Tweet
NAGORNO-KARABAKH SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED ONLY WITHIN ITS DE FACTO EXISTING BORDERS
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
2010-07-19 12:22:00
Interview with Russian political expert, professor, Director of the
Institute for Political and Social Studies of Black Sea-Caspian region
Vladimir Zakharov
Mr.Zakharov, what do you think about the Nagorno-Karabakh problem
and is the settlement of this conflict possible?
Despite the fact that the Nagorno Karabakh issue was not mentioned
in the very beginning of the Armenian-Turkish negotiating process
and was left as a final titbit, it was clear then that Turkey would
raise it sooner or later.
And the fact that Azerbaijanis destroyed the Turkish flags in Baku
against the background of a so-called thaw in Armenian-Turkish
relations was nothing more than a game in the spirit of Azerbaijanis.
They in Baku thought that Turkey will force the Armenian authorities
to make concessions in the Karabakh issue via arm-twisting, having
opened the border, while everybody in Armenia perfectly understands
that it is impossible to make the Karabakh people to yield their land.
Therefore, neither the Armenian nor the NKR authorities will
give ground. The situation is currently unresolvable in view of
this. One thing is required for its resolution - to recognize the
NKR independence.
However, a question will appear once again - what about the territories
around Karabakh? The answer to this question is simple - nohow. The
so-called "occupied territories" were taken by Karabakh people during
the retaliatory actions in response to the Azerbaijani aggression,
therefore, they should not be returned. The territories are a belt
of security around the NKR, a belt which gives many preferences and
saves the NKR territory from unexpected invasion.
Azerbaijan claims back not only the territories but whole of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Azeris' claiming back their territories and the whole of
Nagorno-Karabakh and their arms rattling behavior are just their
wishes.
The Armenian side should not forget that it is dealing with a very
well armed enemy. The ideological motivation of the Azeri army is
quite a different question but there are lots of Turkish, Ukrainian,
Moldavian, Estonia and other contractors who will not fight the way
the Azeris did.
In contrast with the Azeri petrodollars, Nagorno-Karabakh should
uplift the spirit of its army. I know that they do it quite well but
sometimes they slip up like they did last time when four Armenian
soldiers were killed as a result of an Azeri sabotage attack.
What is Aliyev aiming at, after all?
After failing to agree with Serzh Sargsyan in St.Petersburg, Ilham
Aliyev hoped that a sabotage attack against Nagorno-Karabakh would
help him to change the situation.
It is very good that, after rebuffing the attack, the Nagorno-Karabakh
troops stayed exactly where they were. Had they advanced towards the
Azeri positions, there would have been a new war, and it would be very
hard to prove later that it was the Azeris who started the first. So,
it was an elementary provocation.
They in the United States and Russia perfectly understood that and
one of the goals of Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Washington was to
discuss this situation.
The Russian translation of the document signed in Washington was
a bit different from the original version: in the Russian text the
word "occupation" was omitted. This demonstrates the United States'
actual intentions with respect to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The
Americans do not care for the fate of the Nagorno-Karabakh people and
its wish to part with Azerbaijan forever. America is showing that it
has just one solution - to establish peace but to do it according to
Azerbaijan's scenario.
What interests is Russia pushing by means of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict?
They in Russia must understand that the Nagorno-Karabakh people
has never occupied other's territories and that the settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is crucial for peace and stability in
the region.
What the Soviet regime did - when the Bolsheviks tore the Russian
imperial land into pieces and gave them out randomly to newly born
republics - must not recur. The decision to give Nagorno-Karabakh
to Azerbaijan was passed by a structure that has no such authority -
the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist
Party. Similar things happened in Transdniestria, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia.
It is very important that Nagorno-Karabakh seceded from the Soviet
Union legally, according to the Soviet laws, following a referendum.
Azerbaijan didn't hold a referendum when splitting from the USSR. It
proclaimed its independence without specifying its borders as it
renounced its legal succession to the Azeri SSR.
What do we mean by compromise in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process?
If the Armenian party to the conflict intends to make some compromise,
it can be any compromise, but not territorial. The situation is
very complicated today, and in this situation Karabakh people will
hardly understand why they should return the lands they liberated at
a high price in blood. Historically, all these regions were the former
territory of Karabakh, i.e. the Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Therefore, it is not clear for me what the parties will exchange,
and what for they will do it? For the Karabakh lands? As regards the
formula "status in exchange for territories, it also seems inefficient
to me, Karabakh should be recognized within its existing borders.
Is Nagorno-Karabakh actually so different from Kosovo, Abkhazia or
South Ossetia that they do not want to recognize it?
By recognizing Kosovo, the West - more specifically, the United States
with the connivance of the UN - has bypassed all international laws
as the Kosovar Albanians have captured other's territory by a very
simple method - demographic growth.
By recognizing Kosovo the Americans sought to destroy the Yalta-Potsdam
agreements and to start redividing the world. They were planning to
recognize Iraqi Kurdistan as well but Turkey rebelled and the plan
was put off.
