Tweet
Armenians learning from their Disastrous History should Offer New
Approaches in International Law
http://keghart.com/node/520
by Aram Adamyan MSc MBA ACCA, Toronto, 17 July 2009
While petitions and rallies of protest are organized in the wake of the
announcement of the updated Madrid Principles by Obama-Sarkozy-Medvedev
trio, not much is proposed by Armenians to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Aram Adamyan's suggestion is timely and worthy of discussion
at all levels, including that of the authorities in Armenia and
Karabakh.- Keghart.com
During the past years, the International community witnessed the
appearance of new independent states like Kosovo, Abkhazia and
South-Ossetia. The latter two so far are recognized only by Russia and
Nicaragua. In this process the conflict between the two principles of
International law, namely between the principle of the right for
self-determination and that of territorial integrity received
exhaustive attention. While most of the currently existing countries
came about through declaring their independence sometime in history
partly based on the principle of self-determination, the very same
countries exercise double standards in recognizing the independence of
nations currently fighting for their freedom. In the specific case of
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the dichotomy of the two international
principles may be addressed through an analysis of the current
geopolitical situation and providing a new approach sugges
ted in the concluding remarks.
The developments surrounding Armenia were very tense during the last
year since President Sargsyan initiated the Armenian-Turkish
discussions through the so-called soccer diplomacy. Unlike in the past,
Russia that has substantial leverage over Armenia, this time exhibited
a strange tolerance towards these discussions. What did Armenia gain?
How did it affect the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution? What did
the major powers, such as Russia, Europe and the USA that are involved
in this process gain? Finally, how did it affect Turkey?
Russia, by allowing negotiations between Armenia and Turkey proceeding,
which on surface would mean Armenia gaining more balanced economy and
foreign policy, triggered Azerbaijan's reaction over the consequences
of possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border. Negotiations
culminated in Russia successfully signing a natural gas deal with
Azerbaijan, which will sell substantial amounts of its natural gas to
Russia starting 2010. An objective to weaken the NABUCCO project that
bypasses Russia was successfully met. It was achieved through a lesser
commitment by Azerbaijan as one of the major suppliers. In its turn,
Russia is expected to act in favor of Azerbaijan in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
While Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
from Georgia in 2008, following the short war, it did not show any
intention to do so with respect to Artsakh. On the contrary, it
exercised pressure over Armenia to forego certain, including
territorial concessions for the resolution of the conflict. Meanwhile
Russia has heavily invested in the Armenian economy and maintains a
military base in Armenia to which it has no direct access after the
closure of the Russian-Georgian border. The Russians could get an
alternative route through Turkey if the Turkish Armenian border were to
open.
Europe is eager to have reliable supply of energy resources through oil
and gas pipelines from energy-rich Central Asia and Azerbaijan via a
route that goes south of the Russian border. To this end peace and
stability in South Caucasus is of utmost importance for Europe.
European politicians understand very well that peace will not be final
and reliable unless Armenia is reconciled with Azerbaijan and Turkey.
Thus, we witness intensified European efforts to find a solution for
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict coupled with Turkey opening its border
with Armenia and establishing Diplomatic Relationship with it.
The interests of the United States in finding a resolution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey
lies in geopolitical considerations. The USA expects less Russian
influence both in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and with already pro-western
Georgia gradually exert full control over the whole South Caucasus.
It's a vital region sandwiched between rival Russia and enemy Iran, a
landmass connecting the Energy rich Central Asia bordering Afghanistan
and establishing a route with Europe bypassing Russia and Iran.
Turkey, which formerly could only dream about being involved in the
resolution of South Caucasus conflicts, got its prize through the
invitation of President Sargsyan offering to open the Turkish Armenian
border that was qualified as the last closed border in Europe. The
necessity for such an opening arose after another border, the
Russian-Georgian door closed.
The Armenian-Turkish negotiations led to announcing a roadmap by
Turkish and Armenian leaders with the intermediary help of Switzerland
on the eve of April 24 of 2009. This coincided with the period when
Armenians throughout the world were expecting that Barak Obama would
honour his promise to call the massacres of Armenians from 1915 to 1923
in the Ottoman Empire as Genocide. The roadmap and the Armenian-Turkish
talks were exploited by the new President to breach his promise. The
excuse of not harming the ongoing talks was enunciated. Turkey could
not have expected any better result. The United States, heavily
dependent on Turkish support for Iraq war and possible war with Iran,
forced Armenia to declare the roadmap. It was an excellent solution for
itself so that its relationships with Turkey would not be harmed.
