Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Third European Armenian Convention. Karabakh President In The Europe

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

  • Third European Armenian Convention. Karabakh President In The Europe

    THIRD EUROPEAN ARMENIAN CONVENTION. KARABAKH PRESIDENT IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

    [ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ]

    October 18, 2013

    Armenians from all over Europe were gathered in Brussels, Belgium
    for the 3rd European Armenian Convention, convened on October 14-15
    and organized by the European Armenian Federation for Justice and
    Democracy (EAFJD).

    [Convention-2013-day-1-opening.jpg]

    EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian delivers opening remarks

    On October 14, the Convention took place at the Armenian Cultural
    Center where EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian delivered the
    opening remarks.

    [Convention-2013-day-1-audience.jpg]

    (L-R) Mountainous Karabakh Republic Foreign Affairs Minister, Karen
    Mirzoyan, Head of Permanent Mission to EU, Amb. Avet Adonts, Speaker
    of the Armenian Parliament, Hovik Abrahamyan, Mountainous Karabakh
    Republic President, Bako Sahakyan, Catholicos of Cilicia, Aram I,
    ARF-D Bureau member, Hagop Der Khachadourian, Primate of Armenian
    Apostolic Church of France, Archbishop Norvan Zakarian, Mountainous
    Karabakh Republic Vice Prime Minister, Artur Aghabekyan

    Mountainous Karabakh Republic President, Bako Sahakyan, Armenian
    Parliament's Speaker, Hovik Abrahamyan, ARF-D Bureau member and
    Armenian National Committees coordinator, Hagop Der Khachadourian,
    Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II representative and Primate of
    the Armenian Apostolic Church in France, Archbishop Norvan Zakarian and
    Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia, Aram I addressed the Convention.

    Following the speeches, an award-presenting ceremony took place.

    EAFJD staff members and partners awarded Raffi Arslanian, Kapriel
    Chemberji, Punik Foundation, Nerses Ohanian, Souren Ohanian, Braian
    Fera, Andre Gumushjian and Alecco Bezikian for their vital financial
    contribution to the EAFJD.

    The first day the topics of the agenda were discussed in three
    panels. The first one concerned the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide
    with the Director of the Institute for Diaspora and Genocide Studies
    of Bochum's Ruhr University, Prof. Dr. Mihran Dabag, and the Director
    of the ARF-D International Secretariat,

    [Convention-2013-day-1-panel-1.jpg]

    Day 1, panel 1: (L-R) Giro Manoyan, Arto Tavitian, Mihran Dabag

    Giro Manoyan. The panel was moderated by ANC Cyprus member, Arto
    Tavitian. The second discussion touched the Turkish-Azeri anti-Armenian
    lobbying and the Armenian response to it. The keynote speakers were
    the Director of

    Day 1, panel 2: Hratch Varjabedian, Bedo Demirjian-Kurkjian, Michael
    Kambeck

    Day 1, panel 2: Hratch Varjabedian, Bedo Demirjian-Kurkjian, Michael
    Kambeck

    the ANC Office in France, Hratch Varjabedian and the Secretary General
    of the European Friends of Armenia (EuFoA), Michael Kambeck.

    In the third panel, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of
    Greece, Ara Mangoyan and Chief-editor of "Orer" magazine (Czekh)
    Hakob Asatryan presented the Western and the Eastern European Armenian
    communities. Both panels were moderated by EAFJD Communication Officer,
    Bedo Kurkjian-Demirjian.

    The coordinator of Armenian NGOs in Samtskhe-Javakheti (Georgia),
    Artak Gabrielyan spoke about the problems that the Armenians of the
    region face. The discussion concluded that it would be appropriate to
    hold a special conference in the near future, dedicated to this issue.

    The President of the Forum of Armenian Associations of Europe
    (Slovakia), Ashot Grigoryan presented the Forum's work within the UN
    about Armenian monuments and Van civic organization (Russia) President,
    Gagik Melikyan presented his book "Armenian Genocide by Ottoman Turkey,
    1915. Testimony of Survivors, collection of documents".