As regards Nagorno-Karabakh, the key reason why the West is trying to
solve this problem is that Nagorno-Karabakh neighbors on Iran. The
United States wants to place this territory under its control as it
is going to invade Iran in late 2012-early 2013.
The situation over Nagorno-Karabakh is somewhat ambiguous: the United
States has told Azerbaijan that it will recognize Nagorno-Karabakh
should the Azeris start a new war. This serves Washington's interests
as by making such statements it keeps the situation under control. So,
I can say that the United States is interested in Nagorno-Karabakh,
and one of the reasons is that Stepanakert has an airport.
The Americans would very much like to see Nagorno-Karabakh as part of
Azerbaijan as this would give them free hand to place there whatever
they like. But, since the Nagorno-Karabakh people will never allow
this, they are trying to come to terms.
The only reason why Hillary Clinton came to Armenia and Azerbaijan
was to convince them to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem as quickly
as possible. Today, everybody wants to see this problem resolved but
nobody knows how to do it. The Azeris keep refusing to recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state. They just promise some
autonomy but I don't think that they will keep their promise. In their
turn, the Nagorno-Karabakh people say that they will never agree to
Azerbaijan's rule.
I have been there and I have seen that they will rather die than give
up as they have already experienced the "delight" of being part of
Azerbaijan. In this light, all attempts of the West and Turkey to
speed up the peace process are doomed to failure.
What is then preventing Russia from recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh?
The indecision of the Russian political elite is the key obstacle
preventing Russia from recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh.
But this is not the only reason. They in Russia simply fail to
understand what Nagorno-Karabakh is and who it belongs to. The Azeris
have a very strong lobby in Russia and they keep persuading Russian
politicians and experts that Nagorno-Karabakh is an Azeri territory,
which has allegedly belonged to Azerbaijan since the ancient times.
The Azeris keep claiming that they are an indigenous Caucasian ethnos
while the Armenians have come there as late as XV. Some of them even
say that the Armenians were brought to the Caucasus by Griboyedov in
1828. One of the last statements by Azeri President Ilham Aliyev that
Erivan (Yerevan) was granted to Armenians by Azeris in 1918 has become
a historical nonsense. Regretfully, these incompetent anti-scientific
statements have become a proven historical fact for some hired Russian
experts. Hard as we try we are unable to explain to our leadership
the true essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The presidential
administration is ordering quite different subjects for Armenian
studies, which proves that our officials are not very much competent.
From: A. Papazian
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
2010-07-19 12:22:00
Interview with Russian political expert, professor, Director of the
Institute for Political and Social Studies of Black Sea-Caspian region
Vladimir Zakharov
Mr.Zakharov, what do you think about the Nagorno-Karabakh problem
and is the settlement of this conflict possible?
Despite the fact that the Nagorno Karabakh issue was not mentioned
in the very beginning of the Armenian-Turkish negotiating process
and was left as a final titbit, it was clear then that Turkey would
raise it sooner or later.
And the fact that Azerbaijanis destroyed the Turkish flags in Baku
against the background of a so-called thaw in Armenian-Turkish
relations was nothing more than a game in the spirit of Azerbaijanis.
They in Baku thought that Turkey will force the Armenian authorities
to make concessions in the Karabakh issue via arm-twisting, having
opened the border, while everybody in Armenia perfectly understands
that it is impossible to make the Karabakh people to yield their land.
Therefore, neither the Armenian nor the NKR authorities will
give ground. The situation is currently unresolvable in view of
this. One thing is required for its resolution - to recognize the
NKR independence.
However, a question will appear once again - what about the territories
around Karabakh? The answer to this question is simple - nohow. The
so-called "occupied territories" were taken by Karabakh people during
the retaliatory actions in response to the Azerbaijani aggression,
therefore, they should not be returned. The territories are a belt
of security around the NKR, a belt which gives many preferences and
saves the NKR territory from unexpected invasion.
Azerbaijan claims back not only the territories but whole of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Azeris' claiming back their territories and the whole of
Nagorno-Karabakh and their arms rattling behavior are just their
wishes.
The Armenian side should not forget that it is dealing with a very
well armed enemy. The ideological motivation of the Azeri army is
quite a different question but there are lots of Turkish, Ukrainian,
Moldavian, Estonia and other contractors who will not fight the way
the Azeris did.
In contrast with the Azeri petrodollars, Nagorno-Karabakh should
uplift the spirit of its army. I know that they do it quite well but
sometimes they slip up like they did last time when four Armenian
soldiers were killed as a result of an Azeri sabotage attack.
What is Aliyev aiming at, after all?
After failing to agree with Serzh Sargsyan in St.Petersburg, Ilham
Aliyev hoped that a sabotage attack against Nagorno-Karabakh would
help him to change the situation.