What did Armenia gain in this process, and did it anyhow commit itself
to a fair resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? While Armenian
authorities claimed that they managed to break the Turkish-Azerbaijani
tandem existing since the Nagorno-Karabakh war started, and separate
the talks to improve Armenian-Turkish relationship from the process
aimed at resolving the conflict, Turkish leaders - including Prime
Minister Erdogan - continued to announce that no border with Armenia
would be opened until the conflict were to be resolved. Of course,
that meant in a fashion acceptable to Azerbaijan.
The border is still closed, and since the announcement of the roadmap,
no substantial development in Armenian-Turkish negotiations is
observed. Meanwhile, developments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are
more than intense. They resulted in a mutual statement by the
Presidents of the Minsk group co-chair countries during the recent G-8
Summit, and the updated Madrid principles were announced.
They include returning to Azerbaijan territories of NKR that were not
part of Nagorno-Karabakh prior to the war, which was started by
Azerbaijan against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. After this return, a
corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia is to be established while
there is no clarity about how wide it will be and who will control it.
In addition, there is no clarity about the final status of
Nagorno-Karabakh while a preliminary status is being discussed.
Finally, the principles postulate international security guarantees to
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. The latter would include the core
Nagorno-Karabakh people and Azerbaijani refugees that would return from
Azerbaijan.
It is worth remembering that President Aliyev continues to declare that
Azerbaijan will never agree to independence of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Furthermore, during the past years, the Azerbaijani public was
consistently `cultivated' to oppose anything Armenian, and cultural
genocide was brazenly committed as evidenced by destroying the
Khatchkars in Nakhichevan. There is no chance that any status less than
full independence will guarantee security and development for Artsakh.
What is understood by international security guarantees? Isn't the
catastrophic failure of the Sevres Treaty lesson enough for the
Armenian nation not to rely once more on others for its own fate?
Without outright recognition of independence of Artsakh in its current
borders no such international guarantees can be trusted. Why should the
Nagorno-Karabakh Army leave the strategic defense positions of Artsakh?
Lessons of history dictate that Armenians should rely only on their
real power, on their own hands rather than on promises by others.
Under the present circumstances, and given the tragic experience of the
past with Turkey, Azerbaijan and the great powers, it is only and only
the Armenian side that can provide safety guarantees. This can and
should be articulated and offered to the international community with
the provision that Azeris returning to Nagorno-Karabakh republic will
be safe and treated equally. After all, unlike in Azerbaijan where
Armenians were cruelly persecuted, no Azeri ever suffered in Armenia on
any April 24 commemoration day even in Yerevan where millions of
Armenians visit the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial to remember the victims of
the Genocide committed by the ethnic and cultural brothers of Azeris.
In the likely scenario that above is not acceptable to the Azeris, and
not to sound very unrealistic or unwilling to resort to any
concessions, Armenians can offer an alternative by introducing a new
principle in International law. After all International Jurisprudence
is always in a state of flux and takes into account novel situations
and precedents.
Temporarily grant Nagorno-Karabakh Conditional Independence for a
specified period, say fifteen years. During that time, monitor the
democratic developments in both Karabakh and Azerbaijan with specific
terms agreed upon by all parties having a stake in the conflict. That
of course should include the conditions of Azeris returning to Karabakh
and more that 300,000 displaced Armenians returning to their homes in
Azerbaijan. In the event that Karabakh fails in its obligations
compared to Azerbaijan, then the International community may revoke
that Conditional Independence. The competition should revolve around
which party would create better democracy for its people rather than
the militarily stronger power dictating20the outcome ` a phenomenon that
we currently witness.
