There is a stable tradition in our political life: after any talks on Artsakh, the government and its supporters say that Armenia has won a major diplomatic victory, and everything is moving towards a pro-Armenian solution. The opposition describes the same talks as a complete failure and a disgrace. The trilateral meeting in Brussels was no exception. In addition to the traditional assessments, the pro-Russian opposition hopes that since the mediator of the talks was the President of the European Council Charles Michel, Putin will be very upset and angry with Pashinyan, and in that case, maybe the opposition will be lucky. I can “calm down” those figures, without agreeing on the details of the settlement with the Kremlin, the Armenian side would not enter into any negotiations. And, unlike the pro-Western opposition, I do not think that is wrong.
Questions, however, remain.
- The Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan are instructed to work on the preparation of a peace treaty. Will this agreement include the special status of Artsakh? Our authorities say that they accept the five well-known points of Azerbaijan as a precondition, but they have their corrections. Agree, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status is not a “slight correction” given that Azerbaijan insists that such a geographical concept does not exist at all.
- Do border issues include so-called “enclaves”? At least, I noticed such hints in the Prime Minister’s speech at the government session yesterday.
- In our small space, where every meter counts, is a mirror-like retreat a good idea? And given the events in Syunik months ago, and more recently in Parukh and Karaglukh, can Azerbaijan be trusted in this matter?
All these questions remain unanswered for now.
…In 1997, the first president of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian in his famous article called on society and political forces to choose between the bad and the worst. The bad thing at the time was the phased option he offered, and the worst was delaying the issue. The second option was chosen. The results are known. Now we can say that we live in the worst conditions. And again we are faced with a choice. I would say we have to choose between terrible evil and catastrophic evil. The problem is, however, that the three leaders who succeeded Ter-Petrossian do not say clearly and in detail which is worse. We do not even know what is the least evil. If only we knew.
Read also
Aram Abrahamyan
