QuoteReplyTopic: The future of Karabakh Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 10:28
Currently the negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, resulting from Armenian agression into sovereign Azeri Turk territory, are stalled. I am just interested to know the opinions of forum members of what the future will bring.
Obviously it is in the best interest of everybody that a conflict and resurgence of violance be avoided, and the objective is to achieve a solution allowing as many refugees as possible to return. Of course any solution should also maintiain an ethnic seggregation between Armenians and Azeri Turks as the two people have shown that they are utterly incapable of living together in peace.
So my proposal in order to meet these objectives would be to cede the currently occupied territory of Karabakh to Armenia with the Lachin corridor in order to provide continuity between Armenia and the Karabakh enclave. In return Armenia must cede the Zanzibar corridor to provide a continuty between Azerbaijan and the Nakchievan exclave.
All Armenian troops must immediately and uncoditionally withdraw from the rest of the sovereign Azerbaijan territories, namely the districts of Gubadli, Zengilan,Kelebecer,Agdam,Fizuli,Jabrail.
Is this acceptable to the Armenian side, and if not - what is their counterproposal?
give Zanzibar (Zangezur) back to Azeries? What about the people? there
are Armenians living there? What about Iran? that is Armenia's only
connection with Iran.
Armenia is the agressor? karabakh was an autonomous republic and in
1989 the people decided to leave Azerbaidjan. Its not up to the Azeri
government who rules Karabakh, but to the people who live in Karabakh.
I have a feeling this thread is going to have a bleak future...
ok, Zangezur. I was wondering what the name of that province was.
What about the people? there
are Armenians living there?
They should be moved to Lachin. Azeris lived in Lanchin as well (or used to live before the Armenian invasion).
What about Iran? that is Armenia's only
connection with Iran.
It is also Azerbaijan's only connection with Nakchievan and Turkey.
I have a feeling this thread is going to have a bleak future...
I did not want to turn it into you-did-this-you-did-that kind of thread, so I ask that you offer constructive and fair suggestions towards the resolution of the problem. How do you see the resolution of this conflict? What wil the future bring? Is it at all possible to resolve it through non-violant means?
Since proposing the possibility of moving Armenians from Zangezur to
Lachin is near delusional, I propose something even more delusional.
How about we remove all the Turks from Eastern Turkey (should we call
this Western Armenia now) and move all the Armenians from Zangezur to
the Black Sea Coast
Armenian invasion? there wouldnt have been an invasion if Azeri forces
hadnt attacked in the first place, and it wasnt Armenian invasion, it
was Karabakh-Armenian.
seriously dude, sometimes you come up with the most proposterous ideas
ever...and since no one gives a damn about Nagorno Karabakh except
Armenians and Turks this is going to end up as another flame war.
The Azeris have no choice but to officially acknowledge Nagorno-Karabagh as being an independent republic. It is possible that during the negotiations, Armenia would accept giving some of the buffer zone that it occupied (which is located outside the frontiers of Nagorno-Karabagh) but nothing else. Why? Because Karabagh and Armenia don't have to be treated as the losers of the war.
Sovereign Armenia doesn't have to give any part of its territory to Azerbaijan. There's absolutely no point in doing that, especially when Nakhichevan has no respect to Armenian cultural heritage of its territory. The only thing that it can cede is access to the road that links Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan, and that is only if Azerbaijan accepts opening its own borders.
The Azeris have no choice but to officially acknowledge Nagorno-Karabagh as being an independent republic.
Legally NK is a secetionist entity created on the ethnic cleansing a million Azeri Turks, and it will never be recognized as an independent republic for so long as it does not provide remedy to all the refugees displaced during its creation.
It is possible that during the negotiations, Armenia would accept giving some of the buffer zone that it occupied (which is located outside the frontiers of Nagorno-Karabagh) but nothing else.
Armenia, has no choice but to vacate ALL the territories illegally occupied by her and recognized internationally as being under the soveregnity of Azerbaijan.
Sovereign Armenia doesn't have to give any part of its territory to Azerbaijan.
An Armenia that does not recognize the soveregnity of another state, expects her soveregnity to be recognized? On what grounds?
There's absolutely no point in doing that, especially when Nakhichevan has no respect to Armenian cultural heritage of its territory. The only thing that it can cede is access to the road that links Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan, and that is only if Azerbaijan accepts opening its own borders.
