Tweet
NAGORNO-KARABAKH: IS THE POINT THE MAROLYN MUGAR AND JEFF MASARJIAN
Manvel Sargsyan
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=14901
10:05:44 - 12/08/2009
Perhaps, more than a decade was necessary to pass before the question
of manners of the political elite of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh
became fully clear. And the most unfortunate was that this clearness
was to be made by the representative of the world power, the American
co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza. That is, a man, who
unlike the Armenian leadership, openly claims that all the acquisition
of the Armenian people for the last twenty years have to be returned
in silence to the neighboring Azerbaijan.
While, during ten years the Armenian political forces tried to inspire
the society, how it is better to abandon our achievements - in stages
or packets - the world seems to have established a strong view that
the Armenians, like the cuco from their own folk tale, are ready to
"throw its chicks" just because someone had threatened to "bring an
ax and cut the tree". If it were not the case, then nobody would have
said from afar, in what order everything is to be yielded only for
the neighbors to stop talking about the ax.
An interesting scene occurred. Evidently looking forward to his
future office in Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza found a good reason to
throw in the face of the political elite of Armenia what it is worth
in reality. Recently, once again, while commending the Armenian
leadership for increased pliancy, he reminded the others that "the
statement that the changes made by us in Krakow, to some extent, impair
the interests of Armenia, are due to, let me say, show the ignorance
of those people who make similar statements". "Those critics either
helped develop the basic principles, or were a part of the government
leading the negotiations around the Madrid principles, or had proposed
ideas very similar to those discussed today. Consequently, they all
have a contribution to what we are talking today".
Moreover, for no one to have any doubts that world leader, the United
States, appreciates everyone by their dignity, the ubiquitous American
without embarrassment explained the logic of dignity. At a special
press conference in Armenia, he said that the UN Security Council was
forced to recognize Kosovo on the grounds that the latter gained its
independence through struggle, but in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh,
we have another case. Since the case is different, here you can only
achieve peace through compromise and the compromise between Armenia
and Azerbaijan in accordance with the scheme provided from "above".
Simply speaking you are not worth more. It should be understood that
"on the facts of life" Armenia gained some rights. Specifically,
the right to put forward demands that the Nagorno-Karabakh should
have an interim status. Nagorno-Karabakh itself, at best, got the
right to hold a referendum within the two communities and in the
framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Only in case,
the troops are withdrawn from the seven districts. The world does
not recognize anything else: the struggle of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh is not classified as independence, if ten years ago one
might speak about this.
As it is said: arrived. For all those in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh,
who have all of these years, saw the highest dignity in systematically
suppressing the freedom of the people of Nagorno Karabakh by the
usurpation of all its achievements and rights, Bryza's lecture should
be a lesson. The efforts of the Armenian people to make Karabakh an
obedient appendage of the domestic policies of Armenia turned out to be
too costly. The gang patronized the power in Nagorno-Karabakh, decided
to enslave not only the defenders of freedom in Nagorno-Karabakh, but
also the whole Armenia. As a result, the entire world was demonstrated
that for their own ambitions, those dealers in the power of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh are ready to turn into a bargaining chip anything. No
one thought that the displacement of the NKR from the way of freedom,
whether in international diplomacy, or in the national arena, is
equal not only to the suppression of the will of people, but also to
the self-destruction of the military-political factor.
The result is clear. Americans do not care under whose heel the
people struggling for their freedom will appear. Still good that the
Americans make understand that everything is not that simple. That
is, a simple truth that the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh does not depend
on our national leaders with dispirited will and suppressed slave
ambitions (one should carefully read all the other allegations of
Bryza on these days - otherwise one may take for serious for naivety
his other statements too). Unlike Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the
U.S. knows better who is to blame for what, including themselves. It
is noticeable that the causes of the current statements of the United
States have completely other reasons. Apparently, there is a desire
to shift the blame from "the ill head, to a healthy one".
It is difficult to hide the true essence of the ongoing conflict of
Nagorno-Karabakh. In fact, the key fact is that besides the recognition
of Azerbaijan in 1991 by the international community, it has no
other basis for claims to Nagorno-Karabakh. This circumstance had to
appear sooner or later. It is not a coincidence that the world powers
deliberately evade the legal foundations of the settlement. Everyone
knows that there are no legal grounds for claims of Azerbaijan towards
Nagorno-Karabakh. They also realize that they had no legal grounds
for the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan.
Consequently, all these years they have been trying to restore the
same alleged scheme of Azerbaijan by forcing Armenia to renounce
Nagorno-Karabakh. At least they are pretending to be engaged in
this. In fact, the only alternative approach of the powers is to
review its decision in 1991 on the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh
within Azerbaijan. This question has not yet been compromised. At the
same time, the international community has no arguments to justify
its claims towards Armenia, and, moreover, Nagorno-Karabakh. It is
not an accident that the only method of making Armenia to renounce
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as making the NKR people to renounce their
legitimate rights is to be blackmailed by thunderstorm resumption
of war. Clearly, they learned very well the habits of the Armenian
politicians.
