Goble's plan on Karabakh problem still remains the object of fierce discussions
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.
"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.
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.