What an intransigent attitude. So you are leaving Azerbaijan no choice but to reclaim by force what was taken from her by force. Sooner or later Armenian will have to vacate the territories occupied by her and compromise. With the current climate in the region her position is simly unsustainable against the growing millitary and economic power of Azerbaijan.
Legally NK is a secetionist entity created on the ethnic cleansing
a million Azeri Turks, and it will never be recognized as an
independent republic for so long as it does not provide remedy to all
the refugees displaced during its creation.
Even though Azerbaijan is very well capable of settling them in houses which were previously used by Armenians, it doesn't do it. Why? To get some legitimacy in the conflict? What about all the Armenian refugees who escaped from both NKR and Azerbaijan?
Armenia, has no choice but to vacate ALL the territories illegally occupied by her and recognized internationally as being under the soveregnity of Azerbaijan.
You must accept that those borders (and many other borders) were artificially created by a third party (the Soviet Union, in our case). Furthermore, Nagorno-Karabagh was an autonomous republic and its inhabitants decided to separate from Azerbaijan during a referendum before the war, all by respecting Soviet law.
An Armenia that does not recognize the soveregnity of another state, expects her soveregnity to be recognized? On what grounds?
Separating Zangezour from Armenia is pointless and would only create more trouble for its inhabitants, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
If Azerbaijan really is a growing military power, it would have already been marching into Karabagh at this instant.
Why? Because Karabagh and Armenia don't have to be treated as the losers of the war.
Armenia failed to gain victory in the conflict because Azerbaijan never specified defeat in a legal document. The war is ongoing, there is no peace now, what we have at the moment is a ceasefire. In order to avoid further bloodshed and renewal of hostilitiies an acceptable peace agreement must be signed. Your triumphalist and condescending attitude towards the Turkish side is not helping towards reaching this objective in any way. At the moment Armenia has territoritorial claims towards at least 3 of her 4 neighbours. Armenia must stop these maximalist demands, and try to reach a compromise. Armenia should not bite more than she can chew relying on an uninterrupted Russian support. A small instability in neighbouring Russia would be sufficient to turn around the tabels, and tilt the balance of power badly in favor of her opponents; or even an interruption of the energt supplies from Russia would render Armenia helpless. It is not in Armenia's best interest to escalate the situtation.
Furthermore, Nagorno-Karabagh was an autonomous republic and its inhabitants decided to separate from Azerbaijan during a referendum before the war, all by respecting Soviet law.
Against the will of the Azeri Turks who also lived in the territoritory before they were forced out.
Legally NK is a secetionist entity created on the ethnic cleansing a
million Azeri Turks, and it will never be recognized as an independent
republic for so long as it does not provide remedy to all the refugees
displaced during its creation.
There were not a million people living in
Karabagh, let alone a
million Azeris (we already said Azeri refugees were around 750,000, not
1 million). The population of Karabagh in 1920 was over 90%
Armenian, and just before the war it was over 75%. The Azeri government
altered the demographics by moving in hordes of Azeris into Karabagh
and Nakhichevan, which lost all of its Armenian population (and lately
they destroyed all trace that Armenians existed in Nakhichevan by
destroying ancient Armenian cemeteries via military/government order). Funny how no one mentions that!
Armenia doesn't have any outrageous demands, it only wants to
ensure Karabagh does not fall under Azeri occupation (because of their
failure to end their discriminatory policies through peaceful means).
The buffer zone is only occupied because otherwise Karabagh would be
landlocked in Azerbaijan and subsequently blockaded from all sides.
Giving up the buffer zone would be suicide. Maybe if Turkey and
Azerbaijan lift their blockades then they can start talking about
giving lands back. First they must recognize Armenia exists as their
neighbor...
I don't see
Turkey or Azerbaijan giving back territories they took from Armenia
through war, so I don't see why Armenia should act any different
(unless you have double standards?). Call it stubborn, but why should
tiny Armenia give anything up when it has so little compared to its
neighbors? And please don't tell me Armenia is in better shape than
Azerbaijan... Azerbaijan has sea access and oil deposits/pipelines,
while Armenia is landlocked, blockaded on both sides and with no
natural resources. Armenia's only real trading partner, Iran, is a step
away from being sanctioned by the U.N. Times are not good for Armenia
in this respect, which is why they would not give up an inch of land to
anybody...
Originally posted by bg_turk
Armenia failed to gain victory in the conflict because
Azerbaijan never specified defeat in a legal document.
Legally you may be right. But lets be realistic...who controls
Karabagh? Not Azerbaijan. Everyday they talk about how they're going to
get the lands back...if they could, they would do it. The point is that
they can't.