    [Convention-2013-Mangoyan-Bedo-Asatryan1.jpg]

    Day 1, panel 3: (L-R) Ara Mangoyan, Bedo Demirjian-Kurkjian, Hakob
    Asatryan

    At the end of the first day, EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian read
    a letter by the Emergency Relief and Recovery Body of Syrian Armenians
    addressed to the Convention. The letter concerned the difficulties that
    the Syrian Armenian community faces and called the European Armenian
    communities to assist financially. Karampetian gave a summary of the
    EAFJD work that aimed both at collecting funds and at providing safety
    to the Syrian Armenians.

    [Convention-2013-day-2-opening-b.jpg]

    (L-R) Kaspar Karampetian, Eleni Theocharous, Joseph Daul, Bako
    Sahakyan, Aram I, Hovik Abrahamyan, Avet Adonts, Hagop Der
    Khachadourian

    The second day, the sessions convened in the European Parliament.

    After a welcoming speech by EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian
    the floor was given consecutively to Joseph Daul, President of
    the European People's Party (EPP) Group in the European Parliament
    which hosted the Convention, Dr. Eleni Theocharous, President of the
    EU-Armenia Friendship Group in the European Parliament, Bako Sahakyan,
    President of the Mountainous Karabakh Republic spoke for the first
    time from the European Parliament's floor about his country in what
    is considered a historical moment, Hovik Abrahamyan, Speaker of the
    Armenian Parliament, Hagop Der Khachadourian, ARF-D Bureau member and
    Armenian National Committees' Coordinator and to Aram I, Catholicos of
    the Holy See of Cilicia who elaborated on the return of the Armenian
    church properties from Turkey.

    [Convention-2013-day-2-panel-1.jpg]

    Day 2, panel 1: (L-R) Yair Auron, Kirsten Meersschaert Duchens,
    Theofanis Malkidis, Frank Engel, Henry Theriault, Vladimir Vardanyan,
    Hagop Der Khatchadourian

    [Convention-2013-day-2-panel-2-a.jpg]

    Day 2, panel 2: (L-R) Bernard Fassier, Knut Fleckenstein, Giro Manoyan,
    Andrey Kovatchev, Vahan Hovhannesian

    The first panel touched the subject of the Armenian Genocide and
    International Law. Professors Yair Auron (Israel), Theofanis Malkidis
    (Greece), Vladimir Vardanyan (Armenia), Henry Theriault (USA) as well
    as legal expert Kirsten Meersschaert Duchens (Netherlands) expressed
    their views on the Armenian Genocide and the issue of reparations.

    Moderating this panel were Frank Engel (Luxembourg), MEP and Vice
    President of the EU-Armenia Friendship Group in the European Parliament
    and Hagop Der Khachadourian.

    The next discussion was about the New Perspectives in the South
    Caucasus with guest speakers Andrey Kovatchev (MEP, Bulgaria), Vice
    Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Knut Fleckenstein (MEP,
    Germany), Vice co-Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs, Human
    Rights and Democracy of the Euronest PA, Dr. Ioannis Charalambidis
    (Cyprus), President of Ledra College, Geoffrey Robertson QC (UK),
    member of the United Nations internal Justice Council, Bernard Fassier
    (France), ex. co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Vahan Hovhannesyan,
    Vice Chair and Bureau member of Euronest PA). Giro Manoyan, ARF-D
    International Secretariat Director was the moderator of this panel.

    On the same day, at the initiative of EAFJD, the President of the
    EU-Armenia Friendship Group in the European Parliament, Dr. Eleni
    Theocharous scheduled a meeting between the Mountainous Karabakh
    Republic delegation, headed by its President, Bako Sahakyan and
    comprised of Vice Prime Minister, Artur Aghabegyan, Foreign Affairs
    Minister, Karen Mirzoyan and Press secretary of the President, Davit
    Babayan, and MEPs from various political factions and member-countries.

