Everything seems to be said about Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s speech at the Congress of the Armenian National Congress. The fans of the first President expressed their unreserved delight while the opponents expressed their enmity and hatred. Ter-Petrosyan’s next attempt to debate on Karabakh conflict once again failed.
Unlike those who feel delighted and pick on, I’m not going to put me in the place of an incomparable expert who is aware of all the nuances and makes a judgment from this height. As a citizen, I certainly have my doubts about the sanity of the leadership of the neighboring country as well as negotiating and agreeing with these people on any program. But now, I would like to talk about a different issue, about the level of arguments.
When the critics of a phenomenon, in this case, a text do not have the willingness or sufficient outlook to say anything about the content of this text, they begin to get into the details of the author’s motivation by their imagination. In the case of Ter-Petrosyan’s speech, the easiest thing to say is that pertaining to this issue, he stands in support to the government with a hope to receive a few seats in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Or, more absurd, he says because he wants to prove that the year of 1997 was right.
First, you can be right 20 years ago and now, insist on the same thing and be wrong. Secondly, even if we assume that the first President is very interested in the mandates, then the easier way to get them is to act from extreme “uncompromising” positions. My 22-year experience of covering the elections tells me that those who act with sharper and “slamming” speeches by urging to hang and quarter the authorities therewith to raise their own price are engaged in the trade of mandates.
Certainly, Ter-Petrosian can be mistaken and misled. In particular, the frame of mind that all our problems and flaws are based on unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict seems wrong to me. But those who say that this issue should be resolved through concessions, they must say where they see the solution. In drinking tea in Baku? I am all for it, only the steps that would result in this desired snapshot should be presented.
The only indicator of the level of arguments, in my opinion, is their being rational and realistic. Otherwise, everything leads to empty dreams. For example, Putin will be so furious at Turkey for the murder of the Russian Ambassador that he will donate the Masis Mountain to us.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