Originally posted by bg_turk
It is not in Armenia's best interest to escalate the situtation.
Thats what Aliyev and his commanders thought
the first time around. Its not in Azerbaijan's best interest to provoke
Armenians to go to war. Not according to the last war, anyway. The
Azeri military, with more soldiers and better weapons, fighting from a
defensive position on a mountainous province, and they still lose? If
they couldn't defend an occupied province from an inferior enemy, how would
they attack and take it when the enemy is now prepared and in defensive positions? I don't think you know how mountainous
Karabagh actually is. I've been there, and all I can tell the Azeris is
"good luck".
Question of the day: Why is it taking
Azerbaijan over a decade to house its refugees (Armenia took care of
this problem years ago)? Are they even taking any steps towards this
problem, or are they simply leaving them homeless on purpose in order
to muster hatred among Azeris towards Armenians for a future war
effort? Hmm...
My purpose in opening this thread was to find constructive suggestions as to the future of the conflict, but clearly it is difficult when the parties are still bitterly fighting against each other.
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival
There were not a million people living in
Karabagh, let alone a
million Azeris (we already said Azeri refugees were around 750,000, not
1 million).
The Azeri refugees from the conflict amount to more than a million, and they were not only expelled from Karabakh butt from the surrounding territories and Armenia (mainly Ararat region).
I quote from
Undeclared War: The Nagorn- Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered Svante E. Cornell Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. XX, No. 4, Summer 1997
Not only the territory of the NKAO was under the control of Armenian forces, but also neighbouring and surrounding regions, which were homogeneously Azeri-populated. Totally, over 20% of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan remains under occupation. This led to a severe refugee crisis in Azerbaijan. In addition to the near 300000 refugees that had arrived from Armenia from 1988 onwards, the internally displaced persons leaving their homes in Nagorno Karabakh and its surrounding areas amount to between 600000 and 800000 people, depending on the sources. Thus Azerbaijan had to provide shelter for between 1000000 and 1200000 people.
The Azeri government
altered the demographics by moving in hordes of Azeris into Karabagh
and Nakhichevan, which lost all of its Armenian population (and lately
they destroyed all trace that Armenians existed in Nakhichevan by
destroying ancient Armenian cemeteries via military/government order). Funny how no one mentions that!
Condemnable as they are these acts against Armenian cultural heritage in Nakchievan, if at all true, for I have yet to see some independent non-Armenians sources for them, the systematic campaign of cleansing all Azeri and Turkish culture from Armenia must not be overlooked either. Today not a single trace of Turkishness remains in Armenia, even though historically and up until recently in some regions (as Ararat) Turks have lived in substantial numbers.
Armenia doesn't have any outrageous demands, it only wants to
ensure Karabagh does not fall under Azeri occupation
Karabakh cannot fall under Azeri occupation, because legally and internationally it is part of Azerbiajan. The Armenians in NK can invoke the principe of self-determination for their seperatist and cleansing activities until the cow come home, but the UN is abundantly clear that self-determination does not necessarily mean secession:
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs concerning the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair ... the territorial integrity of sovereign and independent states.
The struggle for self-determination, in itself, clearly reflects the desire of the Armenian population of Karabakh. This is not illegitimate, nor is it contrary to International Law. What is illegitimate and illegal is the practices of scorched earth and brutal attacks on civilian population, notably in areas that had a homogeneous Azerbaijani population, in the intention to militarily acquire as much territory as possible.
Was it self-determination and self-defense that lead Armenia to occupy the surrounding regions which were homogenously Azeri populated, expell all women and children from those regions, and commit massacres against hundreds in Khojaly? The Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council calls for the recognition of Armenian acts against civilian acts Azeri Turks as acts of Genocide in a declaration supported by Luxemburg, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Turkey, Albania among others:
On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city.
Armenia's only real trading partner, Iran, is a step
away from being sanctioned by the U.N. Times are not good for Armenia
in this respect, which is why they would not give up an inch of land to
anybody..
This is precisely why I am saying Armenia should compromise now while it still has the upper hand, for in the end in the hope of getting more, it may loose everything. Take the example of Cyprus. If Denktash had compromised before the Greek Administration had entered the EU, the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey would have been in a much better situation. What happened is that Denktash's uncompromising policy strengthened the hand of Greek hardliners on the south of the buffer zone and gave them EU leverage.
