"A PARLIAMENTARY SHOW"

On the threshold of the meeting between the presidents of Azerbai-jan and Armenia in Vienna the news agencies of the Southern Caucasus have announced a "political initiative", which can quite simply be called a provocation. On the eve of the talks, an Armenian parliament deputy from the "Heritage" opposition faction, Zarui Postandzhian, submitted a draft law with the scandalous title of "On recognition of the independence of 'Nagornyy Karabakh Republic'" (here and henceforth the quotation marks are ours - Ed.), But the vote on the draft law in the Armenian parliament was simply a wash-out. Only 10 deputies voted in favour, while the factions of the ruling Armenian National Congress Party (ANC) and the "Prosperous Armenia" party decided to abstain altogether. The independent deputies in the Armenian parliament also abstained. Only the "Dashnaktsyun" party stated that they were willing to vote for the draft law. As a result, Zarui Postandzhian, in commenting in an interview on the Yerevan website Panorama.am on the failure of the draft law presented by her, stated in an offended manner that this situation was proof that "Armenia had no National Assembly, no representative body, and parliament 'no longer had a conscience'".

The Armenian Foreign Ministry was opposed to it. Its representatives stated directly that it was not expedient to put the issue like that. They said that Armenia was becoming increasingly isolated in the process and they would not like that to happen.

It is noted that many people allow themselves to take such a step as demonstratively demanding recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh's independence, but Armenia really cannot do that. Such a step in itself will be hard to take in such as way as to promote dialogue and boost a climate of trust in the region. Besides that, in order to "recognise the independence of Nagornyy Karabakh", the frontiers would have to be delineated. Consequently things would have to be organised for the families in the occupied districts which did not belong to the former Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region, where there has never been any considerable Armenian population. It is too risky to demonstratively recognise them as part of "a self-determining Nagornyy Karabakh". In spite of all its good will towards Armenia, the world community might not understand that. It is even more risky to reject them because Armenian ultranationalists already have a finger in the pie there, and, as Serzh Azatovich is well aware, they are no joke.

It is hardly likely that official Yerevan is able to distinctly and clearly state its own position. Rather unpleasant manoeuvres would have to be arranged in the parliament. The opposition "Heritage" faction initiated a vote. It is not the first time that its supporters have put forward this initiative. So, the current vote was like something which has come out of hibernation, if one is to speak one's mind.

One of the leaders of the Nagornyy Karabakh Dash-naks, David Ishkhanian, was not far from the truth when he commented to the correspondent of the "Caucasian Knot" that the fact that it was not the first time that the "Heritage" party had put forward a draft law on recognition of the independence of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic and once again had not gained the support of parliament. He added, "I already suspected that the "Heritage" party in Armenia  is simply manipulating the issue of recognising the independence of Nagornyy Karabakh Republic, pursuing their own internal political purposes, which is something that simply interferes with the process of actual international recognition of "Nagornyy Karabakh".

It will not be out of place here to note that "the process of international recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh" can surely only exist in the dreams of Ishkhanian's fellow party members, but not in a political reality. Judging from the many signs, for the Yerevan "Heritage" party which is claiming the role of the main political opposition force, such "parliamentary shows" have almost become the main component of their political style itself. The outbursts of their leaders cast doubt on whether the concepts of "opposition" and "a party of peace" mean the same thing in today's Armenia.

The draft law put forward by Zarui Postandzhian is scandalous. It is like the question that she  recently put to Serzh Sargsyan in Strasbourg about an astronomical loss at a casino, following which she was subjected to impressive heckling in parliament.

Something even more noteworthy in the history of the party occurred in November 2012 when a representative international conference took place in Baku, the Seventh General Assembly of the International Conference of the Political Parties of Asia (ICAPP). A delegation from the "Heritage" party took part in its work headed by Raffi Ovannisian, who, you are reminded, caused a massive fuss during the forum.

He began by discussing to his heart's content "the self-determination" of Artsakh [Ancient Armenia - tr.] and the fact that it is not Armenia that is occupying other people's lands, but some kind of Azerbaijanis who carried out the aggression against "self-determining Nagornyy Karabakh" (on its own territory - Ed) and so forth. Then when the discussion focussed on the outcome of the ICAPP resolution, in which, to Yerevan's even greater horror, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was upheld, he decided to race up onto the platform out of turn and started to shout out slogans befitting of Yerevan's street rallies, but not a a prestigious international forum. It is understandable that Ovannisian did not manage to get the text of the final documents changed by doing this. Nor is it likely that he was expecting to. He had another aim in mind. Presidential elections were to take place in Armenia in February 2013, at which Raffi Ovannisian thought he would be a "prospective candidate". In theory he could find no better place for this type of "PR" than the international forum in Baku.

Then, during the election campaign Mr Ovannisian made a number of hard-line statements on Nagornyy Karabakh. According to official figures, he lost the elections, but his supporters feel sure that in reality Ovannisian won, and not Sargsyan. All this is much more serious than it seems at first sight. The "Heritage" party is positioning itself in Armenia as if it were the main opposition force. Its leaders boast of their own "pro-Western" stance. They actively come out in support of Armenia's "integration into Europe", on which a big fat cross was placed in general after 3 September. 

Just Zarui Postandzhian's scandalous draft law and then the outbursts of Raffi Ovannisian in Baku can leave no doubt that the "Heritage" party is obviously not a political force which one can be regarded as "healthy" and linked with hopes of a better future for Armenia.