They also learned well that their task is unsolvable. An unresolved
situation has given rise to speculative international diplomacy. The
basis of such speculation has become the phenomenon "sense of
guilt", blocking the possibility for the sense of law to take root
in the consciousness of the Armenian political elite. The feeling
of guilt is the basis for the presentation of the ungrounded claims
to give the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan under the flag
of "compromise". The sense of fear came out of the sense of guilt,
which create grounds to render the war the main weapon of blackmail
of the international diplomacy.
There are of course no results. However, Azerbaijan is not in an easy
situation either: the time of speculative diplomacy exhausted. It is
forced to leave the discussion of any compromise solution. Azerbaijan
has only one way: to defend the idea of unconditional "recovery" of
its integrality. Just an agreement of Azerbaijan to compromise with
Armenia, and more, with Nagorno-Karabakh may actualize the discussion
on the rights of Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh. More precisely -
it might dispute the legitimacy of its international recognition in
the current borders.
In any case, the positive thing in all this is that the question on
the "right to independence" which was on the agenda. In addition,
the time to answer for their shortsightedness came for the Armenia
and NKR. The period of demagoguery is completed. This time expired
for the influential powers too: plain conversations began.
The fact that the Western powers and Russia had originally understood
the risk of their decision to recognize uncontrolled Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh in the composition of the latter is already visible
from their current behavior. Even at the dawn of the movement for
Karabakh, 7 June, 1988 the European Parliament adopted a resolution
in which it is said that "considering the public demonstrations in
Soviet Armenia, which demanding the reunification of the region of
Nagorno-Karabakh with the Republic of Armenia ..., taking into account
the historic status of the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh as
part of Armenia, arbitrary inclusion of the region within Azerbaijan
in 1923, ... supports the demand of the Armenian minority on the
reunification with the Socialist Republic of Armenia".
However, against the backdrop of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the attitude of European powers to the situation changed. They
decided to recognize the new countries as the newly formed Russia
did. That is - in the former Soviet administrative borders. Then,
apparently, they thought that the actions made on the basis of such
an approach may not have a negative effect at that time. But they got
the opposite. Recognizing the independence of Azerbaijan within its
borders of the Soviet Russia, the Western powers have laid the base
of a war. As a result, the current borders of Azerbaijan established
on the basis of a war are in a different configuration.
Probably not accidentally, the same European Parliament on 11 March
1999 at its regular resolution recognized the equality of the actions
of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, "taking into account the fact that
the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region declared its independence after
a similar declaration of independence of former Soviet republics after
the collapse of the socialist USSR in 1991". And then, recognizing
these equal rights it called to settle the conflict situation on the
basis of the approach, "taking into account the current political
developments in the region", that is, in fact, taking into account
the evolving realities.
The last circumstance clearly indicates that a decade after the
recognition of the independence of Azerbaijan, the European countries
understood clearly that it is not possible to reverse the outcome
of its decision in the conflict region. It could not be otherwise,
because the problem of the borders of Azerbaijan is linked to such
major factors that the conflict can be resolved only by ignoring
the problem of boundaries. Azerbaijan itself by its actions in 1991
created the basis of this insurmountable task.
But it seems that something very serious at that time kept the
Western powers from the recognition of the realities of the collapse
of the Soviet Union. The former Azerbaijani SSR was one of the Soviet
republics, where the borders in 1921 were determined by international
treaties (the Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921 and Kars Treaty of
October 10, 1921), which remains in force until now. It is clear that
the elimination of the Soviet Union was to create disharmony in the
legal boundaries of the new republic of Azerbaijan. It was to create
a serious international problem in connection with the aspirations
of Turkey.
To be honest, Azerbaijan, which recognized it virtual borders, had
no internal resources to pursue its territorial claims. Azerbaijan
is well aware that the international recognition of the country does
not mean recognition of its borders. This once had to play a crucial
role in the suppression of its claims to Nagorno-Karabakh. Its only
hopes were the external resources. These resources could become only
the position of influential countries and international organizations
towards Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan received some of these resources in 1991 in the form of
international recognition of NKR in the composition of the state and in
the form of Turkey's involvement in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
(the blockade of Armenia and diplomatic support). However, these
resources turned out to be insufficient for the realization of its
plans. On the contrary, the real balance of interests has not been
taken into account when Azerbaijan valued external resources as a
chance to exercise control over Nagorno-Karabakh by military means. As
a result, the borders of Azerbaijan further narrowed - from 1992 to
1994 as a result of losing the war, seven more districts under the
control of NKR.