Question of the day: Why is it taking
Azerbaijan over a decade to house its refugees (Armenia took care of
this problem years ago)? Are they even taking any steps towards this
problem, or are they simply leaving them homeless on purpose in order
to muster hatred among Azeris towards Armenians for a future war
effort? Hmm...
You are being very arrogant in asking this question. As if it is not enough that Armenia forced these people out of their homes, now she is blaming others that they cannot provide housing to the victims of her agression. Some 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 Azeris have been displaced before, during and after the conflict. The total population of Azerbaijan being less than seven and a half million, the impact on the country of such a refugee flow is easy to imagine. (10 to 15% of the population of the country consists of displaced persons, some of whom are still living without permanent housing or assistance).
As Prof. Kornell states: " During 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provided assistance to a meager 53000 people. Although the aid was increased to cover approximately 300000 by the end of 1994, the UNHCR provides assistance only to refugees that crossed an international border, but not to internally displaced persons. The amount of foreign aid allocated to Azerbaijan remains grossly disproportionate to the condition of the country. This fact can be related to two main factors : First of all, the indifferent or even hostile attitude towards Azerbaijan in at least three of the major powers, where Armenian pressure groups are of considerable influence in the policy-making process. Second, the absence of the so-called CNN-effect, that is the effect of the presence of western media which has proven to be so crucially important in influencing western governments to take actions."
Azerbaijan is the only former Soviet republic that is denied U.S. aid, whereas Armenia is the highest per capita recipient among these states in parts thanks to you and your kin in the diaspora.
As to your self-lamentation in the end that Azeris hate Armenians because of the failure of the Azeri government to provide housing, you are completely off the mark again ... what flames hate is the the very Armenian agression on them that you are defening here.
In conclusion I quote again from Prof. Cornell's work:
Although our brief analysis of the conflict is not extensive enough to show the whole scope of the situation, a few conclusions are evident.
The definition of the conflict as an internal conflict by the major powers and by International Organizations is clearly uncertified. A closer examination of the history of the conflict, and the legally binding decisions taken, clearly demonstrates that the Republic of Armenia repeatedly has violated the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and has been waging a war, though undeclared, of aggression against Azerbaijan. This aggression has remained unnoted by the major International institutions charged with upholding International Law; all important institutions and major governments have failed to observe the true nature of the conflict. The aggression has led to a massive flow of refugees which has caused great damage to the economic, political and social structure of Azerbaijan. Mass human rights violations have remained unpunished ; the policies of ethnic cleansing and use of brute force for the acquisition of territory have once again been implicitly recognized by the International community. The failure of the International community to correctly evaluate the nature of the conflict is so flagrant that it can not easily be explained as simple incompetence or even irresponsibility. It does indeed seem that the definition of the conflict as internal rather was intentional ; it served the interests of certain important forces. The Russian Federation. Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the intentions of Russia in what it has termed its near abroad have become clearer and clearer. Russia intends to reestablish its sphere of influence within the borders of the former Soviet Union. With respect to Azerbaijan, this policy was unveiled when the nationalist Government of Ablfez Elibey refused to enter the CIS in 1992. This resulted in a ill concealed support by Russian troops to Armenian forces in their war against Azerbaijan. The government was forced to resign and Azerbaijan reentered the CIS four months late. Russia is still pressing for the right to post troops on the Azeri/Iranian border, claiming that Azerbaijan is unable to control the common CIS - border with Iran. Thus the Russian policy towards the Caucasus has been coherently determined by a policy of divide et impera. This policy has been successful in bringing back Georgia and Armenia under Russian de facto control, as well as to bring Azerbaijan down to its knees. As for the United States of America, its policy towards the conflict has been characterized by two main factors : First of all, the recognition of the Transcaucasus as being the backyard of Russia. Russian officials have openly stated that since Russia does not mix into the activities of the U.S. in Central America, the U.S. should not interfere in Russias policy in the Caucasus. Accepting this argument, the Bush and Clinton administrations have put priority to their partnership with Russia rather than to pursue an active policy in the Caucasus. As far as the U.S. have had a policy in the region, it has been effectively influenced by Armenian pressure groups in the U.S. Congress. The enactment of the Freedoms Support Acts section 907a is only the most blatant example of this. As a result, three of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are more or less biased towards Armenia in the conflict (including France, where a substantial Armenian minority exists, which has always been politically active.) This is the only possible explanation to the formulation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and their implications - or rather absence of implications- for the conflict. Still, it is astonishing to what an extent the attitude of the major powers is able to influence the actions of the international community even in the Humanitarian field - not to speak of the general perceptions reigning about the conflict. The quasi-absence of foreign aid to Azerbaijan is inexplicable by logical grounds ; It is an area which is close to Europe, which should be a factor to increase its noticeability; it is easily accessible by the territories of either Turkey (through Nakhichevan) or Russia. The only explanation is that the will to provide relief to Azerbaijani refugees was absent. As of today, there seems to be no change in the position of the international community on the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Generally speaking, the lack of interest of the world community for the Caucasus in general was further clarified with the bloody Russian invasion of Chechnya in the first months of 1995. The human rights violations committed there are not the subject for our discussion; however the mute response of the western world to that event as well only confirms the negligent attitude of the World Community. The only conclusion that can be drawn from our analysis is that it is a sad truth that legal principles, especially in the International arena, are pursued by considerations of power and necessity rather than principles of equality and justice.
