Tweet
AZERBAIJAN HAS EXHAUSTED
Lragir.am
10/02/10
ITS RESOURCES OF TRUST
Today, Serge Sragysan held a speech in the Chattem House British
Royal Institute of International Affairs. We are bringing into your
attention some parts of it relating to the Karabakh issue.
The South Caucasus is one of those regions where there are ostensibly
insurmountable divisions, the internationally-recognized political
map of states differs from the reality, fragile peace is extremely
vulnerable, and re-establishing peace demands enormous efforts.
We have witnessed a policy of the most brutal ethnic cleansing and
displacement. The people of Mountainous Karabakh were forced to pay by
blood to defend their right to live freely in a war that was imposed
on them. We must find solutions the implementation of which will not
lead to further displacement and ethnic cleansing. We have to realize
that the people of Karabakh consider that they have managed, on the
one hand, to restore historical justice distorted during Stalin's
dictatorship, and, on the other, to safeguard the minimum conditions
necessary for their physical survival. It is with this realization
that we continue the talks with Azerbaijan and perceive the peace
process and the efforts of the mediators.
The truth is that Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan.
It was forced into Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party
authority, which, defiant of the League of Nations decision and the
popular referendum as a means of determining the border between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, decided in its Caucasus Bureau session in 1921, under
Stalin's direct pressure, and in violation of the procedure, to annex
Mountainous Karabakh on the condition of forming a national autonomy
on these Armenian territories within the Soviet Socialist Republic
of Azerbaijan. Throughout the Soviet period, the people of Karabakh
never reconciled to this decision. I will not dwell upon details of
Azerbaijan's state-level policy of cleansing Karabakh from Armenians
and the periodic uprising of the Karabakhis during the Soviet period,
as I believe you all are well-aware of them.
However, I would like to reiterate that the Autonomous Province of
Mountainous Karabakh seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line
with the Soviet laws and all the applicable principles and rules of
international law, exactly as the 15 Soviet Republics did. To sum up
this part of my speech, I would like to reiterate that Mountainous
Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan: it was annexed
to Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party body. The
people of Karabakh never put up with this decision, and upon the
first opportunity, seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line with
the laws of the Soviet Union and the applicable international law.
The problem has many sensitive and delicate aspects. I urge everyone to
exercise utmost caution when making public statements on the problem of
Mountainous Karabakh, to take into account all the dimensions, possible
consequences, and the perceptions of the sides, and always to rely on
the positions of the organizations that are familiar with the details
of the problem and specialize in its peaceful resolution: in this
case, it would be the OSCE. The problem can only be resolved in the
context of the international law principles of the self-determination
of nations, territorial integrity, and the non-use of force. All
the stakeholders now realize this truth. Whenever one refers to the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, the notion of territorial integrity
should not be emphatically underlined, especially that even if that
notion is perceived to be the only one applying in the case of the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, it would not lead to its application
in the form envisioned by Azerbaijan.
I would pose a rhetoric question to all who consider themselves
advocates of territorial integrity. Where were they when the
Soviet Union collapsed and the borders changed? Where were they
when Yugoslavia was falling apart? Why do you think that Azerbaijan
could secede from the USSR, but Mountainous Karabakh could not? Why
do you think that large empires should disintegrate, but small ones
should persevere? What is the basis? Instability? I cannot perceive
it. I do not accept it. Because unfair decisions are the very cause
of instability.
Azerbaijan has exhausted the resources of trust in terms of autonomous
status for minorities within its boundaries. It was not and is not
capable of providing guarantees of even internal security to such
autonomies. There was once another Armenian autonomy in Azerbaijan:
Nakhijevan. What happened to it? Not a single Armenian is left in
Nakhijevan. Can such guarantees be taken for granted? You might say
Azerbaijan was different then, and is different now. During the last
18 years of that "difference" more Armenian and Christian monuments
were destroyed than in the preceding 70 years. The international
organizations tasked with protection of the cultural heritage were
unable to do anything: Azerbaijan did not even permit them to visit
and see the obliterated Armenian monuments.
In the meantime, a full-blown race of arms continues in the South
Caucasus. It is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous not only for
the South Caucasus peoples, but also for Europe and the powers that
have a stake in the region, the corporations that have invested
in the Caucasus, and everyone else. Azerbaijan has not faced any
substantial confrontation for having exceeded all the possible caps
on conventional arms. Even if not used in a war against Karabakh, the
weapons Azerbaijan is stockpiling today will shoot somewhere. The only
question is where and when. While spending large sums on purchases of
oil, the advanced states, in my opinion, cannot remain indifferent to
how their moneys are being spent. The fact is that these very proceeds
can become a source of threats, something that has happened elsewhere
in the past.
Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash
a war. We despise war, as our generation was forced to look death
straight in the eyes, and has seen and lost more than can be imagined.
However, we realize that we must be ready for war in case others wish
to fight. We cannot turn a blind eye to recurrent belligerent threats
coming from a neighbouring state, whose President's New Year address to
his people sounded no different from the speech of an army commander
motivating his units for a battle. The war rhetoric is intensifying
in the Caucasus. Armenia predominantly refrains from responding to
the threats. Quoting John Kennedy, we do not need to utter threats to
prove that we are firm. However, it does not solve the problem. Threats
also amount to violence, and violence usually begets violence.
The irony is that Azeri propaganda, spending hundreds of millions
of dollars, does not miss any opportunity to label Karabakh as an
aggressor, despite the fact that the people of Karabakh had to take
on arms literally to avoid extermination. This conduct reminds the
French saying: "This creature is fierce: it will defend immediately
after you attack it." The reality is that the people that live in
Karabakh are and will always be ready to defend their right to survive,
their values, churches, and cross-stones.
The Republic of Mountainous Karabakh is a well-established state
with its institutions, army, and most importantly, citizens that
exercise control of their fate. Today we, as well as the international
community, witness Artsakh as a contemporary state that is implementing
the ideals of freedom, sovereignty, and democracy; in spite of natural
and manmade difficulties and grave challenges, it is progressing,
strengthening its democratic institutions, government, economy, and
culture, and defending peace. In its "Freedom in the World" Report,
a reputable human rights watchdog, the Freedom House has ranked the
Republic of Mountainous Karabakh among partially free democratic
states, while ranking Azerbaijan as a non-free state. No further
comments are needed here.
The obvious conclusion is that the times of colonizing a people living
on its own soil have long passed. Our belief is that the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict should be based on human rights and the will of
the Karabakh people as an expres­sion of their collective identity. It
is the only way to achieve lasting, feasible, and peaceful settlement.
The alternative to this settlement is the forcing of the Karabakh
people back into Azerbaijan, which will inevitably lead to attempts of
new ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh. There is no alternative
here, especially given that Azerbaijan has labelled the vast majority
of the Karabakh population as "criminals" over the last two decades.
Hence, in view of the consequences of this alter­na­tive, we clearly
rule out any pressure-driven concessions in the Karabakh process that
would threaten the Artsakh people's physical existence, security,
and right to live in dignity.
Lragir.am
10/02/10
ITS RESOURCES OF TRUST
Today, Serge Sragysan held a speech in the Chattem House British
Royal Institute of International Affairs. We are bringing into your
attention some parts of it relating to the Karabakh issue.
The South Caucasus is one of those regions where there are ostensibly
insurmountable divisions, the internationally-recognized political
map of states differs from the reality, fragile peace is extremely
vulnerable, and re-establishing peace demands enormous efforts.
We have witnessed a policy of the most brutal ethnic cleansing and
displacement. The people of Mountainous Karabakh were forced to pay by
blood to defend their right to live freely in a war that was imposed
on them. We must find solutions the implementation of which will not
lead to further displacement and ethnic cleansing. We have to realize
that the people of Karabakh consider that they have managed, on the
one hand, to restore historical justice distorted during Stalin's
dictatorship, and, on the other, to safeguard the minimum conditions
necessary for their physical survival. It is with this realization
that we continue the talks with Azerbaijan and perceive the peace
process and the efforts of the mediators.
The truth is that Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan.
It was forced into Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party
authority, which, defiant of the League of Nations decision and the
popular referendum as a means of determining the border between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, decided in its Caucasus Bureau session in 1921, under
Stalin's direct pressure, and in violation of the procedure, to annex
Mountainous Karabakh on the condition of forming a national autonomy
on these Armenian territories within the Soviet Socialist Republic
of Azerbaijan. Throughout the Soviet period, the people of Karabakh
never reconciled to this decision. I will not dwell upon details of
Azerbaijan's state-level policy of cleansing Karabakh from Armenians
and the periodic uprising of the Karabakhis during the Soviet period,
as I believe you all are well-aware of them.
However, I would like to reiterate that the Autonomous Province of
Mountainous Karabakh seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line
with the Soviet laws and all the applicable principles and rules of
international law, exactly as the 15 Soviet Republics did. To sum up
this part of my speech, I would like to reiterate that Mountainous
Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan: it was annexed
to Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party body. The
people of Karabakh never put up with this decision, and upon the
first opportunity, seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line with
the laws of the Soviet Union and the applicable international law.