Other material from Aram Adamyan published in Keghart.com
A Coordinated Effort through Democracy
Armenia's Choice: The Inalienable Diaspora
A Discussion About Current Affairs: The Georgian Crisis & "Football
Diplomacy",Their Impact On Armenia & Armenians
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Approaches in International Law
http://keghart.com/node/520
by Aram Adamyan MSc MBA ACCA, Toronto, 17 July 2009
While petitions and rallies of protest are organized in the wake of the
announcement of the updated Madrid Principles by Obama-Sarkozy-Medvedev
trio, not much is proposed by Armenians to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Aram Adamyan's suggestion is timely and worthy of discussion
at all levels, including that of the authorities in Armenia and
Karabakh.- Keghart.com
During the past years, the International community witnessed the
appearance of new independent states like Kosovo, Abkhazia and
South-Ossetia. The latter two so far are recognized only by Russia and
Nicaragua. In this process the conflict between the two principles of
International law, namely between the principle of the right for
self-determination and that of territorial integrity received
exhaustive attention. While most of the currently existing countries
came about through declaring their independence sometime in history
partly based on the principle of self-determination, the very same
countries exercise double standards in recognizing the independence of
nations currently fighting for their freedom. In the specific case of
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the dichotomy of the two international
principles may be addressed through an analysis of the current
geopolitical situation and providing a new approach sugges
ted in the concluding remarks.
The developments surrounding Armenia were very tense during the last
year since President Sargsyan initiated the Armenian-Turkish
discussions through the so-called soccer diplomacy. Unlike in the past,
Russia that has substantial leverage over Armenia, this time exhibited
a strange tolerance towards these discussions. What did Armenia gain?
How did it affect the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution? What did
the major powers, such as Russia, Europe and the USA that are involved
in this process gain? Finally, how did it affect Turkey?
Russia, by allowing negotiations between Armenia and Turkey proceeding,
which on surface would mean Armenia gaining more balanced economy and
foreign policy, triggered Azerbaijan's reaction over the consequences
of possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border. Negotiations
culminated in Russia successfully signing a natural gas deal with
Azerbaijan, which will sell substantial amounts of its natural gas to
Russia starting 2010. An objective to weaken the NABUCCO project that
bypasses Russia was successfully met. It was achieved through a lesser
commitment by Azerbaijan as one of the major suppliers. In its turn,
Russia is expected to act in favor of Azerbaijan in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
While Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
from Georgia in 2008, following the short war, it did not show any
intention to do so with respect to Artsakh. On the contrary, it
exercised pressure over Armenia to forego certain, including
territorial concessions for the resolution of the conflict. Meanwhile
Russia has heavily invested in the Armenian economy and maintains a
military base in Armenia to which it has no direct access after the
closure of the Russian-Georgian border. The Russians could get an
alternative route through Turkey if the Turkish Armenian border were to
open.
Europe is eager to have reliable supply of energy resources through oil
and gas pipelines from energy-rich Central Asia and Azerbaijan via a
route that goes south of the Russian border. To this end peace and
stability in South Caucasus is of utmost importance for Europe.
European politicians understand very well that peace will not be final
and reliable unless Armenia is reconciled with Azerbaijan and Turkey.
Thus, we witness intensified European efforts to find a solution for
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict coupled with Turkey opening its border
with Armenia and establishing Diplomatic Relationship with it.
The interests of the United States in finding a resolution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey
lies in geopolitical considerations. The USA expects less Russian
influence both in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and with already pro-western
Georgia gradually exert full control over the whole South Caucasus.
It's a vital region sandwiched between rival Russia and enemy Iran, a
landmass connecting the Energy rich Central Asia bordering Afghanistan
and establishing a route with Europe bypassing Russia and Iran.
Turkey, which formerly could only dream about being involved in the
resolution of South Caucasus conflicts, got its prize through the
invitation of President Sargsyan offering to open the Turkish Armenian
border that was qualified as the last closed border in Europe. The
necessity for such an opening arose after another border, the
Russian-Georgian door closed.
The Armenian-Turkish negotiations led to announcing a roadmap by
Turkish and Armenian leaders with the intermediary help of Switzerland
on the eve of April 24 of 2009. This coincided with the period when
Armenians throughout the world were expecting that Barak Obama would
honour his promise to call the massacres of Armenians from 1915 to 1923
in the Ottoman Empire as Genocide. The roadmap and the Armenian-Turkish
talks were exploited by the new President to breach his promise. The
excuse of not harming the ongoing talks was enunciated. Turkey could
not have expected any better result. The United States, heavily
dependent on Turkish support for Iraq war and possible war with Iran,
forced Armenia to declare the roadmap. It was an excellent solution for
itself so that its relationships with Turkey would not be harmed.
