When after the vote in the PACE it turned out that only one of the two anti-Armenian reports has been adopted, many people were puzzled because people who were more than we believed that both reports will be rejected, while the pessimists, on the contrary, were sure that in both cases, the anti-Armenian options would get the most votes. Those who were thinking so were counting the votes of Azerbaijanis in mind and then adding them to the “big bro’s” votes – the Turks and then the Ukranians, because we had voted in support for Russia’s version on Crimea. And so on. So it happened. Ukrainians unanimously voted in favor of Azerbaijan’s options, and the very next day, our “analysts” began to explain to us that if we had voted in favor of Ukraine on Crimea, now, they would not act against us. Meanwhile, we could have thought more logically. We could have thought to understand that Ukrainians, however, cannot defend the right to self-determination of Karabakh for the very simple reason that since they had acted opportune or inopportune, they act and will act in favor of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
The same for the Georgians. Because parallel to the Karabakh issue, there is also Abkhazia issue. Moreover, the political benefit, as always, is more important than the good-neighborly relations between the peoples, and there was not been a single case prior to the events in Crimea that Ukrainians or Georgians have acted to the detriment of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. And it is quite normal and logical because the Georgians also have problems with Abkhazia and Ossetia, and no need to move these political interests to the “age-old friendship” arena of the peoples and get offended from each other. As for the representative of Turkish delegation, Margar Yesayan, it didn’t worth getting particularly upset even for the latter’s pro-Azerbaijani voting, and if we wanted to be surprised, we would be more surprised at the stance of other members of the Turkish delegation if they all were present and taken part in the voting, in fact, Walter’s report would also be adopted, while we are more surprised at Margar Yesayan’s participation that Azerbaijanis on the missing members of the Turkish delegation.
Certainly, the Turkish delegation could give a chance to one of its members, specifically to Margar Yesayan, to be absent from voting and to show him at his best to Armenians, and let’s agree that it would be a bit much for our Turkish-citizen fellow. Or, which is more likely, Margar Yesayan could be offered to be absent from the vote but the latter could voluntarily refuse from such lust and donation. The most possibility is that apparently, it was clear from the onset that one of the reports would be adopted and the other rejected. Incidentally, Walter’s report could be adopted but not Milica’s report. And it was advantageous for everyone. Even to the Armenians. And it was obvious that by the overall results of the vote, the Azerbaijanis were more defeated than we. Because this time, Azerbaijanis were far more away from reality and politics than we, and the members of our delegation for the first time quite closely cooperated with each other. But, of course, considering this is a victory is an exaggeration and irrelevant enthusiasm.
Voskan YEREVANTSY
Read also
Aravot Daily
