Tweet
MENSOIAN: ARTSAKH IS NOT YET A DONE DEAL
Posted by Michael Mensoian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/06/11/mensoian-artsakh-is-not-yet-a-done-deal/
June 11, 2012
What better time than May 8 to remind ourselves that the liberation
of historic Armenian Artsakh is not yet a done deal. May 8, 1992
marked the capture of the ancient Armenian fortress city of Shushi in
a daring maneuver that caught the Azeris by surprise. It was a bold
strategy that led to an improbable victory that can be compared in
its effect to the victory at Sardarabad in 1918. It may well be time
for the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) to reassume that bold
strategy to lay the groundwork for Artsakh's de jureindependence. If
the ARF is not willing, who can the Armenians of Artsakh look to?
011 300x200 Mensoian: Artsakh Is Not Yet a Done Deal
Girl drinks from a fountain in Artsakh (Photo by Mireille Marsouwanian)
Since the ceasefire two years later in 1994, Artsakh (Karabakh
and the liberated territories) has not only survived under the
most difficult of conditions, but our brothers and sisters have
transformed a war-ravaged region into a functioning democratic
society. Unfortunately, we have done far less than is necessary or
within our capabilities in assisting Artsakh's economic development
and its quest for independence.
The ARF through its Central Committees and their ad hoc committees and
lobbying entities throughout the diaspora are engaged in a wide range
of activities that seek to address the injustices that the Armenian
nation has endured since the Ottoman-Turkish government began its
genocide of the Armenian nation on April 24, 1915. During the 70 years
that Armenia was a captive republic under Moscow's control, the ARF
was the principal institution in the diaspora confronting the Turkish
government's official policy of denial and historical revisionism with
respect to the Armenian Genocide. During this same period, the ARF was
the principal institutional force that literally saved the traumatized
survivors of the genocide from losing their Armenian identity and
nurtured the belief in the eternal nature of Hai Tahd (Armenian Cause).
With the unforeseen implosion of the Soviet Union, three events
occurred that dramatically changed the political landscape. First,
Armenia declared its independence from the Soviet Union (Russia).
Second, the Armenians of historic Armenian Karabagh declared their
independence. In the war for liberation forced upon them by Azerbaijan,
the Karabaghtsis not only prevailed but liberated adjacent areas of
historic Armenian Artsakh. Today, the historic Armenian Shahumian
district still remains occupied by Azeri military forces, its
population having been terrorized, murdered, or forced to flee their
ancestral homes. The eastern border areas of Martakert and Martuni also
remain under Azeri military occupation. And the third significant event
that occurred was the return of the ARF to an independent Armenia.
In a relatively short span of time, perhaps too quickly, the
field of engagement and the mission of the ARF had expanded to
the Armenian Homeland (Armenia, Artsakh, and Javakhk). However, the
principal thrust of its strategy remained focused on Turkey: genocide
recognition, reparations, the return of religious properties, and
the criminalization of public denial of the Armenian Genocide. These
efforts can be easily defended because each victory immediately
meets the expectations of the Diasporan Armenians. Unfortunately,
these victories have no political legs.
Yet they are important because they do assuage the psycho-emotional
needs of our people. Having said this, we must also accept the fact
that a century later we are no closer to achieving the justice we
seek nor is the Turkish leadership any closer to acknowledging the
genocide that sought to destroy our nation.
Compounding our difficulties is the serious misunderstanding on our
part between what world political leaders mean when they suggest
that Turkey revisit its past and our expectation of what it means
for Turkey to revisit its past. The disconnect is that our demand
for acknowledgment is a component of Hai Tahd. What is suggested by
foreign political leaders has no connection to Hai Tahd. It is simply a
need for Turkey to confront its past history and acknowledge what the
Armenians have suffered during the dying days of the Ottoman-Turkish
Empire. It is not accusatory. Having said that, I can think of any
number of governments, some of which have recognized the Armenian
Genocide, that would eagerly support a hypocritical Turkish apology
based on a sanitized version of what happened.
Support from these so-called sympathetic foreign governments cannot
be depended upon. These governments have no intention, desire, or the
fortitude to confront Turkey on the genocide issue when it includes
restitution, reparations, or boundary rectification. This is the
meaning of Hai Tahd to Armenians and it is these demands that make
Hai Tahd a political issue. Can you name a foreign government that
would take up the cudgels for Armenia vis-a-vis Turkey, let alone
for the ARF, in this political context? We refuse to consider that
given the opportunity, foreign leaders would eagerly opt to have the
genocide issue simply go away, to vanish forever.
While the diaspora is engaged in these skirmishes, the key to Hai Tahd,
the credibility of the ARF, and the future of Armenia has been and
still remains victory in Artsakh. Independence is neither guaranteed
nor will it be handed to us as a gift.