The problem has many sensitive and delicate aspects. I urge everyone to
exercise utmost caution when making public statements on the problem of
Mountainous Karabakh, to take into account all the dimensions, possible
consequences, and the perceptions of the sides, and always to rely on
the positions of the organizations that are familiar with the details
of the problem and specialize in its peaceful resolution: in this
case, it would be the OSCE. The problem can only be resolved in the
context of the international law principles of the self-determination
of nations, territorial integrity, and the non-use of force. All
the stakeholders now realize this truth. Whenever one refers to the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, the notion of territorial integrity
should not be emphatically underlined, especially that even if that
notion is perceived to be the only one applying in the case of the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, it would not lead to its application
in the form envisioned by Azerbaijan.
I would pose a rhetoric question to all who consider themselves
advocates of territorial integrity. Where were they when the
Soviet Union collapsed and the borders changed? Where were they
when Yugoslavia was falling apart? Why do you think that Azerbaijan
could secede from the USSR, but Mountainous Karabakh could not? Why
do you think that large empires should disintegrate, but small ones
should persevere? What is the basis? Instability? I cannot perceive
it. I do not accept it. Because unfair decisions are the very cause
of instability.
Azerbaijan has exhausted the resources of trust in terms of autonomous
status for minorities within its boundaries. It was not and is not
capable of providing guarantees of even internal security to such
autonomies. There was once another Armenian autonomy in Azerbaijan:
Nakhijevan. What happened to it? Not a single Armenian is left in
Nakhijevan. Can such guarantees be taken for granted? You might say
Azerbaijan was different then, and is different now. During the last
18 years of that "difference" more Armenian and Christian monuments
were destroyed than in the preceding 70 years. The international
organizations tasked with protection of the cultural heritage were
unable to do anything: Azerbaijan did not even permit them to visit
and see the obliterated Armenian monuments.
In the meantime, a full-blown race of arms continues in the South
Caucasus. It is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous not only for
the South Caucasus peoples, but also for Europe and the powers that
have a stake in the region, the corporations that have invested
in the Caucasus, and everyone else. Azerbaijan has not faced any
substantial confrontation for having exceeded all the possible caps
on conventional arms. Even if not used in a war against Karabakh, the
weapons Azerbaijan is stockpiling today will shoot somewhere. The only
question is where and when. While spending large sums on purchases of
oil, the advanced states, in my opinion, cannot remain indifferent to
how their moneys are being spent. The fact is that these very proceeds
can become a source of threats, something that has happened elsewhere
in the past.
Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash
a war. We despise war, as our generation was forced to look death
straight in the eyes, and has seen and lost more than can be imagined.
However, we realize that we must be ready for war in case others wish
to fight. We cannot turn a blind eye to recurrent belligerent threats
coming from a neighbouring state, whose President's New Year address to
his people sounded no different from the speech of an army commander
motivating his units for a battle. The war rhetoric is intensifying
in the Caucasus. Armenia predominantly refrains from responding to
the threats. Quoting John Kennedy, we do not need to utter threats to
prove that we are firm. However, it does not solve the problem. Threats
also amount to violence, and violence usually begets violence.
The irony is that Azeri propaganda, spending hundreds of millions
of dollars, does not miss any opportunity to label Karabakh as an
aggressor, despite the fact that the people of Karabakh had to take
on arms literally to avoid extermination. This conduct reminds the
French saying: "This creature is fierce: it will defend immediately
after you attack it." The reality is that the people that live in
Karabakh are and will always be ready to defend their right to survive,
their values, churches, and cross-stones.
The Republic of Mountainous Karabakh is a well-established state
with its institutions, army, and most importantly, citizens that
exercise control of their fate. Today we, as well as the international
community, witness Artsakh as a contemporary state that is implementing
the ideals of freedom, sovereignty, and democracy; in spite of natural
and manmade difficulties and grave challenges, it is progressing,
strengthening its democratic institutions, government, economy, and
culture, and defending peace. In its "Freedom in the World" Report,
a reputable human rights watchdog, the Freedom House has ranked the
Republic of Mountainous Karabakh among partially free democratic
states, while ranking Azerbaijan as a non-free state. No further
comments are needed here.
The obvious conclusion is that the times of colonizing a people living
on its own soil have long passed. Our belief is that the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict should be based on human rights and the will of
the Karabakh people as an expres­sion of their collective identity. It
is the only way to achieve lasting, feasible, and peaceful settlement.
The alternative to this settlement is the forcing of the Karabakh
people back into Azerbaijan, which will inevitably lead to attempts of
new ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh. There is no alternative
here, especially given that Azerbaijan has labelled the vast majority
of the Karabakh population as "criminals" over the last two decades.
Hence, in view of the consequences of this alter­na­tive, we clearly
rule out any pressure-driven concessions in the Karabakh process that
would threaten the Artsakh people's physical existence, security,
and right to live in dignity.