recognizes NK independence eveything is going to be smooth? That’s a cause of war right there! And De Vaal is far from suggesting that. He said today the he favours a guaratee for security for the NK Armenian population within the territory of Azerbaijan. And there is no force in the world except for the NK Army that can guarantee that security.

Saying, “Hey guys I am for peace! And this guy is against peace. I am good guy and he is bad guy” is not a good argument. Artificial peace is a cause of another, bigger war. It has been proved many times in history.

Still, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I don’t think that it will influence matters. What Armenia needs is recognition of independence for Nagorno Karabakh and the end to the conflict. I don’t think many people would disagree and certainly, Tom has not suggested anything other than that. Believing that Armenia can survive in the long term without resolving outstanding problems with Turkey and Azerbaijan, however, seems more like the greatest threat to its national security.

Meanwhile, I suppose you should add Armenians, Americans, Russians, and god knows who else to your list of people not to listen to because there are proponents of peace everywhere — including in the Republic of Armenia and also among both governmental and opposition parties as well as civil society. Thankfully, nationalist are a minority although unfortunately that’s not the case in Azerbaijan so I hope they too will listen to Tom when he launches the Azeri version of his book there.

He just did in an interview to Yerkir Media an hour ago.

One British journalist (Fisk) tells us to continue pressuring Turkey on the Genocide issue.

Another British journalist (De Waal) tells us to make peace with Azerbaijan by making concessions.

I have one thing to tell to my fellow Armenians, if Brits tell you to do something, you should do the dyametrically opposite…

REVELATIONS OF THE BRITISH JOURNALIST

AZG Armenian Daily
03/10/2007

British journalist Tomas de Val at the presentation of his book “Black garden” announced that the authorities of Armenia had come to an agreement with Azerbaijan to cede the territories.

According to him, Robert Kocharian doesn’t announce of it, as he is afraid to suffer the same fate as Levon Ter-Petrosian.

Tomas de Val underlined that the leaders of the two countries were not innocent with their peoples, and that was the reason why the settlement of the conflict was dragged out. As an example he mentioned about Ilham Aliyev’s speech in London, where Aliyev promised the highest autonomy to Karabakh, but he would never do similar announcement in Baku.