Artsakh represents the only political victory our people have
experienced during the modern period of Armenian history. And at this
moment in time, it is not yet a done deal. De jure independence would
be a major diplomatic victory for Armenians and a humiliating defeat
for Azerbaijan and, by extension, its ally, Turkey. Not only would it
represent a seismic shift in the political fortunes of Armenia, but it
would be a fitting memorial to the thousands of Azatamartiks (freedom
fighters) who sacrificed their lives for their families, their land,
and their inalienable right to live as Armenians. And it would endorse
Hai Tahd as a bona fide Dashnaktsutiun manifesto. No effort alone
or in combination currently underway within the diaspora can match
the importance of this potential political victory. And there is no
victory that could better prepare us as we enter the post-2015 years.
>From an economic standpoint, de jure recognition would encourage a
sharp increase in foreign investment in Artsakh as well as an increase
in economic and humanitarian aid from the diaspora and from foreign
governments that have hesitated to enter a politically delicate
situation. Given the spirit of the Artsakh Armenians, this would be
the catalyst that would set the region on an explosive growth that
could easily sustain a minimum population of one million (see "The
Key to Armenia's Political and Economic Future," The Armenian Weekly
Special Issue, January 2010). Artsakh should be recognized for what
it represents. It is the future economic frontier of Armenia.
The ARF must live up to its revolutionary heritage. The party must take
the lead with Stepanakert to convene a series of working conferences,
each of which would be given a specific mandate.
Conference "A" would involve specialists in Soviet constitutional law
who would frame the case for Karabagh's legal right to have declared
its independence. This is crucial. It does not matter that the ARF
or Stepanakert believe the people of Karabagh had that right.
The findings of this conference with its distinguished participants
should be published and distributed to as wide an audience as
necessary.
Conference "B" would explore the right of the Artsakh Armenians to
declare their independence based on either the principle of remedial
secession or self-determination. International legal scholars should
be given the task to frame the case for the Artsakh Armenians. These
findings should also be published and distributed to as wide an
audience as necessary.
Participants of Conference "C" would author a well-documented report
that covers the 70 years that the Armenians of Artsakh were subjected
to the discriminatory policies by Azerbaijan; the separation of the
historic Armenian Shahumian district from Karabagh and its subsequent
depopulation; the various permutation of genocide-including pogroms
and the destruction of historic Armenian artifacts; the military
occupation of Shahumian and the occupation of the border districts
of Martakert and Martuni by the Azeri military; and the continual
breaches along the Line of Contact and the unprovoked killings of
Karabagh military personnel by sniper fire.
This report should be published and distributed to as wide an audience
as is necessary. Unfortunately, the full story of Artsakh has not been
told to the world, let alone to the majority of Diasporan Armenians who
remain on the sidelines during this significant moment in our history.
There is an absolute need that Karabagh become a principal party in
the negotiations. Doing this would undercut Azerbaijan's position
by recognizing Artsakh and eliminating its claim that this is an
irredentist movement by Armenia. By making this claim, Baku is
able to define the conflict as an attempt by Armenia to regain lost
territories and threaten its territorial integrity. Again, experts
must be consulted to separate the usual conflict that arises between
the claim of territorial integrity (which technically does not apply)
by Azerbaijan and humanitarian intervention rightfully exercised by
Armenia. After nearly 20 years (from the 1994 ceasefire) we have
yet to define the Artsakh issue to our advantage. How can this be
viewed in a positive light? None of the principles that the Minsk
Group has proposed over the years to guide the negotiations ever
speak to Artsakh becoming an independent political entity. That in
itself should cause us alarm.
Short informational films that depict various aspects of life in
Artsakh should be available to inform our people and others to see
the giant strides that have been made. These films should show the
destruction, as well, that was caused by Azerbaijan's intransigence.
There should be a steady stream of visiting legislative leaders,
news-makers, business people, and educators among the various groups
that should be cultivated to espouse our cause. Our public relations
effort has been woefully inadequate.
Our lack of the required effort should not be excused by our need to
pursue what many like to tout as our present successful strategy. No
one is advocating an either-or strategy. The work being carried on in
the diaspora must continue, but it must be understood that Artsakh's
de jure recognition far transcends all else. Our mission in helping
Artsakh gain its deserved recognition by the world community of nations
must be comprehensive, multi-faceted, coordinated, properly staffed,
and financed. A failure in Artsakh will have a domino effect on our
century-long struggle for justice, especially as we approach the
watershed year of 2015. Hai Tahd will lose its relevancy; and Armenia
would be relegated to a position within the south Caucasus that makes
it politically and economically subservient to neighboring Turkey,
Georgia, and victorious Azerbaijan. It would be a situation that I
would regret having lived to see.
