Tweet
PACKAGE AND STAGE BY STAGE SETTLEMENT
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
18 Jan 05
In Azerbaijan the year 2005 was declared the year of Karabakh, and
official Baku again stated through their president Ilham Aliev that if
necessary they will settle the Karabakh problem through military
force. In Azerbaijan it was also announced that Armenia allegedly
agreed to the stage by stage settlement of the conflict. Besides,
statements were made according to which during the January 11, 2005
meeting of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijanin Prague
Armenia would at last accept the stage by stage settlement of the
conflict.
Naturally, NKR reacted to these statements. However, it is necessary
to remain coolheaded and not to behave emotionally. The statements of
Ilham Aliev, as well as of other official and analytical circles in
Azerbaijan on the settlement of the conflict according to the
Azerbaijani scenario are directed at the home `consumer' only.
A vivid illustration to this is the fact that even if Armenia agrees
to the stage by stage settlement, Baku will do everything to keep this
in secret before the official publication of the fact. Whereas Baku
announces this openly being sure that after that the Armenian
diplomacy will not take such a step avoiding the fury of people.
Thus, the standpoint of Baku pursues only home political aims, let
alone that NKR and not Armenia will make the choice.
Now, let us try to discuss the so-called package and stage by stage
settlements. Karabakh is for the package settlement. This settlement
supposes achievement of an agreement in all the questions within the
framework of one agreement including the status of Nagorni Karabakh,
territories, borders, refugees, military, economic and ecological
security problems, maintenance of confidence, economic cooperation,
etc.
Azerbaijan stresses the stage by stage settlement. Baku demands
returning the territories liberated by Karabakh and now forming the
security area of NKR, as well as return refugees to these territories.
And only then will Azerbaijan consider the question of status.For
already 10 years now the negotiation process has been turning around
the mechanism of settlement of the conflict parties because of
fundamental controversies.
Strange though it may sound, there are no fundamental differences
between two settlements. The settlement of the Karabakh conflict can
be achieved through a complex approach, which means that the solution
can be achieved on the basis of a package, whereas it can be fulfilled
only stage by stage. Hereby the sides reach a comprehensive settlement
during the talks where all the problems are solved, including the
status, territories, refugees, security, etc. And fulfillment goes on
stage by stage, on the basis of compromise. Similar confrontations can
be solved only in this way (except for capitulation when the defeated
side surrenders to the winner).
The same mechanism was implemented in the case of the agreement of
Dayton on Herzegovina, the project of the secretary general of the UN
on Cyprus. All the problems were considered in these projects and
their implementation was carried out according to the schedule worked
out beforehand. Whereas Baku, emphasizing the returning of territories
and refugees (what is more, Baku speaks only about the Azerbaijani
refugees `forgetting' that as a ratio to the Armenian refugees forced
out of the territories controlled by Azerbaijan NKR exceeds Azerbaijan
significantly).
In fact, Baku's standpoint is an attempt to eliminate the negative
impact of the conflict for Azerbaijan without eliminating the reasons
that caused this impact. Naturally, this is not possible, especially
if we take into account that this kind of approach changes the
military and political situation in the Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict
area and creates a lure for Azerbaijan to settle the conflict through
military force. Even in the present situation when Azerbaijan is
unable to solve the Karabakh conflict through force, it does not
disguise its anti-Armenian policy. In this context I would like to
quote Ilham Aliev's speech at the April 2004 meeting of the editorial
board of the National Encyclopedia. `In my study I have the volumes of
the `Soviet Encyclopedia of Azerbaijan'. I studied them and found out
that the names of a number of scientists, politicians of our republic
are not present in them. Instead there are names of many Armenians. I
am surprised how the names Harutiunov, Harutiunian, Gevorgian,
Martiros Sarian, David of Sasun - appeared in those books. What
does this mean? Is it the basis for preparation of our National
Encyclopedia? I am terrified - Azerbaijanis were left out of our
encyclopedia and Armenians were not?' And the advisor to the former
president of Azerbaijan Heidar Aliev on foreign policy Vafa Guluzadeh
said, `I used to say that any form of sovereignty granted to Nagorni
Karabakh will mean independence. In my addresses I always argued that
Nagorni Karabakh could not be granted sovereignty in Azerbaijan. That
is to say, it is not right to settle the problem of Karabakh through
granting a status to the Armenians. I want all of us to remember that
granting citizenship of Azerbaijan to Armenians is a crime. You know
that all our enterprises were full of Armenians. Today there are no
more. But as soon as they receive the right for citizenship and
status, they will not stay in Nagorni Karabakh. They will come to
Baku, gain rights, shares, and if we violate their rights, they will
protest. Arzu Abdulaeva protects the rights of Armenians in
Azerbaijan. If we cannot make a woman silent now, what will be our
state then?' And if the statesmen considered pro-westerns and
democrats in this country speak this way, what then can be expected
from nationalist forces?
