GOBLE’S PLAN ON KARABAKH PROBLEM STILL REMAINS THE OBJECT OF FIERCE DISCUSSIONS
PanARMENIAN.Net
14.02.2008 GMT+04:00
There are two versions of the plan; "Goble-1" and "Goble-2". The
first version was approved and encouraged by the Administration of
George Bush already in January 1992. "Goble-2" emerged in 1996.
For 20 years since the beginning of the Karabakh conflict many
suggestions have been made for its resolution. As a rule, all of them
were based on one soul idea, according to which the both parties should
work towards reaching a compromise to come to a peaceful agreement. The
plan of the American politician Paul Goble is among the so-called
"compromise settlements". However, Goble’s plan remained only a plan,
since it included an argument, which, according to a western mind was
totally irrational. "Own lands" mustn’t be given up to the enemy or it
would be the same as to stop being a representative of your own nation.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "In fact there are three ways of solving the problem
of Nagorno-Karabakh: 1) displacing or killing all the Armenians on
this territory (which is morally impossible), 2) placing numerous
foreign troops in Nagorno-Karabakh for locating the parties (which
is physically impossible), 3) leaving Nagorno-Karabakh under the
control of Armenia (which is politically impossible). This is why
the key to the resolution of the conflict is the territory exchange
on the following conditions; a) giving the part of Nagorno-Karabakh
to Armenia together with the territories of river heads, flowing to
Azerbaijan’s side, b) giving under the Azeri control the territory
of Armenia, separating the Republic of Azerbaijan and its Nakhichevan
autonomy (Megrian Corridor)". However, in this case Armenia would lose
its only and the most vital exit to the outside world though Iran
during blockades. Meanwhile, the left bank of the Arax River with
the length of 42 km would become the most important strategic means
of communication, which would link Turkey, the Nakhichevan autonomy
and Azerbaijan," this is, actually, what exactly the plan looks like.
In fact, here are two versions of the plan; "Goble-1" and
"Goble-2". The first version was approved and encouraged by the
Administration of George Bush already in January 1992. In 1996 emerged
"Goble-2".
The author accepted that in the first version he had made "a big
mistake", since "he hadn’t realized what a psychological meaning
the common border with Iran has for Armenia." "Goble-2" didn’t
anticipate any abolition of the Armenian-Iranian borders and didn’t
allow territorial attachment of Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Instead, "Goble-2" suggested exchanging the southern part of
Armenia (the Region of Megri) with the western part of Nakhichevan
autonomy, where it has a 9-km border with Turkey. At the same time
Nagorno-Karabakh, together with the Lachin Corridor become a part
of Armenia, or get independence; the blockade of the Armenia-Turkish
border is abolished, the problem of non-enclave existence of Nakhichev
Autonomy of Azerbaijan is solved, the border between Armenia and
Iran are preserved, and is only moved to north, which has a key
geopolitical significance: in this case when being passed to Armenia,
the part of Nakhichevan Autonomy doesn’t allow any joining with Turkey
and Azerbaijan.
The truth is that Goble’s plan on Karabakh problem is still the object
of fierce discussions. There is even the opinion that this plan with
some changes was the very object of discussion of the meeting of the
Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Rambouillet in 2006. And the
latest rumors about the upcoming "exchange" ("the giving of Megri")
started in the beginning of 2004. In the same year of 2004 in the
report of the American Analytical Center STRATFOR "Battle for the FSU:
Wooing Armenia" the experts of the Center declared that Washington
will do everything to drive Armenia to a tight corner and then the
revision of priorities in favor of the USA will have no alternatives
for this republic.
Since then neither in Armenia, nor in Azerbaijan there are any
discussions about the "exchange", and even if there are, then only
within the frames of election campaign. It is not very likely that
this very plan is on the bases of "mutual compromise", but giving it
up for good would be very untimely too.