Posted by Michael Mensoian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/06/11/mensoian-artsakh-is-not-yet-a-done-deal/
June 11, 2012
What better time than May 8 to remind ourselves that the liberation
of historic Armenian Artsakh is not yet a done deal. May 8, 1992
marked the capture of the ancient Armenian fortress city of Shushi in
a daring maneuver that caught the Azeris by surprise. It was a bold
strategy that led to an improbable victory that can be compared in
its effect to the victory at Sardarabad in 1918. It may well be time
for the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) to reassume that bold
strategy to lay the groundwork for Artsakh's de jureindependence. If
the ARF is not willing, who can the Armenians of Artsakh look to?
011 300x200 Mensoian: Artsakh Is Not Yet a Done Deal
Girl drinks from a fountain in Artsakh (Photo by Mireille Marsouwanian)
Since the ceasefire two years later in 1994, Artsakh (Karabakh
and the liberated territories) has not only survived under the
most difficult of conditions, but our brothers and sisters have
transformed a war-ravaged region into a functioning democratic
society. Unfortunately, we have done far less than is necessary or
within our capabilities in assisting Artsakh's economic development
and its quest for independence.
The ARF through its Central Committees and their ad hoc committees and
lobbying entities throughout the diaspora are engaged in a wide range
of activities that seek to address the injustices that the Armenian
nation has endured since the Ottoman-Turkish government began its
genocide of the Armenian nation on April 24, 1915. During the 70 years
that Armenia was a captive republic under Moscow's control, the ARF
was the principal institution in the diaspora confronting the Turkish
government's official policy of denial and historical revisionism with
respect to the Armenian Genocide. During this same period, the ARF was
the principal institutional force that literally saved the traumatized
survivors of the genocide from losing their Armenian identity and
nurtured the belief in the eternal nature of Hai Tahd (Armenian Cause).
With the unforeseen implosion of the Soviet Union, three events
occurred that dramatically changed the political landscape. First,
Armenia declared its independence from the Soviet Union (Russia).
Second, the Armenians of historic Armenian Karabagh declared their
independence. In the war for liberation forced upon them by Azerbaijan,
the Karabaghtsis not only prevailed but liberated adjacent areas of
historic Armenian Artsakh. Today, the historic Armenian Shahumian
district still remains occupied by Azeri military forces, its
population having been terrorized, murdered, or forced to flee their
ancestral homes. The eastern border areas of Martakert and Martuni also
remain under Azeri military occupation. And the third significant event
that occurred was the return of the ARF to an independent Armenia.
In a relatively short span of time, perhaps too quickly, the
field of engagement and the mission of the ARF had expanded to
the Armenian Homeland (Armenia, Artsakh, and Javakhk). However, the
principal thrust of its strategy remained focused on Turkey: genocide
recognition, reparations, the return of religious properties, and
the criminalization of public denial of the Armenian Genocide. These
efforts can be easily defended because each victory immediately
meets the expectations of the Diasporan Armenians. Unfortunately,
these victories have no political legs.
Yet they are important because they do assuage the psycho-emotional
needs of our people. Having said this, we must also accept the fact
that a century later we are no closer to achieving the justice we
seek nor is the Turkish leadership any closer to acknowledging the
genocide that sought to destroy our nation.
Compounding our difficulties is the serious misunderstanding on our
part between what world political leaders mean when they suggest
that Turkey revisit its past and our expectation of what it means
for Turkey to revisit its past. The disconnect is that our demand
for acknowledgment is a component of Hai Tahd. What is suggested by
foreign political leaders has no connection to Hai Tahd. It is simply a
need for Turkey to confront its past history and acknowledge what the
Armenians have suffered during the dying days of the Ottoman-Turkish
Empire. It is not accusatory. Having said that, I can think of any
number of governments, some of which have recognized the Armenian
Genocide, that would eagerly support a hypocritical Turkish apology
based on a sanitized version of what happened.
Support from these so-called sympathetic foreign governments cannot
be depended upon. These governments have no intention, desire, or the
fortitude to confront Turkey on the genocide issue when it includes
restitution, reparations, or boundary rectification. This is the
meaning of Hai Tahd to Armenians and it is these demands that make
Hai Tahd a political issue. Can you name a foreign government that
would take up the cudgels for Armenia vis-a-vis Turkey, let alone
for the ARF, in this political context? We refuse to consider that
given the opportunity, foreign leaders would eagerly opt to have the
genocide issue simply go away, to vanish forever.
While the diaspora is engaged in these skirmishes, the key to Hai Tahd,
the credibility of the ARF, and the future of Armenia has been and
still remains victory in Artsakh. Independence is neither guaranteed
nor will it be handed to us as a gift.
