Tweet
ARMENIAN PRESIDENT: WHENEVER ONE REFERS TO THE MOUNTAINOUS KARABAKH CONFLICT, THE NOTION OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE EMPHATICALLY UNDERLINED
ArmInfo.
2010-02-10 20:41:00
ArmInfo. I urge everyone to exercise utmost caution when making
public statements on the problem of Mountainous Karabakh, President
of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan said during his speech in the Chattem House
British Royal Institute of International Affairs.
He also said that one should take into account all the dimensions,
possible consequences, and the perceptions of the sides, and always
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.
ArmInfo.
2010-02-10 20:41:00
ArmInfo. I urge everyone to exercise utmost caution when making
public statements on the problem of Mountainous Karabakh, President
of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan said during his speech in the Chattem House
British Royal Institute of International Affairs.
He also said that one should take into account all the dimensions,
possible consequences, and the perceptions of the sides, and always
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.