In the past couple of weeks, many have been talking about the fact that it is possible that the Karabagh conflict will be settled next year. One other thing that is talked about a lot is that only the Karabagh peace settlement will be the motive for Armenian society to come out to the streets. As a matter of fact, a discussion-debate regarding the Karabagh peace settlement took place at the “Hayeli” club yesterday. Besides ANM administrative member Yerjanik Abgaryan and politician Igor Muradyan, Garnik Isagulyan, who is the Security Issues Adviser to the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan, was also supposed to take part in the debate. However, Isagulayan refused at the last moment to participate in the debate regarding the Karabagh conflict. According to I. Muradyan, the former system of international relations is falling apart and also the principle of regional totalitarianism of states. I. Muradyan announced that it turned out that it is more expensive and dangerous to preserve former borders than destructing them. In Muradyan’s words, it is a matter of technology-how to destroy that? He said the following in regard to the Karabagh conflict: “They say that in 2006, there will be a period when the Karabagh conflict will be settled. Yes, but how did we come up with that period? What really took place? In my opinion, nothing happened at all. There are no serious agreements and no serious obligations-not only between the rivals, but also, there are no obligations for other countries.” In that case, why is it being talked about? Why is 2006 the year for settlement? According to I. Muradyan, a very important thing was forgotten-the meeting at Key-West. “Karabagh is like a very dangerous vacuum. If you noticed, nothing happened during the Key-West meeting that could be looked at as a process or a continuation of Key-West…” he says. He believes that when it turned out that the Karabagh conflict is extremely dangerous and is stuck in a labyrinth, the U.S. administration decided that it would not reflect upon that issue at least until the end of the Republican political party rule. “That was the reason why 18 months after Key-West, there were some minor talks about the Karabagh conflict settlement. Co-president Rudolph Perina was in Europe for a month and tried to put that issue on Europe’s agenda,” says the politician. According to Muradyan, today everyone is working on pretending to bring up the Karabagh issue-the U.S., Russia, France, Azerbaijan, Armenia and even Turkey. I. Muradyan believes that the Republic of Karabagh, which is isolated from foreign relations thanks to Armenian authorities, is not the only one pretending to care for the issue. I. Abgaryan shares Muradyan’s opinion about imitation. In Abgaryan’s words, after 1997, the Karabagh peace settlement has been turned into a show of imitations and believes that at the present nobody is interested in the settlement. “If the U.S. or the Western world in its entirety needs roads of communication and oil routes, it has either gotten them or is getting them one after another. Russia absolutely doesn’t care about talking about the issue at hand because in that case it will question its existence in the Southern Caucasus. Azerbaijan can get along fine without Karabagh because it doesn’t have to face any obstacles for development,” says Mr. Abgaryan in detail and believes that Armenia could have benefited much from the Karabagh peace settlement if it had gotten involved back in 1997. “I emphasize the fact that the Armenian authorities were striving to get involved in the Karabagh conflict back in 1997, but it was not about settling the conflict. Getting involved in the conflict settlement process meant making great changes. I don’t understand what we are getting out of delaying the settlement? By delaying for eight years, we lost the outlooks for development of Armenians in Karabagh. It was the same thing as the Baku-Jeyhan oil pipeline which could have passed through Armenia,” says Abgaryan. I. Muradyan claims that currently, the problem is convincing the Azeri government and society and believes that they must be convinced that there is no alternative and that both the government and society must face the facts. The politician also believes that there must be a return of lands in any kind of settlement for Karabagh. “The conflict settlement still doesn’t mean peace. That is the beginning of a new war. Our political party doesn’t support war. The political parties that support war are the ones that want a settlement. Status-quo is peace,” says Muradyan. He thinks that as of today, in reality, there are no threats or pressure on Armenia to solve the Karabagh conflict. In that case, what is the reason for all this chaos? Muradyan answered to his own question about defense minister Serj Sargsyan: “It’s just that someone really wants to become president but that is impossible. There is no opportunity to get elected legitimately. It is possible to get elected, there are applicable methods for that, however, you must get the OK for it. Someone doesn’t get the OK now (I am sorry for that person, he could have gotten it), but the other will never get it. There have to be victims.” Mr. Muradyan truly believes that the only thing in the Southern Caucasus that interests the U.S. is oil. Y. Abgaryan is of the opinion that Robert Kocharyan will never sign a document about the Karabagh conflict. “He came to power not to sign and will leave without signing. He doesn’t know anything about politics whatsoever,” says the ANM administrative member. During the meeting yesterday, I. Muradyan expressed his opinion about this, saying that “Azerbaijan is an instable nation”. In his words, the goal for the 80’s movement was not Karabagh, but rather the elimination of the Azeri state. “You are the ones that legitimized Azerbaijan and formed a state for them”, said I. Muradyan pointing to Y. Abgaryan. Muradyan says that it would be excellent if the present uncertain situation went on for another 100 years. Does that mean that time is on our side according to I. Muradyan? “If we use our brains, then time will be on our side. But unfortunately, that is not the way it is,” said the politician. Based on all this, we can say that the debate about the Karabagh conflict yesterday was mainly about expressing extraordinary opinions and criticizing this or that person-in other words, the “debate” did not really help.
