Tweet
LEAN PEACE BETTER THAN FAT VICTORY
by Vladimir Akopjanov
DEFENSE and SECURITY
June 4, 2008 Wednesday
Russia
NAGORNO-KARABAKH SITUATION - A POLITICAL COMPROMISE; The problem of
the Kazabakh settlement is so complicated that the status quo appears
to be the best possible solution.
The peoples of Azerbaijan and Karabakh owe peace these last decade
to the truce, and even a lean peace is better than a fat victory.
This peace solved the problem but only to a certain extent. The
problem is, no "ultimate solution" at this point will cope with the
problem at hand. How long the government of the side that goes for
a compromise will last is anybody's guess, but probably not too long.
And what is this "ultimate solution"? As far as the population
of Nagorno-Karabakh is concerned, it implies the recognition of
sovereignty within the existing borders. On the other hand, even that
does not solve the problem in its entirety because the Azerbaijani
regular army controls part of the Karabakh territory including the
former Shaumjan district.
Azerbaijan in its turn insists on the restoration of its territorial
integrity. What is to be done about the Armenian population is not
something anybody knows. The Azerbaijani legislation utterly ignores
ethnic minorities and their collective rights. The Lezgines, Tats,
Talyshs, Avarians, Kurds, Udins, and others are denied legal guarantees
of ethnic self-expression. The attempt to establish the Talysh-Mugan
Republic within Azerbaijan in 1993 was resolutely crushed down - even
though it had never even occurred to the would-be ethnic autonomy to
aspire for cessation.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the meantime is developing into a
democracy born in a war, one relying on its own resources. Recognition
by the international community or its lack changes nothing in terms
of the democratic regime or the completeness of sovereignty.
In the meantime, lack of recognition by the international community has
its disadvantages. First and foremost, the matter concerns the absence
of human rights and freedoms monitoring by international organizations
or the possibility of legitimate recrimination for human rights
abuses. This state of affairs creates the appearance of myths. There
are lots of them that surround the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
Myth One. "Azerbaijan was defeated in the war by the Russians." The
Azerbaijani authorities refuse to acknowledge defeat or admit what
the war was about and against whom.
Myth Two. When Republic of Armenia sent its standing army to assist
Karabakh separatists and criminals, Nagorno-Karabakh was occupied
and absorbed into the Republic of Armenia as a region. Two Armenian
states exist nowadays plus diasporas abroad.
The problem is, non-Armenians perceive no difference between the
Republic of Armenia and Armenia which is a mistake. The Republic of
Armenia is part of Armenia, just like the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
West Armenia, or Kilikia. What troops there are in the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic are Armenian armed forces of sovereign Nagorno-Karabakh,
not of the Republic of Armenia.
Myth Three deals with "Christianity's last bulwark". Attempts to
present the Karabakh conflict as a war between Christianity and Islam
are only made by ignorant reporters. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
and Azerbaijan are secular states.
Myth Four. All refugees are allegedly in Azerbaijan. Baku never
misses a chance to demand that refugees from Karabakh are permitted
to go home. Granted that the demand is fair, it really should be
mutual. Over 300,000 Armenians fled Baku, Sumgait, Kirovabad but
nobody seems to care...
By and large, the problem of conflict settlement appears to complicated
that the existing state of affairs with lean peace seems to be
the best solution. Of course, the Armenian side would like to see
Nagorno-Karabakh recognized by the international community but it
may have its drawbacks. Azerbaijan is not going to recognize the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a sovereign state. The Azerbaijanis
will take it as a gross moral trauma even capable of creating a
political crisis in the country. Extremist revenge-mongers usually
ascend to power in a situation like this and that may result in
resumed hostilities.
The scenario promoted by Baku makes the development of peaceful
relations unlikely. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a sovereign state
is not bound by the commitments taken by the Armenian side. Denying
Stepanakert recognition, Azerbaijan insists on discussing the matter
with Armenia. Yerevan in its turn may represent the sisterly nation of
Nagorno-Karabakh but cannot presume to solve the matter of its status.
