“Golos Armenii” interviews the head of the Union of Political Analysts in Armenia about the November 20 discussion held by President Serzh Sarkisian and leaders of nearly five dozen political parties and devoted to the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Hmayak Hovannisian, in particular, sees the event held behind closed doors as a meeting between the few in the know and the rest totally unaware of the process.
“And those who did possess information pretended to be in equal conditions with those who didn’t so as to keep to the rules of the game,” the paper quotes the analyst. “All that reminded a kindergarten where kids seek the attention and favors of their instructor.”
“Lragir.am” contends that by inviting the leaders of political parties President Sarkisian primarily sought to win their approval for his foreign policies and possibly block the way for his predecessor, Robert Kocharian, who is known to disagree with him, to return to major-league politics.
“The party leaders who gathered at the Karen Demirchian Sport and Concert Complex in fact swore their allegiance to Sarkisian’s foreign policy, which had been directly and indirectly criticized by Kocharian,” the online paper says.
“Hayots Ashkhar” writes on last week’s visit of the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights to Armenia: “Thomas Hammarberg hurried to give assessments to the investigation and trials related to the post-election events by declaring that the preparation of the case was done in an unprofessional manner. It is not important how consonant this statement is with the functions of the commissioner for human rights. What is important is that Hammarberg totally met the expectations of opposition activists by ‘objectively and scrupulously’ seconding what they have been saying.”
“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” writes on the same subject: “Do you remember when the position of the Council of Europe on Armenia’s authorities abruptly became mild? It happened after Serzh Sarkisian pledged a prompt settlement of the Karabakh problem, normalization of relations with Turkey, etc.. After that, Sarkisian immediately became acceptable for the West, which at once forgot about the presence of political prisoners in Armenia, the interim report was postponed, and so on. This disgraceful initiative of appeasing Turkey relieved Sarkisian’s situation temporarily, but the Russians had grown angry and now he decided to appease the Kremlin by going to Moscow and signing quite a perilous document.”
“Aravot” publishes an interview with former commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army Samvel Babayan. The daily, in particular, asks Babayan to comment on the Moscow declaration signed by the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia.
“During the years of the war, in 1993, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan conducted direct negotiations about halting military operations, which is reflected in a number of documents. At that time, Azerbaijan officially turned to the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army asking it to cease fire. The ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994 with the participation of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. More than 14 years later, a document was signed that omits Nagorno-Karabakh’s signature. How should I evaluate this document?” says Karabakh’s ex-military head.
(Aghasi Yenokian)
Hmayak Hovannisian, in particular, sees the event held behind closed doors as a meeting between the few in the know and the rest totally unaware of the process.
“And those who did possess information pretended to be in equal conditions with those who didn’t so as to keep to the rules of the game,” the paper quotes the analyst. “All that reminded a kindergarten where kids seek the attention and favors of their instructor.”
“Lragir.am” contends that by inviting the leaders of political parties President Sarkisian primarily sought to win their approval for his foreign policies and possibly block the way for his predecessor, Robert Kocharian, who is known to disagree with him, to return to major-league politics.
“The party leaders who gathered at the Karen Demirchian Sport and Concert Complex in fact swore their allegiance to Sarkisian’s foreign policy, which had been directly and indirectly criticized by Kocharian,” the online paper says.
“Hayots Ashkhar” writes on last week’s visit of the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights to Armenia: “Thomas Hammarberg hurried to give assessments to the investigation and trials related to the post-election events by declaring that the preparation of the case was done in an unprofessional manner. It is not important how consonant this statement is with the functions of the commissioner for human rights. What is important is that Hammarberg totally met the expectations of opposition activists by ‘objectively and scrupulously’ seconding what they have been saying.”
“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” writes on the same subject: “Do you remember when the position of the Council of Europe on Armenia’s authorities abruptly became mild? It happened after Serzh Sarkisian pledged a prompt settlement of the Karabakh problem, normalization of relations with Turkey, etc.. After that, Sarkisian immediately became acceptable for the West, which at once forgot about the presence of political prisoners in Armenia, the interim report was postponed, and so on. This disgraceful initiative of appeasing Turkey relieved Sarkisian’s situation temporarily, but the Russians had grown angry and now he decided to appease the Kremlin by going to Moscow and signing quite a perilous document.”
“Aravot” publishes an interview with former commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army Samvel Babayan. The daily, in particular, asks Babayan to comment on the Moscow declaration signed by the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia.
“During the years of the war, in 1993, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan conducted direct negotiations about halting military operations, which is reflected in a number of documents. At that time, Azerbaijan officially turned to the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army asking it to cease fire. The ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994 with the participation of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. More than 14 years later, a document was signed that omits Nagorno-Karabakh’s signature. How should I evaluate this document?” says Karabakh’s ex-military head.
(Aghasi Yenokian)