Well Armenia had 200,000-300,000 refugees (out of a
population of 3 million), and then there was an earthquake in 1988
which killed 25,000 and left many more homeless. How was Armenia able
to take care of its refugees even while being landlocked and blockaded,
but Azerbaijan couldn't? The point of my question was to scrutinize the
government of Azerbaijan, not to laugh at others' misfortunes. Its
clear that they leave these people homeless on purpose in order to
generate hatred towards Armenians (afterall they have Armenian
flag-burning factories operating in Azerbaijan).
And what do you call the ethnic cleansing in
Nakhichevan, and the government order to destroy ancient Armenian
cemeteries? Do you really want Armenians living under such a regime?
Azerbaycan backed by Turkey, Turkic countries and the OIC should push for International recognition of the Karabag massacres and call for International investigators to determine if its fits the criteria for genocide.
Armenia must me made to pay for the suffering and pain it caused by its Illegal occupation and oppression of these people. It should be made to compensate the Million refugees and the twenty thousand killed and make a full public apology for its crimes.
It would be best for Armenia to do this, the region is moving forward rapidly. Armenia missed out on the
B-T-C and now the Kazakistan and Turkmenistan extenstions. The new railway project, the Nabucco project and more projects which will follow.
In other words, Armenia needs Azerbaycan and Turkey a whole lot more than they need Armenia. They can carry on like this and in the long run its Armenia who will regret its actions must deeply. Already 50% lived below the powerty line in Armenia, think 20-30-40 years into the future, it looks bleak especially realising there are no future region projects and that their missing out ofwhat their neighbours are getting.
Georgia is the biggest winner, its taken Armenia's role.
It would be best for Armenia to try and broker a deal now, Azerbaycan can wait untill its in an even more powerfull position. You see, after it gets all the projects up and running it has alot more lea-way and is in a better position to get justice
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Well Armenia had 200,000-300,000 refugees (out of a
population of 3 million), and then there was an earthquake in 1988
which killed 25,000 and left many more homeless.
After stealing the homes of more than a million Azeris, the Armenian regime had an abundance of accomodation to provid as yourself should have noted during your visits to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaycan backed by Turkey, Turkic countries and the OIC should push for International recognition of the Karabag massacres and call for International investigators to determine if its fits the criteria for genocide.
Bulldog, Azerbayjan is entirely isolated in this conflict and is backed by nobody. It is surrounded by hostile states which for one or another reason wish to keep it weakened and subdued.
Russia would never suppor Azerbaijan, for she sees in Armenia a historical and loyal ally. Iran, too is hostile towards Azerbaijan, fearing secetionist activitiy amongst its Azeri minority. USA, is also adopting a very pro-Armenian position, which can be easily explained as it is under heavy pressure from the Armenian lobby. Until recently the USA had an article which banned any direct aid to Azerbaijan, whereas Armenia, after Israel, was the biggest recipient of US aid.
Even Turkey falls very shor of supporting Azerbaijan. Apart from the economic blockade and the lobbying noises in the international arena in solidarity with Azerbaijan, Turkey has done absolutely nothing in economic or millitary assistance to Azerbaijan. The fact remains that Azerbaijan did not get the support it expected from Turkey. Azerbaijani dissatisfaction was especially strong when Turkey, after American pressure, lifted the total embargo on Armenia that it held together with Azerbaijan, which prevented even humanitarian assistance to Armenia to pass through Turkey. The Azeri reaction was commonly voiced in terms such as They claim to be our brothers but give bread to our enemies.