    [Convention-2013-day-2-panel-2-c.jpg]

    Day 2, panel 2: (L-R) Bernard Fassier, Geoffrey Robertson, Giro
    Manoyan, Andrey Kovachev, Vahan Hovhannesyan, Ioannis Charalambides

    During these two days MEPs, politicians and experts as well as
    representatives of European Armenian communities and organizations
    discussed about the various aspects of Armenia's integration in Europe,
    the progress of the Mountainous Karabakh Republic, the problems and
    the capacities of the European Armenian communities, the reparations
    of the Armenian Genocide and the drawing of a new policy to pursue
    the rights of the Armenians.

    EAFJD President Kaspar Karampetian stated, "We consider the 3rd
    European Armenian Convention to be of historical significance in
    the sense that for the first time religious and civic-political
    representatives from Armenia, Artsakh (Mountainous Karabakh) and
    the Diaspora gathered in Brussels and particularly in the European
    Parliament to unanimously voice their determination to work for the
    benefit of the development of Armenia, the recognition of Artsakh
    and the survival of the Diaspora".

    EAFJD Office

    Below is the speech ARF-D Bureau member, Vahan Hovhannesyan delivered
    at the third panel's discussion.

    Excellencies,

    Ladies and Gentlemen

    I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the real picture of the
    Karabakh conflict and the problems Armenia and the Southern Caucasus
    face today.

    20 years passed political conflict between Karabakh and Azerbaijan
    dates back to 1918, when the state named "Azerbaijan" first emerged
    on the map.

    [Convention-2013-day-2-vahan.jpg] That was the year when the Armenian
    nation, almost completely destroyed by the Genocide and war, found
    strength and will to restore its homeland from ruins and ashes and
    create an independent state. But that independence did not last long.

    In 1920 the first Republic of Armenia fell to the double aggression
    from Kemalist Turkey and Bolshevik Russia. They occupied and divided
    Armenia - in the same way as two decades later Stalinist Russia and
    Nazi Germany occupied and divided Poland and the Baltic States.

    Part of Armenia was occupied by Turkey and devoid of its Armenian
    population; another part was captured by the Bolsheviks. Armenia
    resisted fiercely, never being an obedient subject; the first and
    successful rebellion against the Bolshevik rule in 1921 made Armenia
    independent for a short time, but enemy forces were overwhelming and
    independence was lost. Afterwards, came the cruel punishment - what was
    remaining of Armenia was dismembered again: Nakhichevan region, as well
    as Karabakh, forcibly against the will of their Armenian population,
    were passed  to Azerbaijan, which joined Soviets voluntarily.

    The totalitarian regime used different means to keep national republics
    in submission. One of them we conditionally call "the Caucasian model";
    the main feature of it was the intentional deformation and distortion
    of the ethnic or administrative borders.

    They were carved in such way that no republic or ethnic entity could
    break away without a conflict with the neighbours. This was not
    the only model. There was also the so-called  "Baltic model", when
    the ethnic composition of the republics became the main target. The
    conflicts in the Southern Caucasus particularly emerged as a result
    of artificially drawn borders.

    Forcibly included in the administrative structure of Azerbaijan,
    Karabakh, where 95% of the population was Armenian, was subject to
    various forms of ethnic and religious discrimination, and economic
    deprivation. Intentional demographic manipulation resulted in
    widespread ethnic cleanings.

    The long decades of Soviet and Azerbaijani rule did not eliminate the
    desire of Armenians for freedom and independence - neither in Armenia,
    nor in Karabakh.