Manvel Sargsyan
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=14901
10:05:44 - 12/08/2009
Perhaps, more than a decade was necessary to pass before the question
of manners of the political elite of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh
became fully clear. And the most unfortunate was that this clearness
was to be made by the representative of the world power, the American
co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza. That is, a man, who
unlike the Armenian leadership, openly claims that all the acquisition
of the Armenian people for the last twenty years have to be returned
in silence to the neighboring Azerbaijan.
While, during ten years the Armenian political forces tried to inspire
the society, how it is better to abandon our achievements - in stages
or packets - the world seems to have established a strong view that
the Armenians, like the cuco from their own folk tale, are ready to
"throw its chicks" just because someone had threatened to "bring an
ax and cut the tree". If it were not the case, then nobody would have
said from afar, in what order everything is to be yielded only for
the neighbors to stop talking about the ax.
An interesting scene occurred. Evidently looking forward to his
future office in Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza found a good reason to
throw in the face of the political elite of Armenia what it is worth
in reality. Recently, once again, while commending the Armenian
leadership for increased pliancy, he reminded the others that "the
statement that the changes made by us in Krakow, to some extent, impair
the interests of Armenia, are due to, let me say, show the ignorance
of those people who make similar statements". "Those critics either
helped develop the basic principles, or were a part of the government
leading the negotiations around the Madrid principles, or had proposed
ideas very similar to those discussed today. Consequently, they all
have a contribution to what we are talking today".
Moreover, for no one to have any doubts that world leader, the United
States, appreciates everyone by their dignity, the ubiquitous American
without embarrassment explained the logic of dignity. At a special
press conference in Armenia, he said that the UN Security Council was
forced to recognize Kosovo on the grounds that the latter gained its
independence through struggle, but in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh,
we have another case. Since the case is different, here you can only
achieve peace through compromise and the compromise between Armenia
and Azerbaijan in accordance with the scheme provided from "above".
Simply speaking you are not worth more. It should be understood that
"on the facts of life" Armenia gained some rights. Specifically,
the right to put forward demands that the Nagorno-Karabakh should
have an interim status. Nagorno-Karabakh itself, at best, got the
right to hold a referendum within the two communities and in the
framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Only in case,
the troops are withdrawn from the seven districts. The world does
not recognize anything else: the struggle of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh is not classified as independence, if ten years ago one
might speak about this.
As it is said: arrived. For all those in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh,
who have all of these years, saw the highest dignity in systematically
suppressing the freedom of the people of Nagorno Karabakh by the
usurpation of all its achievements and rights, Bryza's lecture should
be a lesson. The efforts of the Armenian people to make Karabakh an
obedient appendage of the domestic policies of Armenia turned out to be
too costly. The gang patronized the power in Nagorno-Karabakh, decided
to enslave not only the defenders of freedom in Nagorno-Karabakh, but
also the whole Armenia. As a result, the entire world was demonstrated
that for their own ambitions, those dealers in the power of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh are ready to turn into a bargaining chip anything. No
one thought that the displacement of the NKR from the way of freedom,
whether in international diplomacy, or in the national arena, is
equal not only to the suppression of the will of people, but also to
the self-destruction of the military-political factor.
The result is clear. Americans do not care under whose heel the
people struggling for their freedom will appear. Still good that the
Americans make understand that everything is not that simple. That
is, a simple truth that the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh does not depend
on our national leaders with dispirited will and suppressed slave
ambitions (one should carefully read all the other allegations of
Bryza on these days - otherwise one may take for serious for naivety
his other statements too). Unlike Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the
U.S. knows better who is to blame for what, including themselves. It
is noticeable that the causes of the current statements of the United
States have completely other reasons. Apparently, there is a desire
to shift the blame from "the ill head, to a healthy one".
It is difficult to hide the true essence of the ongoing conflict of
Nagorno-Karabakh. In fact, the key fact is that besides the recognition
of Azerbaijan in 1991 by the international community, it has no
other basis for claims to Nagorno-Karabakh. This circumstance had to
appear sooner or later. It is not a coincidence that the world powers
deliberately evade the legal foundations of the settlement. Everyone
knows that there are no legal grounds for claims of Azerbaijan towards
Nagorno-Karabakh. They also realize that they had no legal grounds
for the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan.
Consequently, all these years they have been trying to restore the
same alleged scheme of Azerbaijan by forcing Armenia to renounce
Nagorno-Karabakh. At least they are pretending to be engaged in
this. In fact, the only alternative approach of the powers is to
review its decision in 1991 on the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh
within Azerbaijan. This question has not yet been compromised. At the
same time, the international community has no arguments to justify
its claims towards Armenia, and, moreover, Nagorno-Karabakh. It is
not an accident that the only method of making Armenia to renounce
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as making the NKR people to renounce their
legitimate rights is to be blackmailed by thunderstorm resumption
of war. Clearly, they learned very well the habits of the Armenian
politicians.
