The fact of discussion in the UN Security Council is positive in itself. The problem of the encirclement of Artsakh has become a subject of debate at a high international court, and Armenia is also a full member of that court. In that case, our diplomacy has something to do here. For example, no one takes it seriously when the representative of Azerbaijan lies that people and goods can move freely through the Berdzor corridor. But the lie told at that level allows demanding or at least suggesting that the representatives of the relevant UN structures come and check whether goods and people pass through that place.
The speeches in the discussion were generally favorable to us. And in this matter, we should give credit to our diplomats. (By the way, our lawyers working with the ECHR did their job well). It is a mistake not to mention the services of the representatives of our state based on some political preferences. Of course, no matter how professional, diplomats cannot change the foreign policy vector (especially when it does not exist). Still, in a specific, limited space, they can work with members of the Security Council to ensure the most favorable speeches possible. That’s how it happened. All the speakers (except Russia) unequivocally demanded to open the corridor. Russia was slightly out of the general “trend” because that country has “trade” with Azerbaijan and Turkey. But one should talk about the position of Russia and other states cold-heartedly, without emotions, and without trying to inflame hatred towards anyone.
Emotions must be “turned on” when discussing our compatriots under siege. But they must also be related to pragmatic goals. I am sure that we will help the Armenians who are in trouble if we show the world and the enemy that we are united on specific issues and not divided into “pro-Russian” and “pro-Western,” “anti-present” and “anti-former” groups. For example, isn’t it possible that when adopting a statement of the National Assembly on this issue, the factions should negotiate in advance and formulate such a text acceptably unanimously? Or, it would be good if the ruling party or the pro-government public organization would organize a demonstration themselves as a sign of solidarity with the people of Artsakh.
All that seems like a fantasy today. But as I saw with my own eyes in 1988, communists and anti-communists, the policeman and the ones with a problem with the law, the worker and the academicians, all, first of all, became Armenians, I believe it is possible. Especially since, at that time, people united around the same problem.
Read also
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