    The current stage of the struggle for liberation of Mountainous
    Karabakh began in 1988, when the inhabitants of that historical
    Armenian province, encouraged (or deceived) by perestroika and
    glasnost, began to take peaceful steps to break free from Azerbaijani
    control. Soviet Azerbaijani authorities answered with brutal acts
    of violence and pogroms, directed against the defenseless Armenian
    civilians. On February 26, 1988 the international community witnessed
    the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait, one of the largest cities and
    industrial centers of Azerbaijan. In Karabakh, series of attacks on
    Armenian villages were launched. They were committed with full support
    of the Soviet authorities and military. For example from January to
    May 1991 the inhabitants of 24 Armenian villages in Karabakh were
    forcibly driven from their homes. Many were killed or burnt alive
    like in Sumgait. The sudden outbreak of the Azerbaijani violence
    revealed the real roots and causes of the conflict and made them so
    clear and obvious that the European Parliament voted for a resolution,
    which in particular included the following expressions:

    "Having regard

    - to the historic status of the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh
    as part of Armenia,

    - to the arbitrary inclusion of this area within Azerbaijan in 1923 and

    - to the massacre of Armenians in the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait in
    February 1988,

    whereas the deteriorating political situation, which has led to
    anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait and serious acts of violence in
    Baku, is in itself a threat to the safety of the Armenians living
    in Azerbaijan,

    The European Parliament condemns the violence employed against Armenian
    demonstrators in Azerbaijan, and supports the demand of the Armenian
    minority for reunification with the Socialist Republic of Armenia."

    As a result of severe persecutions, Armenians and the people of
    Mountainous Karabakh were left with only three choices: leave their
    ancestral homeland, submit and die, or fight for their freedom and
    survival. Karabakhi Armenians preferred the third option. In full
    accordance with the existing law they announced their independence
    from Azerbaijan, created their own statehood, establishing the
    Government and electing the Parliament of the Mountainous Karabakh
    Republic. Azerbaijan responded with aggression and full scale war,
    attacking Armenian villages and bombing and shelling towns and the
    capital city - Stepanakert. Then Armenians of Karabakh created an
    army and organized total defense of their tiny country.

    And they won. Nobody could expected that, but they did. They were
    merely 150.000 thousand people against 7.000.000 strong Azerbaijan,
    and they won. They liberated all the territories under Azerbaijani
    occupation and took under their control several strategically important
    positions around their Land, creating a security belt.

    After series of military failures in May 1994 Azerbaijan was compelled
    to ask for peace and signed a cease-fire agreement with MKR.

    Years later the Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda invented an
    explanation for their defeat in the war unleashed by that country
    against the Mountainous Karabakh Republic, blaming Russia for some
    imaginary support of the Armenian side.

    Documents from different sources clearly show which side of the
    conflict launched by Azerbaijani intolerance benefited from Russian
    arms and armament supply more. For instance, having already more than
    double superiority in arms left by the Soviets, Azerbaijan between
    1992-1994, during the most active phase of the military confrontation,
    received from Russia approximately 1,5 times more tanks, 3 times more
    armored combat vehicles, 2 times more artillery systems and grenade
    launchers than the Armenian side. Against dozens of military airplanes
    transferred to Azerbaijan, Armenia received no air force at all.

    Twenty years have passed since the day the cease-fire was signed. The
    peace talks coordinated by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs have still not
    achieved any tangible results because of the unrelenting and aggressive
    stubbornness of Azerbaijani leadership.

    Unfortunately the international community had never paid enough
    attention to the fact that Azerbaijan used all passed years not
    for reaching full peace agreement but rather for militarizing
    its society and preparing it for a revanchist war. Hate speeches,
    militarist statements, threats and bold hostility of the Azerbaijani
    authorities aimed at Armenia and Mountainous Karabakh, and Armenians
    all over the world, as well as arms race propelled by Azerbaijan must
    be considered as a serious threat of war. Azerbaijan and its closest
    ally Turkey continue their blockade of the MKR and Armenia, which
    began more than 20 years ago, trying to exert pressure on Armenians
    in the peaceful settlement process.

    But I am not going to relate in details the dark days of war, losses,
    destruction or the following years of the futile negotiations.

    I will only try by giving you one or two examples to demonstrate what
    kind of traps Azerbaijani propaganda set on the road to the peaceful
    solution, using not only Turkey's diplomatic ties and potential,
    but also the so-called "caviar diplomacy" based on the oil money.

