Tweet
SERZH SARGSYAN PLANS TO INVITE ILHAM ALIYEV TO THE POTENTIAL OPENING CEREMONY OF THE ARMENIAN-TURKISH BORDER
NOYAN TAPAN
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
LONDON
LONDON, FEBRUARY 10, NOYAN TAPAN.Below are fragments of the speech
by President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan in the British Royal Institute
of International Affairs (Chattem House) on 10 February 2010.
...
Armenia is a firm believer in values such as freedom, peace, and
cooperation. We believe that our shared vision of a peaceful and
stable region can be achieved only through regional cooperation and
dialogue. 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.
...
The newest history of Europe is one of overcoming differences through
cooperation. Armenia has always been a proponent of this approach. It
lies at the heart of our policies. It is also the way in which we are
ready to move forward in resolving the Mountainous Karabakh issue,
a vital cause for the Armenian people, a problem that has inflicted
unspeakable pain and losses to my people.
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....
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... 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. ... 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?.
Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash
a war. ... 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 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.... ...
.... 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.
... 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.
... We (Armenia and Turkey) have indeed approached a milestone at
which we can achieve a breakthrough. It is the path of cooperation
without preconditions, without making bilateral relations contingent
upon issues related to third party states. At this time, we have the
signed protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations and
the development of bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey,
which are awaiting ratification by the parliaments of our two states.
In Armenia, the ratification process is progressing in accordance with
the regular procedure, without any undue delays... Immediately after
today's meeting here at the Chattem House, I am going to instruct my
staff to submit the Armenia-Turkey protocols to the Armenian National
Assembly for the ratification process to be initiated.
Speaking at this esteemed institution today, I reiterate the commitment
of the Republic of Armenia to this process. ...
Senior Turkish officials repeatedly assert the political independence
of their parliament and the unpredictability of its decision.
Moreover, they try to obtain non-partisan ratification .... However,
they ought to remember that in case of Armenia they deal with a
country, which persevered throughout the process and did not stop even
in spite of losing a key ally in the ruling coalition. I am confident
that President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan will, subject to the
demonstration of political will, find sufficient support within their
party that holds the majority of seats in the Turkish Parliament.
We are confident that the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
can become the greatest input of the recent decades in achieving
peace and stability in the South Caucasus. ... However, if, as many
suspect, it is proven that Turkey's goal is to protract, rather than
to normalize relations, we will have to discontinue the process.
... I believe that the rapid normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
can set an example of a proactive problem-solving attitude that
will positively stimulate and set an example the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict.
I would like to take one step further and inform you that I am going
to invite President Aliyev to the potential opening ceremony of the
Armenian-Turkish border. I believe it can serve as an essential
and in some ways exemplary measure for the region, which will
clearly demonstrate how existing problems should be solved and that
every conflict, even the stalest one, can be resolved by means of
negotiations and the ability to look truth in the eye. ...
Armenians, as a people that have survived the Genocide, have a moral
duty towards mankind and history in the prevention of genocides. We
have done and will continue to do our best to support the persistent
implementation of the Genocide Convention. Genocide cannot concern
only one people, because it is a crime against humanity.
... The British people learnt about the Armenian Genocide from the
well-known works and statements of James Bryce, Arnold Toynbee,
William Gladstone, and Lloyd George.
... Great Britain, Russia, and France were the co-authors of a joint
statement issued in May 1915 that labelled the massacres and atrocities
against Armenians as 'crimes against humanity and civilization.'
...
Armenia appears before the world as a stable, predictable, and reliable
partner from positions that are understood and appreciated.
...
At the end, I would like to quote the great Byron, a true symbol
of Armenian-British friendship: "It would be difficult, perhaps,
to find the annals of a nation less stained than that of Armenians
... But whatever may have been their destiny, and it has been bitter,
whatever it may be in future, their country must ever be one of the
most interesting in the world....