What will the Karabakh population end up with? Another Nakhichevan
without the Armenian population. What does Azerbaijan stand to
gain? A territory with the Armenian population, well armed and
knowing the terrain. The Milli Mejlis will have to pass a law on
ethnic minorities. Is Azerbaijan ready for changes of this magnitude?
by Vladimir Akopjanov
DEFENSE and SECURITY
June 4, 2008 Wednesday
Russia
NAGORNO-KARABAKH SITUATION - A POLITICAL COMPROMISE; The problem of
the Kazabakh settlement is so complicated that the status quo appears
to be the best possible solution.
The peoples of Azerbaijan and Karabakh owe peace these last decade
to the truce, and even a lean peace is better than a fat victory.
This peace solved the problem but only to a certain extent. The
problem is, no "ultimate solution" at this point will cope with the
problem at hand. How long the government of the side that goes for
a compromise will last is anybody's guess, but probably not too long.
And what is this "ultimate solution"? As far as the population
of Nagorno-Karabakh is concerned, it implies the recognition of
sovereignty within the existing borders. On the other hand, even that
does not solve the problem in its entirety because the Azerbaijani
regular army controls part of the Karabakh territory including the
former Shaumjan district.
Azerbaijan in its turn insists on the restoration of its territorial
integrity. What is to be done about the Armenian population is not
something anybody knows. The Azerbaijani legislation utterly ignores
ethnic minorities and their collective rights. The Lezgines, Tats,
Talyshs, Avarians, Kurds, Udins, and others are denied legal guarantees
of ethnic self-expression. The attempt to establish the Talysh-Mugan
Republic within Azerbaijan in 1993 was resolutely crushed down - even
though it had never even occurred to the would-be ethnic autonomy to
aspire for cessation.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the meantime is developing into a
democracy born in a war, one relying on its own resources. Recognition
by the international community or its lack changes nothing in terms
of the democratic regime or the completeness of sovereignty.
In the meantime, lack of recognition by the international community has
its disadvantages. First and foremost, the matter concerns the absence
of human rights and freedoms monitoring by international organizations
or the possibility of legitimate recrimination for human rights
abuses. This state of affairs creates the appearance of myths. There
are lots of them that surround the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
Myth One. "Azerbaijan was defeated in the war by the Russians." The
Azerbaijani authorities refuse to acknowledge defeat or admit what
the war was about and against whom.
Myth Two. When Republic of Armenia sent its standing army to assist
Karabakh separatists and criminals, Nagorno-Karabakh was occupied
and absorbed into the Republic of Armenia as a region. Two Armenian
states exist nowadays plus diasporas abroad.
The problem is, non-Armenians perceive no difference between the
Republic of Armenia and Armenia which is a mistake. The Republic of
Armenia is part of Armenia, just like the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
West Armenia, or Kilikia. What troops there are in the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic are Armenian armed forces of sovereign Nagorno-Karabakh,
not of the Republic of Armenia.
Myth Three deals with "Christianity's last bulwark". Attempts to
present the Karabakh conflict as a war between Christianity and Islam
are only made by ignorant reporters. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
and Azerbaijan are secular states.
Myth Four. All refugees are allegedly in Azerbaijan. Baku never
misses a chance to demand that refugees from Karabakh are permitted
to go home. Granted that the demand is fair, it really should be
mutual. Over 300,000 Armenians fled Baku, Sumgait, Kirovabad but
nobody seems to care...
By and large, the problem of conflict settlement appears to complicated
that the existing state of affairs with lean peace seems to be
the best solution. Of course, the Armenian side would like to see
Nagorno-Karabakh recognized by the international community but it
may have its drawbacks. Azerbaijan is not going to recognize the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a sovereign state. The Azerbaijanis
will take it as a gross moral trauma even capable of creating a
political crisis in the country. Extremist revenge-mongers usually
ascend to power in a situation like this and that may result in
resumed hostilities.
The scenario promoted by Baku makes the development of peaceful
relations unlikely. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a sovereign state
is not bound by the commitments taken by the Armenian side. Denying
Stepanakert recognition, Azerbaijan insists on discussing the matter
with Armenia. Yerevan in its turn may represent the sisterly nation of
Nagorno-Karabakh but cannot presume to solve the matter of its status.
What will the Karabakh population end up with? Another Nakhichevan
without the Armenian population. What does Azerbaijan stand to
gain? A territory with the Armenian population, well armed and
knowing the terrain. The Milli Mejlis will have to pass a law on
ethnic minorities. Is Azerbaijan ready for changes of this magnitude?