Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Longstanding International Decision on Armenian-Azerbaijani Borders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Longstanding International Decision on Armenian-Azerbaijani Borders

    Foreign Policy Journal
    June 13 2012


    Longstanding International Decision on Armenian-Azerbaijani Borders as
    a Basis for a Conflict Resolution
    by Ara Papian
    June 14, 2012

    Various ways have been proposed to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh
    conflict over the years. Lately, on the 5th of June, 2012, a
    discussion was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington with
    the participation of four experts entitled, `Nagorno-Karabagh: Will
    the Frozen Conflict Turn Hot?' It is worth noting, by the way, the
    coincidence of the event's date and content with the attacks carried
    out by Azerbaijan on the Republic of Armenia on the night of the
    4th-5th of June. However, let us turn to the actual matter at hand.

    Unfortunately, I was not present at that discussion and am not
    familiar with its details. Regardless, one point in particular among
    the issues raised drew my attention, and I would like to turn to it.
    Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council,
    Washington, spoke of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through
    `forceful arbitration'. According to news sources, he said, `Mediators
    don't negotiate: both sides - Azerbaijan and Armenia don't let their
    job work. Now, in this case, it's time to move from mediation to
    forceful arbitration'.[1]

    This idea differs in essence from other ones that have been expressed
    with regards to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict until now.
    Whereas the basic principle till today was that the parties to the
    conflict must themselves arrive at a mutually-acceptable conclusion,
    and the mediator states - in this case, the Minks Group and its three
    co-chairs - would assist in that process and serve as the guarantors
    of the implementation of any agreement, now for the first time the
    idea has been expressed of a resolution without the agreement of the
    parties, and perhaps even one that could go against their will.

    Considering the fact that American foreign policy is customarily
    developed first at the level of experts who express the ideas and get
    them into circulation, after which, given some circumstances, they get
    carried out as real policy, this idea is worth analysing in some
    detail, even more so given that the organisation Wayne Merry
    represents, the American Foreign Policy Council, has great influence
    on new approaches being developed in US policy. Wayne Merry himself is
    a seasoned diplomat, with a decades-long career spanning the State
    Department and the Department of Defense. It is important to emphasise
    that any enforcement - and, in this case, that applies to the
    implementation of a forceful arbitration in a war zone - will require
    the presence of a large number of `peacekeepers'. It is also clear
    that many states would have interest in placing a large number of
    `peacekeepers' in Nagorno-Karabakh, that is, on the northern border of
    Iran.

    Now let us take a look at just how new this innovative-sounding idea
    by Wayne Merry is. When it comes down to it, this idea is not new at
    all. In principle, the arbitration as a resolution to this conflict
    was first adopted by the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), and then
    by the League of Nations that arose from it and followed it
    (1920-1946), and, naturally, it was passed on to the legal successor
    of the latter, the United Nations.

    Diplomats, politicians and other public figures, and experts often
    refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as a `frozen conflict'. This is an
    absolutely accurate characterisation, but the main mistake is that
    many of them measure the `freezing' from the 1990s. That is not the
    case at all in reality. The conflict arose from that time when, in
    1918, the Azerbaijani Republic, such an entity being established for
    the first time in history, claimed the entirety of the Baku and
    Elizavetpol administrative units of the former Russian Empire without
    any legal or other basis and without considering the demographics of
    either of those territories. Of course, this approach was unacceptable
    for the Great Powers at the Paris Peace Conference - the United
    States, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, as the creation
    of new states and their frontiers were not to be based on the
    administrative divisions of former states, but on the principle of
    self-determination of peoples as brought forth by US President Woodrow
    Wilson.

    And so, when during the first London conference of the Paris Peace
    Conference (12 February to 10 April, 1920), the issue of the borders
    of the Republic of Armenia was once again taken up in detail on the
    16th of February,[2] it was decided to create a commission `on the
    boundaries of a new independent State of Armenia' comprised of one
    member each of the Great Powers.[3] Accordingly, the commission was
    established on the 21st of February, 1920, with representatives of the
    British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan,[4] which prepared the
    `Report and Proposals of the Commission for the Delimitation of the
    Boundaries of Armenia' [5] dated the 24th of February, 1920, put on
    the agenda for discussion on the 27th of February.[6]

    The president of that session, the Foreign Secretary of the British
    Empire, Lord Curzon, in speaking of the territorial issues between the
    republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, said that, `the regions of
    Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhitchevan were in dispute. The population
    there was chiefly Armenian, except for a part which was almost wholly
    Tartar'.[7] I find it necessary to stress that this part does not
    refer to Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh), nor even to that
    territory created out of a part of it later, known as the
    Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, but to Karabakh itself, which
    includes the Karabakh Plains.