Artsakh represents the only political victory our people have
experienced during the modern period of Armenian history. And at this
moment in time, it is not yet a done deal. De jure independence would
be a major diplomatic victory for Armenians and a humiliating defeat
for Azerbaijan and, by extension, its ally, Turkey. Not only would it
represent a seismic shift in the political fortunes of Armenia, but it
would be a fitting memorial to the thousands of Azatamartiks (freedom
fighters) who sacrificed their lives for their families, their land,
and their inalienable right to live as Armenians. And it would endorse
Hai Tahd as a bona fide Dashnaktsutiun manifesto. No effort alone
or in combination currently underway within the diaspora can match
the importance of this potential political victory. And there is no
victory that could better prepare us as we enter the post-2015 years.
>From an economic standpoint, de jure recognition would encourage a
sharp increase in foreign investment in Artsakh as well as an increase
in economic and humanitarian aid from the diaspora and from foreign
governments that have hesitated to enter a politically delicate
situation. Given the spirit of the Artsakh Armenians, this would be
the catalyst that would set the region on an explosive growth that
could easily sustain a minimum population of one million (see "The
Key to Armenia's Political and Economic Future," The Armenian Weekly
Special Issue, January 2010). Artsakh should be recognized for what
it represents. It is the future economic frontier of Armenia.
The ARF must live up to its revolutionary heritage. The party must take
the lead with Stepanakert to convene a series of working conferences,
each of which would be given a specific mandate.
Conference "A" would involve specialists in Soviet constitutional law
who would frame the case for Karabagh's legal right to have declared
its independence. This is crucial. It does not matter that the ARF
or Stepanakert believe the people of Karabagh had that right.
The findings of this conference with its distinguished participants
should be published and distributed to as wide an audience as
necessary.
Conference "B" would explore the right of the Artsakh Armenians to
declare their independence based on either the principle of remedial
secession or self-determination. International legal scholars should
be given the task to frame the case for the Artsakh Armenians. These
findings should also be published and distributed to as wide an
audience as necessary.
Participants of Conference "C" would author a well-documented report
that covers the 70 years that the Armenians of Artsakh were subjected
to the discriminatory policies by Azerbaijan; the separation of the
historic Armenian Shahumian district from Karabagh and its subsequent
depopulation; the various permutation of genocide-including pogroms
and the destruction of historic Armenian artifacts; the military
occupation of Shahumian and the occupation of the border districts
of Martakert and Martuni by the Azeri military; and the continual
breaches along the Line of Contact and the unprovoked killings of
Karabagh military personnel by sniper fire.
This report should be published and distributed to as wide an audience
as is necessary. Unfortunately, the full story of Artsakh has not been
told to the world, let alone to the majority of Diasporan Armenians who
remain on the sidelines during this significant moment in our history.
There is an absolute need that Karabagh become a principal party in
the negotiations. Doing this would undercut Azerbaijan's position
by recognizing Artsakh and eliminating its claim that this is an
irredentist movement by Armenia. By making this claim, Baku is
able to define the conflict as an attempt by Armenia to regain lost
territories and threaten its territorial integrity. Again, experts
must be consulted to separate the usual conflict that arises between
the claim of territorial integrity (which technically does not apply)
by Azerbaijan and humanitarian intervention rightfully exercised by
Armenia. After nearly 20 years (from the 1994 ceasefire) we have
yet to define the Artsakh issue to our advantage. How can this be
viewed in a positive light? None of the principles that the Minsk
Group has proposed over the years to guide the negotiations ever
speak to Artsakh becoming an independent political entity. That in
itself should cause us alarm.
Short informational films that depict various aspects of life in
Artsakh should be available to inform our people and others to see
the giant strides that have been made. These films should show the
destruction, as well, that was caused by Azerbaijan's intransigence.
There should be a steady stream of visiting legislative leaders,
news-makers, business people, and educators among the various groups
that should be cultivated to espouse our cause. Our public relations
effort has been woefully inadequate.
Our lack of the required effort should not be excused by our need to
pursue what many like to tout as our present successful strategy. No
one is advocating an either-or strategy. The work being carried on in
the diaspora must continue, but it must be understood that Artsakh's
de jure recognition far transcends all else. Our mission in helping
Artsakh gain its deserved recognition by the world community of nations
must be comprehensive, multi-faceted, coordinated, properly staffed,
and financed. A failure in Artsakh will have a domino effect on our
century-long struggle for justice, especially as we approach the
watershed year of 2015. Hai Tahd will lose its relevancy; and Armenia
would be relegated to a position within the south Caucasus that makes
it politically and economically subservient to neighboring Turkey,
Georgia, and victorious Azerbaijan. It would be a situation that I
would regret having lived to see.