What did Armenia gain in this process, and did it anyhow commit itself
to a fair resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? While Armenian
authorities claimed that they managed to break the Turkish-Azerbaijani
tandem existing since the Nagorno-Karabakh war started, and separate
the talks to improve Armenian-Turkish relationship from the process
aimed at resolving the conflict, Turkish leaders - including Prime
Minister Erdogan - continued to announce that no border with Armenia
would be opened until the conflict were to be resolved. Of course,
that meant in a fashion acceptable to Azerbaijan.
The border is still closed, and since the announcement of the roadmap,
no substantial development in Armenian-Turkish negotiations is
observed. Meanwhile, developments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are
more than intense. They resulted in a mutual statement by the
Presidents of the Minsk group co-chair countries during the recent G-8
Summit, and the updated Madrid principles were announced.
They include returning to Azerbaijan territories of NKR that were not
part of Nagorno-Karabakh prior to the war, which was started by
Azerbaijan against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. After this return, a
corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia is to be established while
there is no clarity about how wide it will be and who will control it.
In addition, there is no clarity about the final status of
Nagorno-Karabakh while a preliminary status is being discussed.
Finally, the principles postulate international security guarantees to
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. The latter would include the core
Nagorno-Karabakh people and Azerbaijani refugees that would return from
Azerbaijan.
It is worth remembering that President Aliyev continues to declare that
Azerbaijan will never agree to independence of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Furthermore, during the past years, the Azerbaijani public was
consistently `cultivated' to oppose anything Armenian, and cultural
genocide was brazenly committed as evidenced by destroying the
Khatchkars in Nakhichevan. There is no chance that any status less than
full independence will guarantee security and development for Artsakh.
What is understood by international security guarantees? Isn't the
catastrophic failure of the Sevres Treaty lesson enough for the
Armenian nation not to rely once more on others for its own fate?
Without outright recognition of independence of Artsakh in its current
borders no such international guarantees can be trusted. Why should the
Nagorno-Karabakh Army leave the strategic defense positions of Artsakh?
Lessons of history dictate that Armenians should rely only on their
real power, on their own hands rather than on promises by others.
Under the present circumstances, and given the tragic experience of the
past with Turkey, Azerbaijan and the great powers, it is only and only
the Armenian side that can provide safety guarantees. This can and
should be articulated and offered to the international community with
the provision that Azeris returning to Nagorno-Karabakh republic will
be safe and treated equally. After all, unlike in Azerbaijan where
Armenians were cruelly persecuted, no Azeri ever suffered in Armenia on
any April 24 commemoration day even in Yerevan where millions of
Armenians visit the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial to remember the victims of
the Genocide committed by the ethnic and cultural brothers of Azeris.
In the likely scenario that above is not acceptable to the Azeris, and
not to sound very unrealistic or unwilling to resort to any
concessions, Armenians can offer an alternative by introducing a new
principle in International law. After all International Jurisprudence
is always in a state of flux and takes into account novel situations
and precedents.
Temporarily grant Nagorno-Karabakh Conditional Independence for a
specified period, say fifteen years. During that time, monitor the
democratic developments in both Karabakh and Azerbaijan with specific
terms agreed upon by all parties having a stake in the conflict. That
of course should include the conditions of Azeris returning to Karabakh
and more that 300,000 displaced Armenians returning to their homes in
Azerbaijan. In the event that Karabakh fails in its obligations
compared to Azerbaijan, then the International community may revoke
that Conditional Independence. The competition should revolve around
which party would create better democracy for its people rather than
the militarily stronger power dictating20the outcome ` a phenomenon that
we currently witness.
Other material from Aram Adamyan published in Keghart.com
A Coordinated Effort through Democracy
Armenia's Choice: The Inalienable Diaspora
A Discussion About Current Affairs: The Georgian Crisis & "Football
Diplomacy",Their Impact On Armenia & Armenians
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress