Tweet
RECOGNITION OF THE NKR DE FACTO INDEPENDENCE CAN BECOME AN ALTERNATIVE
Ruzan Ishkhanian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=584:-recognition-of-the-nkr-de-facto-independence-can-become-an-alternative&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Thursday, 15 March 2012 10:51
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations Vahram
ATANESIAN presented the report 'Nagorno Karabakh as an Entity Balancing
the Geopolitical Interests in the South Caucasus' at the International
Conference recently held at the NKR National Assembly.
Presenting the Artsakh Republic as an independent military-political
entity in the region, the speaker justified its role, viewing it as
the only possibility of maintaining the balance and preventing any
radicalism in the forces' correlation.
The Karabakh Movement is the outcome of the 'revaluation' policy of
the past century 80-90s in the Soviet totalitarian system. To suppose
that it would have been possible to convene a session of the Regional
Soviet in Stepanakert and adopt a resolution without 'perestroika'
and 'glasnost' means to display disrespect towards all the devotees
of the anterior period. It isn't justified, first of all, from the
historical viewpoint. The Azerbaijani party's inadequate response
to the issue disclosed the non-proportionality of the geopolitical
compromises between the Soviet Union and the West.
In his report, Vahram Atanesian cited Arif Yunusov's research of
'Islam in Azerbaijan', where the realities prove that 'informal',
'shadow' Islam was widely spread in the 70-80s of the last century
in the neighboring republic, to which tribute was paid also by the
communist elite. Simultaneously, Pan-Turkism was viable in Azerbaijan.
"If we compare the situation with the public sentiment in NK in the
same period, which were quite conservative, then the Azerbaijani
party's response to the nationwide outburst in Artsakh in 1987-1988
should become perceptibleÂ", emphasized the Artsakh political
scientist. "Turkey believed that under the cover of the so-called
proletarian internationalism the decades-old brutal struggle against
the Artsakh national self-consciousness had given its results. It
was one of the motivations that official Baku had initially hinted
that the debate on the status of Nagorno Karabakh was not so much
ideological as military-geopolitical", he noted. It is senseless to
blame the Russian Bolshevik Government for this: under the existing
circumstances it was obliged to give preference, as it was said that
time, to the implementation of permanent proletarian revolution in
the East. The Bolshevik delusion of a 'speedy victory' at similar
revolution in the beginning of the last century was accepted by Europe
and the United States with mercenary tolerance towards Turkey - a
policy, to which the European system of values, including justice and
charity, was sacrificedâ~@~K. It is though shocking, but a fact that,
unconditionally accepting all the horrors of violence exerted against
the Armenian people in Turkey in private observations and assessments,
no Western European statesman refused to sign the Lausanne Treaty. The
same is equally attributable to Bolshevik Russia.
The Karabakh Movement was an outcome of perestroika, but, according to
the political scientist, it could also become a victim of the changed
geopolitical competition. On the opposite side, this is what Gorbachev
said, "Karabakh was a stab in the back of perestroika". Moscow appeared
to underestimate the geopolitical importance of the century-old
confrontation between the Azerbaijani nationalism and Armenian claim.
Does the modern world propose any system of existence with Azerbaijan,
in which Nagorno Karabakh can maintain its identity? V. Atanesian's
answer was unequivocally no. And it is immoral that Nagorno Karabakh's
150-thousand population is treated the same way as a similar-size
condominium in New York, Paris or Moscow. This means to disregard
the world history from a 'gentleman's height', and opposing to such
treatment can only be general hatred. Geopolitical competition, as in
the past, is taking place on the orientation of the Middle East. The
analysis of two world wars, the Euro-Atlantic alliance race, and
the post-cold-war conflicts brings to the famous formulation: 'East
is East and West is West'. So, incompatible cannot be combined. The
border between the East and the West in the South Caucasus passes
through the contact-line between the Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijani
armed forces. This is a contact-line between pacifism and militarism.
The vacuum that was formed in the South Caucasus with the Soviet
Union's collapse would have been devastating for Europe and the whole
territory of the former Soviet Union if it hadn't been 'dispersed'
by the current Karabakh-Azerbaijani military-political balance. There
was and is no other solution than repression of Azerbaijan's regional
ambitions, because otherwise the South Caucasus would or will become
a new, Turkey-headed power center in the Middle East region, under a
physical contact with Central Asia. And the new center's ambitions
for that huge military geopolitical and raw materials region will
make impossible the peaceful chance of balancing by the European,
Russian or Chinese factor. So, which is the fruitful system now to
serve a restrictive factor in the region? V. Atanesian's conclusion
is as follows: Â"The current situation is that the status quo in the
Karabakh-Azerbaijani military-geopolitical confrontation zone is the
only effective system, around which the world power centers are still
able to find a common ground for mutual deterrence and balance. And it
is not accidental that the Nagorno Karabakh problem is the only one in
the international policy agenda, in the settlement process of which,
though formally, but are equally involved Russia, the USA, and France.
The latter's mediation is identical to the EU considerations.
There is no doubt that the NKR represents a military-political entity
in the South Caucasus region. The future role of the NKR in the South
Caucasus, with its 20-year-old independence, is conditioned by the
increase in the level of its political and economic self-sufficiency.
This is the authorities' priority issue, which is supported by the
centers interested in maintaining stability in the Middle East.
It is at the same time the only way to maintain the balance and
to prevent any radicalism in the powers' ratio. And an alternative
to changing the situation via foreign intervention could become the
recognition of the NKR de facto independence by a country or alliance
concerned, with the supposed and quite new geopolitical rearrangements.