We believe in our future. We believe that, with stability, prosperity,
and peace, we will remain one of the most interesting countries in
the world in the 21st century, as well.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
NOYAN TAPAN
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
LONDON
LONDON, FEBRUARY 10, NOYAN TAPAN.Below are fragments of the speech
by President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan in the British Royal Institute
of International Affairs (Chattem House) on 10 February 2010.
...
Armenia is a firm believer in values such as freedom, peace, and
cooperation. We believe that our shared vision of a peaceful and
stable region can be achieved only through regional cooperation and
dialogue. 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.
...
The newest history of Europe is one of overcoming differences through
cooperation. Armenia has always been a proponent of this approach. It
lies at the heart of our policies. It is also the way in which we are
ready to move forward in resolving the Mountainous Karabakh issue,
a vital cause for the Armenian people, a problem that has inflicted
unspeakable pain and losses to my people.
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....
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... 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. ... 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?.
Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash
a war. ... 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 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.... ...
.... 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.
... 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.
... We (Armenia and Turkey) have indeed approached a milestone at
which we can achieve a breakthrough. It is the path of cooperation
without preconditions, without making bilateral relations contingent
upon issues related to third party states. At this time, we have the
signed protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations and
the development of bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey,
which are awaiting ratification by the parliaments of our two states.
In Armenia, the ratification process is progressing in accordance with
the regular procedure, without any undue delays... Immediately after
today's meeting here at the Chattem House, I am going to instruct my
staff to submit the Armenia-Turkey protocols to the Armenian National
Assembly for the ratification process to be initiated.
Speaking at this esteemed institution today, I reiterate the commitment
of the Republic of Armenia to this process. ...
Senior Turkish officials repeatedly assert the political independence
of their parliament and the unpredictability of its decision.
Moreover, they try to obtain non-partisan ratification .... However,
they ought to remember that in case of Armenia they deal with a
country, which persevered throughout the process and did not stop even
in spite of losing a key ally in the ruling coalition. I am confident
that President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan will, subject to the
demonstration of political will, find sufficient support within their
party that holds the majority of seats in the Turkish Parliament.
We are confident that the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
can become the greatest input of the recent decades in achieving
peace and stability in the South Caucasus. ... However, if, as many
suspect, it is proven that Turkey's goal is to protract, rather than
to normalize relations, we will have to discontinue the process.
... I believe that the rapid normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
can set an example of a proactive problem-solving attitude that
will positively stimulate and set an example the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict.
I would like to take one step further and inform you that I am going
to invite President Aliyev to the potential opening ceremony of the
Armenian-Turkish border. I believe it can serve as an essential
and in some ways exemplary measure for the region, which will
clearly demonstrate how existing problems should be solved and that
every conflict, even the stalest one, can be resolved by means of
negotiations and the ability to look truth in the eye. ...
Armenians, as a people that have survived the Genocide, have a moral
duty towards mankind and history in the prevention of genocides. We
have done and will continue to do our best to support the persistent
implementation of the Genocide Convention. Genocide cannot concern
only one people, because it is a crime against humanity.
... The British people learnt about the Armenian Genocide from the
well-known works and statements of James Bryce, Arnold Toynbee,
William Gladstone, and Lloyd George.
... Great Britain, Russia, and France were the co-authors of a joint
statement issued in May 1915 that labelled the massacres and atrocities
against Armenians as 'crimes against humanity and civilization.'
...
Armenia appears before the world as a stable, predictable, and reliable
partner from positions that are understood and appreciated.
...
At the end, I would like to quote the great Byron, a true symbol
of Armenian-British friendship: "It would be difficult, perhaps,
to find the annals of a nation less stained than that of Armenians
... But whatever may have been their destiny, and it has been bitter,
whatever it may be in future, their country must ever be one of the
most interesting in the world....
We believe in our future. We believe that, with stability, prosperity,
and peace, we will remain one of the most interesting countries in
the world in the 21st century, as well.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress