The analysis published on 168.am today touched upon the issue of Armenia’s response in the so-called Safarov case. The article viewed Armenia’s response as one lacking a strong state action beyond but rather being one of ad-hoc nature. Symbolically reflecting on Armenia’s Prime Minister’s 2008 article titled “End of the State” the analysis in particular noted that “as a result of incumbent authorities, including Tigran Sargsyan’s activities the idea of the death of state moved from the philosophical field to the practical level. The evidence of this are the recent events, which occurred during the last two weeks.
First of all, it is the extradition of Ramil, his release in Azerbaijan and the subsequent events. Above all non-existence of the Republic of Armenia as a state was the fact that the Hungarian government, as claimed the foreign minister, had promised that there would not be any extradition, but they lied. Normal states usually are not deceived. But it is only one side of the issue.
How has Armenia responded to these events? They will go on speaking and writing a lot about this, and for non-repetition we should just note that so called response limited by “national condemnation”, expressed insults towards Hungarians and Azerbaijanis, which is the same as the vague statement of the NA. There was not seen a state or a formation of institutions in that response. Moreover, to fill the gap filling, the authorities organized a series of promotional activities: the Security Council, the NA discussions, and so on, just to conceal the absence of the state. But, of course, the state has not revived from that.