Ruzan Ishkhanian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=584:-recognition-of-the-nkr-de-facto-independence-can-become-an-alternative&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Thursday, 15 March 2012 10:51
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations Vahram
ATANESIAN presented the report 'Nagorno Karabakh as an Entity Balancing
the Geopolitical Interests in the South Caucasus' at the International
Conference recently held at the NKR National Assembly.
Presenting the Artsakh Republic as an independent military-political
entity in the region, the speaker justified its role, viewing it as
the only possibility of maintaining the balance and preventing any
radicalism in the forces' correlation.
The Karabakh Movement is the outcome of the 'revaluation' policy of
the past century 80-90s in the Soviet totalitarian system. To suppose
that it would have been possible to convene a session of the Regional
Soviet in Stepanakert and adopt a resolution without 'perestroika'
and 'glasnost' means to display disrespect towards all the devotees
of the anterior period. It isn't justified, first of all, from the
historical viewpoint. The Azerbaijani party's inadequate response
to the issue disclosed the non-proportionality of the geopolitical
compromises between the Soviet Union and the West.
In his report, Vahram Atanesian cited Arif Yunusov's research of
'Islam in Azerbaijan', where the realities prove that 'informal',
'shadow' Islam was widely spread in the 70-80s of the last century
in the neighboring republic, to which tribute was paid also by the
communist elite. Simultaneously, Pan-Turkism was viable in Azerbaijan.
"If we compare the situation with the public sentiment in NK in the
same period, which were quite conservative, then the Azerbaijani
party's response to the nationwide outburst in Artsakh in 1987-1988
should become perceptibleÂ", emphasized the Artsakh political
scientist. "Turkey believed that under the cover of the so-called
proletarian internationalism the decades-old brutal struggle against
the Artsakh national self-consciousness had given its results. It
was one of the motivations that official Baku had initially hinted
that the debate on the status of Nagorno Karabakh was not so much
ideological as military-geopolitical", he noted. It is senseless to
blame the Russian Bolshevik Government for this: under the existing
circumstances it was obliged to give preference, as it was said that
time, to the implementation of permanent proletarian revolution in
the East. The Bolshevik delusion of a 'speedy victory' at similar
revolution in the beginning of the last century was accepted by Europe
and the United States with mercenary tolerance towards Turkey - a
policy, to which the European system of values, including justice and
charity, was sacrificedâ~@~K. It is though shocking, but a fact that,
unconditionally accepting all the horrors of violence exerted against
the Armenian people in Turkey in private observations and assessments,
no Western European statesman refused to sign the Lausanne Treaty. The
same is equally attributable to Bolshevik Russia.
The Karabakh Movement was an outcome of perestroika, but, according to
the political scientist, it could also become a victim of the changed
geopolitical competition. On the opposite side, this is what Gorbachev
said, "Karabakh was a stab in the back of perestroika". Moscow appeared
to underestimate the geopolitical importance of the century-old
confrontation between the Azerbaijani nationalism and Armenian claim.
Does the modern world propose any system of existence with Azerbaijan,
in which Nagorno Karabakh can maintain its identity? V. Atanesian's
answer was unequivocally no. And it is immoral that Nagorno Karabakh's
150-thousand population is treated the same way as a similar-size
condominium in New York, Paris or Moscow. This means to disregard
the world history from a 'gentleman's height', and opposing to such
treatment can only be general hatred. Geopolitical competition, as in
the past, is taking place on the orientation of the Middle East. The
analysis of two world wars, the Euro-Atlantic alliance race, and
the post-cold-war conflicts brings to the famous formulation: 'East
is East and West is West'. So, incompatible cannot be combined. The
border between the East and the West in the South Caucasus passes
through the contact-line between the Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijani
armed forces. This is a contact-line between pacifism and militarism.
The vacuum that was formed in the South Caucasus with the Soviet
Union's collapse would have been devastating for Europe and the whole
territory of the former Soviet Union if it hadn't been 'dispersed'
by the current Karabakh-Azerbaijani military-political balance. There
was and is no other solution than repression of Azerbaijan's regional
ambitions, because otherwise the South Caucasus would or will become
a new, Turkey-headed power center in the Middle East region, under a
physical contact with Central Asia. And the new center's ambitions
for that huge military geopolitical and raw materials region will
make impossible the peaceful chance of balancing by the European,
Russian or Chinese factor. So, which is the fruitful system now to
serve a restrictive factor in the region? V. Atanesian's conclusion
is as follows: Â"The current situation is that the status quo in the
Karabakh-Azerbaijani military-geopolitical confrontation zone is the
only effective system, around which the world power centers are still
able to find a common ground for mutual deterrence and balance. And it
is not accidental that the Nagorno Karabakh problem is the only one in
the international policy agenda, in the settlement process of which,
though formally, but are equally involved Russia, the USA, and France.
The latter's mediation is identical to the EU considerations.
There is no doubt that the NKR represents a military-political entity
in the South Caucasus region. The future role of the NKR in the South
Caucasus, with its 20-year-old independence, is conditioned by the
increase in the level of its political and economic self-sufficiency.
This is the authorities' priority issue, which is supported by the
centers interested in maintaining stability in the Middle East.
It is at the same time the only way to maintain the balance and
to prevent any radicalism in the powers' ratio. And an alternative
to changing the situation via foreign intervention could become the
recognition of the NKR de facto independence by a country or alliance
concerned, with the supposed and quite new geopolitical rearrangements.