    This document that expressed the joint view of Britain, France, Italy,
    and Japan on the borders in the southern Caucasus, called for a period
    of waiting so that the parties would themselves come to an agreement,
    only arbitrating on the bondaries in case of a failure of the parties
    to do so:

    As regards the boundary between the State of Armenia and Georgia and
    Azerbaijan, the Commission considers that, it is advisable for the
    present to await the results of the agreement, provided for in the
    treaties existing between the three Republics, in regard to the
    delimitation of their respective frontiers by the States themselves.
    In the event of these Republics not arriving at an agreement
    respecting their frontiers, resort must be had to arbitration by the
    League of Nations, which would appoint an interallied Commission to
    settle on the spot the frontiers referred to above, taking into
    account, in principle, ethnographical data.

    As is clear from the above, the principle of resolving by arbitration
    the issue of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, as well as the
    Armenia-Georgia on, was proposed and adopted as early as the 24th of
    February, 1920, by this joint document of the Great Powers. Moreover
    and most importantly, the principle of delimitation was made clear:
    `taking into account, in principle, ethnographical data'. Accordingly,
    then, the report had a map annexed to it.[8] According to that
    document, taking the demographic make-up of the South Caucasus of 1920
    into account, not only was Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh)
    considered part of the Republic of Armenia, but so was also a large
    part of the Karabakh Plains.

    It is also of great importance that this document was included as well
    in the Full Report of the Arbitral Award of US President Woodrow
    Wilson of the 22nd of November, 1920, as document No. 2 in Annex I,
    indicating that the US accepted the arbitration, the arbitral nature
    and legality of this document. Those clauses were also included in the
    Treaty of Sèvres (10th of August, 1920), as Article 92:

    The frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively
    will be determined by direct agreement between the states concerned.
    In the either case the States concerned have failed to determine the
    frontier by agreement at the date of the decision referred to in
    Article 89, the frontier line in question will be determined by the
    Principal Allied Powers, who will also provide for its being traced on
    the spot.

    In sum, one can draw the following conclusion. The proposal by Wayne
    Merry to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by arbitration is
    completely acceptable and realistic, as it not only expresses the
    decision already codified by Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, but
    also, more importantly, is based on `ethnographical data' as
    democratic a principle. Naturally, a basis for the arbitration can
    only be found on the ethnographic data of 1920, because whatever
    happened since 1920 - the forcible occupation of the independent
    republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia by the armed forces of a foreign
    state, the 11th Red Army, followed by their annexation to Soviet
    Russia in its new veneer of the Soviet Union - was in utter violation
    of international law, and, as goes the maxim in international law, ex
    injuria jus non oritur - law does not arise from injustice.

    Consequently, I believe that the international community and, first
    and foremost, the United States, must follow up on the proposal by the
    American expert Wayne Merry and implement the decision of the
    international document that already exists based on the principle of
    arbitration; that is, they must compel the Republic of Azerbaijan to
    withdraw its forces from the territory that belongs to the Republic of
    Armenia - the Karabakh Plains and Nakhichevan (by my rough estimation,
    14.000 sq.km and 5.400 sq.km, respectively).

    As long as the Republic of Azerbaijan maintains its occupation of not
    just 19.400 sq.km of territory of the Republic of Armenia, but also
    continues to demonstrate claims towards territory of the Republic of
    Armenia currently liberated from Azerbaijani occupation, there will
    not be stability in the region.

    Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, as well as the United States
    of America, must not spare any efforts in implementing their very
    decision as soon as possible.

    Notes

    http://www.arminfo.info/index.cfm?objectid=4486a610-afd7-11e1-b1d8f6327207157c
    Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, (ed. by R. Butler and
    J. Bury) First Series, v. VII, London, 1958, pp. 81-86. Document # 10:
    Consideration of the future boundaries of Armenia: decision to appoint
    an Allied commission to report thereupon, Feb. 16, 1920. [hereafter,
    DBFP]
    Ibid, p. 86.
    Ibid, Document #20: Decisions of parts III and IV of the draft
    synopsis of the Turkish treaty (political clauses), p. 178.
    The entire document is available in Arbitral Award of the President of
    the United States of America Woodrow Wilson: Full Report of the
    Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and
    Armenia, Washington, November 22, 1920, (prepared by Ara Papian).
    Yerevan, 2011, pp. 98-112.
    DBFP, Document # 34, p. 280.
    Ibid, p. 281.
    The map is kept in the National Archives and Records Administration
    and is published in Arbitral Award of the President of the United
    States of America Woodrow Wilson: Full Report of the Committee upon
    the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia,
    Washington, November 22, 1920, (prepared by Ara Papian). Yerevan,
    2011, p. 328.

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/14/longstanding-international-decision-on-armenian-azerbaijani-borders-as-a-basis-for-a-conflict-resolution/

Working...
X