They also learned well that their task is unsolvable. An unresolved
situation has given rise to speculative international diplomacy. The
basis of such speculation has become the phenomenon "sense of
guilt", blocking the possibility for the sense of law to take root
in the consciousness of the Armenian political elite. The feeling
of guilt is the basis for the presentation of the ungrounded claims
to give the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan under the flag
of "compromise". The sense of fear came out of the sense of guilt,
which create grounds to render the war the main weapon of blackmail
of the international diplomacy.
There are of course no results. However, Azerbaijan is not in an easy
situation either: the time of speculative diplomacy exhausted. It is
forced to leave the discussion of any compromise solution. Azerbaijan
has only one way: to defend the idea of unconditional "recovery" of
its integrality. Just an agreement of Azerbaijan to compromise with
Armenia, and more, with Nagorno-Karabakh may actualize the discussion
on the rights of Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh. More precisely -
it might dispute the legitimacy of its international recognition in
the current borders.
In any case, the positive thing in all this is that the question on
the "right to independence" which was on the agenda. In addition,
the time to answer for their shortsightedness came for the Armenia
and NKR. The period of demagoguery is completed. This time expired
for the influential powers too: plain conversations began.
The fact that the Western powers and Russia had originally understood
the risk of their decision to recognize uncontrolled Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh in the composition of the latter is already visible
from their current behavior. Even at the dawn of the movement for
Karabakh, 7 June, 1988 the European Parliament adopted a resolution
in which it is said that "considering the public demonstrations in
Soviet Armenia, which demanding the reunification of the region of
Nagorno-Karabakh with the Republic of Armenia ..., taking into account
the historic status of the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh as
part of Armenia, arbitrary inclusion of the region within Azerbaijan
in 1923, ... supports the demand of the Armenian minority on the
reunification with the Socialist Republic of Armenia".
However, against the backdrop of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the attitude of European powers to the situation changed. They
decided to recognize the new countries as the newly formed Russia
did. That is - in the former Soviet administrative borders. Then,
apparently, they thought that the actions made on the basis of such
an approach may not have a negative effect at that time. But they got
the opposite. Recognizing the independence of Azerbaijan within its
borders of the Soviet Russia, the Western powers have laid the base
of a war. As a result, the current borders of Azerbaijan established
on the basis of a war are in a different configuration.
Probably not accidentally, the same European Parliament on 11 March
1999 at its regular resolution recognized the equality of the actions
of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, "taking into account the fact that
the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region declared its independence after
a similar declaration of independence of former Soviet republics after
the collapse of the socialist USSR in 1991". And then, recognizing
these equal rights it called to settle the conflict situation on the
basis of the approach, "taking into account the current political
developments in the region", that is, in fact, taking into account
the evolving realities.
The last circumstance clearly indicates that a decade after the
recognition of the independence of Azerbaijan, the European countries
understood clearly that it is not possible to reverse the outcome
of its decision in the conflict region. It could not be otherwise,
because the problem of the borders of Azerbaijan is linked to such
major factors that the conflict can be resolved only by ignoring
the problem of boundaries. Azerbaijan itself by its actions in 1991
created the basis of this insurmountable task.
But it seems that something very serious at that time kept the
Western powers from the recognition of the realities of the collapse
of the Soviet Union. The former Azerbaijani SSR was one of the Soviet
republics, where the borders in 1921 were determined by international
treaties (the Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921 and Kars Treaty of
October 10, 1921), which remains in force until now. It is clear that
the elimination of the Soviet Union was to create disharmony in the
legal boundaries of the new republic of Azerbaijan. It was to create
a serious international problem in connection with the aspirations
of Turkey.
To be honest, Azerbaijan, which recognized it virtual borders, had
no internal resources to pursue its territorial claims. Azerbaijan
is well aware that the international recognition of the country does
not mean recognition of its borders. This once had to play a crucial
role in the suppression of its claims to Nagorno-Karabakh. Its only
hopes were the external resources. These resources could become only
the position of influential countries and international organizations
towards Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan received some of these resources in 1991 in the form of
international recognition of NKR in the composition of the state and in
the form of Turkey's involvement in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
(the blockade of Armenia and diplomatic support). However, these
resources turned out to be insufficient for the realization of its
plans. On the contrary, the real balance of interests has not been
taken into account when Azerbaijan valued external resources as a
chance to exercise control over Nagorno-Karabakh by military means. As
a result, the borders of Azerbaijan further narrowed - from 1992 to
1994 as a result of losing the war, seven more districts under the
control of NKR.