Another factor which constrains Turkey is the legacy of the 1915 genocide. This factor has been cleverly exploited by both the Armenian government and the diaspora, in such a way that any Turkish intervention would result in an outcry of a renewed "genocide" against the Armenian people.
Azerbayjan is entirely isolated in this conflict and is backed by nobody.
Today, its "officially" backed by nobody your correct, it was for years at the mercy of Armenian terrorism and ethnic cleansing programs. But nothing stays the same, today the B-T-C opened, the Iran crisis is growing, more deals have been signed, things from today have changed.
Russia would never suppor Azerbaijan, for she sees in Armenia a historical and loyal ally.
Your correct about Russia being anti-Azerbaycan but your reasons are incorrect. Armenia means as little to Russia as Azerbaycan does, it doesn't simply support Armenia cos its a "pal" or because it feels some kind of emotional attachment towards it. No, the reason is simple, Armenia is the only country left in the Caucauses which obeys them and is in their mercy. They have alot of dominance, millitary bases and its a last hold for the Russians. In addition, Russia didn't want to loose its oil prospects in Azerbaycan or want any Natural Gas and Oil rivals to its long-term monopoly in supplying the West.
Iran, too is hostile towards Azerbaijan, fearing secetionist activitiy amongst its Azeri minority.
Totally correct, a succesfull Azerbaycan is Iran's worst nightmare. Already unrest is growing South of Azerbaycan's border it will only intesify if Azerbaycan and pro-Turk thinking rises in the area.
Infact, ever since Azerbaycan's first independance back in the first world war, Iran and Russia have done nothing except try to destroy it. When the Republic was re-established again after the break-up of the Soviet Union again Iran and Russia tried so hard to wipe Azerbaycan off the map. They were determined to makesure Azerbaycan failed and never poked its head up again.
But they both failed, so did Armenia, even after all the massacred, the crimes and oppression it has managed to survive and even move forward and has a brighter future than other countries in the region.
USA, is also adopting a very pro-Armenian position, which can be easily explained as it is under heavy pressure from the Armenian lobby. Until recently the USA had an article which banned any direct aid to Azerbaijan, whereas Armenia, after Israel, was the biggest recipient of US aid.
The reason for this has been due to the "Armenian Lobby", it practically funds Armenia with its hand-outs and charity at the expense of the American tax payer. They have also forced the U.S to turn a blind eye to their ethnic cleansing program against Azeri Turks and illegally occupying their land.
However, America is interested in its "interests". Russia is not finished as it assumed, the Iran problem is brewing, Iraq is in havoc. Now more than ever, America needs a safe, reliable, stable source of energy. It needs to proove that countries with muslim populations can be democratic, a friend of the West and be technologically advanced, improve human rights and freedoms etc.
Today more than ever, America needs not only Turkey but the other Turkic countries who are following a similar model in some aspects.
Now, it has a choice, will it be bullied by the Armenian lobby into simply rejecting making deals, agreements and improving relations with Turks simply because their Turks and Armenians don't like them. Will it allow itself to loose out on a big chance, pushing them instead closer to Russia or even extremism and stance's like Iran. The U.S doesn't want a dozen other Iran's to cut off its energy alltogether.
Armenians have been able to get away with their behaviour because they didn't conflict with America's interests for a long time. But the situation has changed, Armenian Lobbies will have to take the back-seat.
Today Armenia offers nothing to America, absolutely nothing, its a waste of the tax-payers funds on a state which offers no energy resources, no strategic importance, is inward-looking and doesn't help U.s strategies at all.
The more deals Azerbaycan completes, the bigger and more powerfull its hand gets. Ultimately in the long-run Armenia will loose out because they are too busy just thinking about today and not planning for the future. What does the Armenian Lobby care about the situation in the country Armenia, their living cosy lifes in America and think its the same back there.
p.s If you want to know what Azerbaycan-Turkey relations are today, go there and see for yourselves, there is a famous phrase, what is it? one nations two coountries... the two countries are moving closer and closer together and will continue to do so.
Edited by Bulldog - 13-Jul-2006 at 20:00
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Surely the long run prospects for Armenia do not look too good.
Russian influence in the region is in decline with the democratic revolution in Georgia and Chechen seperatism. Iran may soon be faced with an economic blockade and isolation. The USA is realigning her foreign policy in transcaucasia due to the regions richness in oil.
Everything indicates that Armenia's isolation will only deepen unless something really weird happens.
We can just sit back and watch what the future will bring.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum