The regular subversive attacks by Azerbaijan on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border raises the issue on how to respond to them. The foreign minister of Armenia dwelt on this issue during the press conference with the U.S. Secretary in Yerevan stating that Azerbaijan is trying to trigger escalation on the border with Armenia threatening stability and peace of the region.
Prior to this statement, the foreign ministry of Armenia had been silent for hours, perhaps busy with the responsible task of receiving the U.S. official. Perhaps, an agency should be created adjunct to the ministry of foreign affairs to respond to emergency cases, such as attacks while the rest of the ministry will be busy receiving guests.
Hours passed after the incident which killed three Armenian young soldiers before the Armenian foreign ministry responded. The feeling was that the foreign ministry was trying to guess or to find out the reaction of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the Azerbaijani provocation.
The interesting thing is that Serzh Sargsyan did not react to this incident in any way unlike the previous incident in Tavush during the election campaign, which killed three Armenian soldiers. During the campaign Serzh Sargsyan reacted to the incident, but now after the election he is silent.
There was no assessment by the ministry of defense either. Perhaps, there is no doubt that the ministry of defense responded to the diversion attack properly.
It is good, it should be so, but the mandate of a state agency also supposes a public policy, even if it is a military agency, otherwise, this is not a state but a partisan headquarters.
The point is that it is necessary to make initiatives through evaluative statements which should be based on the discourse of threatened regional stability and peace and necessary steps in this direction which need to be taken by all the states and organizations which care for stability and peace.
This is not an end in itself. This political-diplomatic element is an additional security guarantee for Armenia which needs to be used.
But they are not in place because there is no legitimacy in Armenia. More precisely, legitimacy is based on public indifference, not trust. The important thing for the government is foreign legitimacy. It means a very cautious behavior to avoid causing the dissatisfaction of Washington, Paris or Moscow. In these conditions, Armenia’s response is not built on what Armenia needs but on what the government needs.
The needs of the authorities and the state have been identified so we have the opinion of the authorities and not the state. Meanwhile, the authorities are a backstage business. The state is the institute which forces this to act transparently both in home and foreign affairs.
In Armenia, the state is mostly foreign attributes, ceremonies, it does not exist as a culture. When the weapons of another state kill the citizens of this state, there is silence for hours. The reason is “thousands of nuances” because the response of the state does not mean declaration of war to the world or to Azerbaijan. The reason is the lack of state culture and the lack of moral and political conscience of the citizen in this culture.
The realization of the culture and the value inside the state can provide the opportunity to integrate into the leading culture of the world and become a value of international policy, which will play an important role in enhancing the level of the security guarantees.
That is why the state response is important in such cases.
Comments