Armenia: Hopeless hesitations between the past and the present

Various ideas regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict’s resolution appear in abundance, in the Armenian media, lately. Such attempts signal confusion of the official Yerevan in light of inept foreign policy. In fact, it is by attempting to recollect on some resolution plans proposed in the 1990s that Armenian experts indirectly acknowledge the impasse country’s leadership find itself in.

Yearning for "Gilmore plan"

It is commonly known that Armenia is worried about the failure to sever Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan. International community will not accept the establishment of a second Armenian state in the occupied territories while annexation of Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia sounds ridiculous even to the most chauvinist of Armenian politicians. Silly plan of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs with regard to the "common state" today is useless even for propaganda purposes. Armenian experts explicitly acknowledge the fact (See: Игорь Мурадян. Что произошло с "планом Гилмора" // "Иратес de facto", 2 July, 2013).

Naturally, this situation has produced a predicament for the Armenia’s foreign policy. In fact, official Yerevan is lost. Therefore, it is compelled to make chaotic and obscure maneuvers, manifested in the opinions and analytical publications by the Armenian experts. There are several distinctive points. Firstly, Armenia’s leaders fail to see the prospects of statehood. Some analysts associate it with "incapability of Armenian politicians to understand the true essence of the political processes developing in the world" (see: abovementioned article). Their political outlook is out of touch.

Armenian political establishment has a political mindset that was shaped under the 200 years old external influences. It amounted to a state-level radical nationalism and chauvinism in the 1990s. Having regarded all the processes and changes from this very angle, Armenians were unable to embrace real developments. A vivid testimony is the position of the official Yerevan with respect to the Nagorno Karabakh issue.

Another aspect has to do with conducting of poor and unsubstantiated policy by Armenia. Scrutiny of the official Yerevan’s policy in this direction reveals nothing but claims against the neighbors. Armenians seem to think that Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Russia and Turkey are indebted to them in political, economic, cultural and other fields. Therefore, they expect groundless dividends from each country. Given posture, taken instead of conducting constructive and sound policy, will certainly never be productive.

Another feature, evident in the Armenia’s foreign policy, is a whimsical behavior towards its patrons. Official Yerevan believes that policies of the U.S., Europe and Russia regarding the South Caucasus must only be compatible with Armenia’s interests; otherwise the region may well be turned into a blood bath. For that reason, Armenia’s media "make a mountain out of a molehill" on any negative idea voiced about Azerbaijan or Turkey. Oftentimes, they do not content themselves with mere propaganda – renewed territorial claims are made. It is sufficed to recall remarks of several officials made in connection with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

The way Armenia seeks to profit from the current situation regarding Iran is an issue that evokes interest. Evidently, official Yerevan aims to draw attention to two aspects. First, Armenia is purported as "Syria of the South Caucasus". The objective is to boost the country’s geopolitical significance. Moreover, they claim Armenia to be the only regional country capable of establishing highly advanced military organization (See: Наира Айрумян. Даже с помощью "Смерчей" Баку не получит Карабах. // www.lragir.am 18 July, 2013). Second, Armenia employs all means of blackmail and provocation to solve the Nagorno Karabakh issue in its favor. One feature that attests to the very fact is a reintroduction of a project named "Gilmore plan" into the political agenda.

Consequences of abusing geopolitics

Harry Gilmore is one of former U.S. ambassadors to Armenia. Based on the instruction of Madeline Albright, in the late 90s, he had come up with the document concerning the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Several principles were outlined in the document with respect to the settlement. Some aspects contain contradictions. Nevertheless, the primary principle is related to the recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. From the very outset Armenian analysts dubbed the plan as unacceptable, whereas now, they dismiss the section that dealt with territorial integrity and highlight other principles that are more consistent with their interests (See: previously mentioned source).

The objective is clear. They seek to gain from geopolitical processes developing on the global scale. On the other hand, they present themselves as the ones committed to dialogue. It is by reanimating an obsolete "plan" drafted by the U.S. that they intend to show reverence to the West while implying that Europe and Russia are incapacitated in "just" resolution of the conflict. In this connection, they also criticize Minsk Group of the OSCE because at least in declarations they recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. What really provokes Armenia’s outrage is the inability of the OSCE to do anything; namely, an impotence to sever Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Course of developments towards lack of justification of Armenia’s aggression also frustrates official Yerevan.

In the meantime, Yerevan is hopeful that the West no longer accepts Turkey as a regional leader. Deeming this an opportunity, Armenians think that Azerbaijan has lost its chance to restore its territorial integrity. They even fancy of coercing Azerbaijanis to reconcile with the situation based on some bogus war scenario. Allegedly, the large powers promote a scenario where in the event of military operations Azerbaijan would gain some success but suffer heavy losses. Thus, Armenians would realize that they cannot maintain further control over the occupied territories while Azerbaijanis recognize the inconceivability of restoring territorial integrity by means of war.

Certainly, such ideas are devised to convince the most naive. The reality is quite different. Under all existing international norms, Azerbaijan reserves the right to restore its territorial integrity. Bargaining on this issue is pointless, and Armenians are acutely aware of that. So, they come up with different spurious arguments to produce suitable theses. Moreover, Azerbaijan clearly has no intentions of waging a war against anybody. The only demand of the official Baku is a restoration of its territorial integrity; something that it is fully entitled to.

In the meantime, the past has already demonstrated how substantiated Azerbaijani leadership’s foreign policy is. The country has elevated to a regional leader position. Sustainable development has been achieved in all the fields. Military prowess is growing year-on-year. The developments are coupled with enhancement of ties with large countries of the world and the region. New, positive content of Azerbaijan’s relations with Russia and Iran cannot but irritate Armenia’s leaders. Moscow sells advanced weaponry to Azerbaijan while Tehran intends to attach particular attention to its cooperation with its neighbors.

This only attests to growingly upright position of Azerbaijan in the region. It is clear that Armenia’s whims would no longer be tolerated as they once were in the 90s. Apparently, the country is compelled to hold on to dusty plans produced from the archives. It is not the sanctuary that awaits Armenia at the end of this way but even a greater precipice.

Newtimes.az