It is very good that, after rebuffing the attack, the Nagorno-Karabakh
troops stayed exactly where they were. Had they advanced towards the
Azeri positions, there would have been a new war, and it would be very
hard to prove later that it was the Azeris who started the first. So,
it was an elementary provocation.
They in the United States and Russia perfectly understood that and
one of the goals of Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Washington was to
discuss this situation.
The Russian translation of the document signed in Washington was
a bit different from the original version: in the Russian text the
word "occupation" was omitted. This demonstrates the United States'
actual intentions with respect to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The
Americans do not care for the fate of the Nagorno-Karabakh people and
its wish to part with Azerbaijan forever. America is showing that it
has just one solution - to establish peace but to do it according to
Azerbaijan's scenario.
What interests is Russia pushing by means of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict?
They in Russia must understand that the Nagorno-Karabakh people
has never occupied other's territories and that the settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is crucial for peace and stability in
the region.
What the Soviet regime did - when the Bolsheviks tore the Russian
imperial land into pieces and gave them out randomly to newly born
republics - must not recur. The decision to give Nagorno-Karabakh
to Azerbaijan was passed by a structure that has no such authority -
the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist
Party. Similar things happened in Transdniestria, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia.
It is very important that Nagorno-Karabakh seceded from the Soviet
Union legally, according to the Soviet laws, following a referendum.
Azerbaijan didn't hold a referendum when splitting from the USSR. It
proclaimed its independence without specifying its borders as it
renounced its legal succession to the Azeri SSR.
What do we mean by compromise in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process?
If the Armenian party to the conflict intends to make some compromise,
it can be any compromise, but not territorial. The situation is
very complicated today, and in this situation Karabakh people will
hardly understand why they should return the lands they liberated at
a high price in blood. Historically, all these regions were the former
territory of Karabakh, i.e. the Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Therefore, it is not clear for me what the parties will exchange,
and what for they will do it? For the Karabakh lands? As regards the
formula "status in exchange for territories, it also seems inefficient
to me, Karabakh should be recognized within its existing borders.
Is Nagorno-Karabakh actually so different from Kosovo, Abkhazia or
South Ossetia that they do not want to recognize it?
By recognizing Kosovo, the West - more specifically, the United States
with the connivance of the UN - has bypassed all international laws
as the Kosovar Albanians have captured other's territory by a very
simple method - demographic growth.
By recognizing Kosovo the Americans sought to destroy the Yalta-Potsdam
agreements and to start redividing the world. They were planning to
recognize Iraqi Kurdistan as well but Turkey rebelled and the plan
was put off.
As regards Nagorno-Karabakh, the key reason why the West is trying to
solve this problem is that Nagorno-Karabakh neighbors on Iran. The
United States wants to place this territory under its control as it
is going to invade Iran in late 2012-early 2013.
The situation over Nagorno-Karabakh is somewhat ambiguous: the United
States has told Azerbaijan that it will recognize Nagorno-Karabakh
should the Azeris start a new war. This serves Washington's interests
as by making such statements it keeps the situation under control. So,
I can say that the United States is interested in Nagorno-Karabakh,
and one of the reasons is that Stepanakert has an airport.
The Americans would very much like to see Nagorno-Karabakh as part of
Azerbaijan as this would give them free hand to place there whatever
they like. But, since the Nagorno-Karabakh people will never allow
this, they are trying to come to terms.
The only reason why Hillary Clinton came to Armenia and Azerbaijan
was to convince them to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem as quickly
as possible. Today, everybody wants to see this problem resolved but
nobody knows how to do it. The Azeris keep refusing to recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state. They just promise some
autonomy but I don't think that they will keep their promise. In their
turn, the Nagorno-Karabakh people say that they will never agree to
Azerbaijan's rule.
I have been there and I have seen that they will rather die than give
up as they have already experienced the "delight" of being part of
Azerbaijan. In this light, all attempts of the West and Turkey to
speed up the peace process are doomed to failure.
What is then preventing Russia from recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh?
The indecision of the Russian political elite is the key obstacle
preventing Russia from recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh.
But this is not the only reason. They in Russia simply fail to
understand what Nagorno-Karabakh is and who it belongs to. The Azeris
have a very strong lobby in Russia and they keep persuading Russian
politicians and experts that Nagorno-Karabakh is an Azeri territory,
which has allegedly belonged to Azerbaijan since the ancient times.
The Azeris keep claiming that they are an indigenous Caucasian ethnos
while the Armenians have come there as late as XV. Some of them even
say that the Armenians were brought to the Caucasus by Griboyedov in
1828. One of the last statements by Azeri President Ilham Aliyev that
Erivan (Yerevan) was granted to Armenians by Azeris in 1918 has become
a historical nonsense. Regretfully, these incompetent anti-scientific
statements have become a proven historical fact for some hired Russian
experts. Hard as we try we are unable to explain to our leadership
the true essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The presidential
administration is ordering quite different subjects for Armenian
studies, which proves that our officials are not very much competent.
From: A. Papazian