The discriminatory policy of the Azerbaijani government is not
confined to anti-Armenian propaganda only. It is applied to other
nationalities as well. Thus, the permanent representative of
Azerbaijan in the UN, Geneva I. Vahabzadeh explains the numerous
problems of official Baku by the fact that national diplomacy in
Azerbaijan is not carried out by pure-blooded Azerbaijanis. In his
official message to the speaker of the Azerbaijani parliament Murtuz
Aleskerov in 2001 Vahabzadeh wrote that among Azerbaijani diplomats
there are many who are not pure Azerbaijanis. According to him, it is
impermissible that those diplomats whose mothers are Armenian, or
Jewish (let alone small peoples) cannot serve Azerbaijan duly.
It is natural that the international community cannot overlook these
actualities and assist to a state that is loyal to the democratic
principles in its words only and therefore is an unreliable and
unforeseeable partner. In Azerbaijan there are people who recognize
this. Famous Azerbaijani political scientist Hikmet Hajizadeh thinks
that even if Azerbaijan is three times stronger than Armenia, the
world will not allow a government suppressing its citizens' right to
rule the Armenian national minority (as in the case when the world did
not allow Serbia to maintain dictatorial rule over Bosnia and
Kosovo). Thus, it becomes evident that no official settlement can be
the reason for the non-constructive standpoint of Baku. The reason is
much more profound. It is in the consciousness of the Azerbaijani
people, the deep controversies existing in that country.
DAVIT BABAYAN.
18-01-2005
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
18 Jan 05
In Azerbaijan the year 2005 was declared the year of Karabakh, and
official Baku again stated through their president Ilham Aliev that if
necessary they will settle the Karabakh problem through military
force. In Azerbaijan it was also announced that Armenia allegedly
agreed to the stage by stage settlement of the conflict. Besides,
statements were made according to which during the January 11, 2005
meeting of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijanin Prague
Armenia would at last accept the stage by stage settlement of the
conflict.
Naturally, NKR reacted to these statements. However, it is necessary
to remain coolheaded and not to behave emotionally. The statements of
Ilham Aliev, as well as of other official and analytical circles in
Azerbaijan on the settlement of the conflict according to the
Azerbaijani scenario are directed at the home `consumer' only.
A vivid illustration to this is the fact that even if Armenia agrees
to the stage by stage settlement, Baku will do everything to keep this
in secret before the official publication of the fact. Whereas Baku
announces this openly being sure that after that the Armenian
diplomacy will not take such a step avoiding the fury of people.
Thus, the standpoint of Baku pursues only home political aims, let
alone that NKR and not Armenia will make the choice.
Now, let us try to discuss the so-called package and stage by stage
settlements. Karabakh is for the package settlement. This settlement
supposes achievement of an agreement in all the questions within the
framework of one agreement including the status of Nagorni Karabakh,
territories, borders, refugees, military, economic and ecological
security problems, maintenance of confidence, economic cooperation,
etc.
Azerbaijan stresses the stage by stage settlement. Baku demands
returning the territories liberated by Karabakh and now forming the
security area of NKR, as well as return refugees to these territories.
And only then will Azerbaijan consider the question of status.For
already 10 years now the negotiation process has been turning around
the mechanism of settlement of the conflict parties because of
fundamental controversies.
Strange though it may sound, there are no fundamental differences
between two settlements. The settlement of the Karabakh conflict can
be achieved through a complex approach, which means that the solution
can be achieved on the basis of a package, whereas it can be fulfilled
only stage by stage. Hereby the sides reach a comprehensive settlement
during the talks where all the problems are solved, including the
status, territories, refugees, security, etc. And fulfillment goes on
stage by stage, on the basis of compromise. Similar confrontations can
be solved only in this way (except for capitulation when the defeated
side surrenders to the winner).
The same mechanism was implemented in the case of the agreement of
Dayton on Herzegovina, the project of the secretary general of the UN
on Cyprus. All the problems were considered in these projects and
their implementation was carried out according to the schedule worked
out beforehand. Whereas Baku, emphasizing the returning of territories
and refugees (what is more, Baku speaks only about the Azerbaijani
refugees `forgetting' that as a ratio to the Armenian refugees forced
out of the territories controlled by Azerbaijan NKR exceeds Azerbaijan
significantly).
In fact, Baku's standpoint is an attempt to eliminate the negative
impact of the conflict for Azerbaijan without eliminating the reasons
that caused this impact. Naturally, this is not possible, especially
if we take into account that this kind of approach changes the
military and political situation in the Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict
area and creates a lure for Azerbaijan to settle the conflict through
military force. Even in the present situation when Azerbaijan is
unable to solve the Karabakh conflict through force, it does not
disguise its anti-Armenian policy. In this context I would like to
quote Ilham Aliev's speech at the April 2004 meeting of the editorial
board of the National Encyclopedia. `In my study I have the volumes of
the `Soviet Encyclopedia of Azerbaijan'. I studied them and found out
that the names of a number of scientists, politicians of our republic
are not present in them. Instead there are names of many Armenians. I
am surprised how the names Harutiunov, Harutiunian, Gevorgian,
Martiros Sarian, David of Sasun - appeared in those books. What
does this mean? Is it the basis for preparation of our National
Encyclopedia? I am terrified - Azerbaijanis were left out of our
encyclopedia and Armenians were not?' And the advisor to the former
president of Azerbaijan Heidar Aliev on foreign policy Vafa Guluzadeh
said, `I used to say that any form of sovereignty granted to Nagorni
Karabakh will mean independence. In my addresses I always argued that
Nagorni Karabakh could not be granted sovereignty in Azerbaijan. That
is to say, it is not right to settle the problem of Karabakh through
granting a status to the Armenians. I want all of us to remember that
granting citizenship of Azerbaijan to Armenians is a crime. You know
that all our enterprises were full of Armenians. Today there are no
more. But as soon as they receive the right for citizenship and
status, they will not stay in Nagorni Karabakh. They will come to
Baku, gain rights, shares, and if we violate their rights, they will
protest. Arzu Abdulaeva protects the rights of Armenians in
Azerbaijan. If we cannot make a woman silent now, what will be our
state then?' And if the statesmen considered pro-westerns and
democrats in this country speak this way, what then can be expected
from nationalist forces?
The discriminatory policy of the Azerbaijani government is not
confined to anti-Armenian propaganda only. It is applied to other
nationalities as well. Thus, the permanent representative of
Azerbaijan in the UN, Geneva I. Vahabzadeh explains the numerous
problems of official Baku by the fact that national diplomacy in
Azerbaijan is not carried out by pure-blooded Azerbaijanis. In his
official message to the speaker of the Azerbaijani parliament Murtuz
Aleskerov in 2001 Vahabzadeh wrote that among Azerbaijani diplomats
there are many who are not pure Azerbaijanis. According to him, it is
impermissible that those diplomats whose mothers are Armenian, or
Jewish (let alone small peoples) cannot serve Azerbaijan duly.
It is natural that the international community cannot overlook these
actualities and assist to a state that is loyal to the democratic
principles in its words only and therefore is an unreliable and
unforeseeable partner. In Azerbaijan there are people who recognize
this. Famous Azerbaijani political scientist Hikmet Hajizadeh thinks
that even if Azerbaijan is three times stronger than Armenia, the
world will not allow a government suppressing its citizens' right to
rule the Armenian national minority (as in the case when the world did
not allow Serbia to maintain dictatorial rule over Bosnia and
Kosovo). Thus, it becomes evident that no official settlement can be
the reason for the non-constructive standpoint of Baku. The reason is
much more profound. It is in the consciousness of the Azerbaijani
people, the deep controversies existing in that country.
DAVIT BABAYAN.
18-01-2005