    First of all, I would like to stress that any direct comparisons of
    the Karabakh conflict with seemingly similar situations in the world
    lack the necessary understanding of its essence. While for Baku a
    victory is a matter of pride and ambition, for Armenians in MK it is
    a matter of life and death.

    >From this point of view, any attempt to describe the conflict as a
    confrontation of two principles of international law - the right of
    self-determination from one side and the territorial integrity from
    the other - is artificial and aimed at hoarding the inextricable
    obstacles for the peaceful solution. This artificial confrontation
    and the dispute over the priority of one of them is the basic method
    of the Azerbaijani propaganda. And this is complete nonsense.

    The international legal system is not a hierarchy of principles.

    There are no first and second rate international laws. They are
    simply meant to be implemented in different areas. The principle of
    territorial integrity refers to relations between sovereign states
    and is one of the instruments against the policy of occupation and
    annexation. But when within a state an ethnic minority living on its
    historical land is severely oppressed, deprived of  human rights,
    its historical and cultural heritage, prospectives of development,
    and forced to leave the land of its ancestors, then for such ethnic
    minorities the provision of the  international law is clear: the
    right of self-determination can and must be implemented. So the
    establishment of the Republic of Mountanious Karabakh on the basis
    of the right of self-determination should not be considered in the
    scope of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

    Another trick of the Azerbaijani propaganda is more complicated.

    During all stages of peace talks Azerbaijani authorities stubbornly
    insist on dealing only with the consequences of the conflict, refusing
    to address to its causes. That's understandable; the consequences
    are visible, obvious, even striking: human losses, disabled people,
    refuges, destroyed villages, towns, roads, bridges, neglected
    fields and factories. But healing those wounds would be impossible
    without dealing with the causes which led to the bloody conflict. And
    that is not an easy task because the true causes are often hidden,
    and hidden with a purpose. Apparently, by that Azerbaijan tries to
    avoid the responsibility for launching and escalating the military
    aggression against its neighbor - Karabakh, which gained independence
    and  sovereignty on the same legal basis as Azerbaijan, Armenia or
    other republics of the former Soviet Union.

    I am absolutely sure that only the complex approach to the conflict
    and ways of its resolution without artificially separating the causes
    from the consequences of it can bring the historical reconciliation
    of the whole region. That will be impossible if one of the sides of
    the conflict namely Azerbaijan is continuing its policy of seeking
    "the ultimate victory" without any concession from its side.

    The infamous history with the axe-murderer Ramil Safarov, who killed
    his sleeping colleague-officer during the NATO training courses
    in Budapest only because that officer was Armenian, and later was
    declared and praised as a national hero in Azerbaijan, shows that in
    that country Armenians can never feel safe, can never have a future.

    How else can Armenians in Karabakh interpret the constant refusal of
    the Azerbaijani authorities to withdraw snipers from the contact line
    between the armies; the persecution of the Azerbaijani writer who
    had courage to express his sympathy to the victims of anti-Armenian
    pogroms; constant refusal of Azerbaijani authorities to discuss the
    situation with Karabakh directly?

    The conclusion is simple - a peaceful solution of the conflict and
    subordination of Karabakh to Azerbaijan are incompatible.

    Due to the fact that the MKR has not yet been recognized by the
    international community, in different instances Armenia represents and
    defends its interests, but cannot completely replace it. MK is a main
    and independent party to the conflict. Thus only the full inclusion
    of it in the ongoing negotiation process can give real opportunities
    to make them effective and resulting in the settlement of the conflict.

    MKR encompasses all the attributes required by international law for
    the creation of an independent state and necessary for international
    recognition. That, specifically,  requires:

    - a permanent population

    - a defined territory

    - a permanent administration organized under common political
    institutions exercising exclusive jurisdiction on the defined territory
    and people

    - and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

    As you can see MKR meets the criteria set by the Montevideo Convention
    for international recognition of statehood.

    But there is one specific, very distinctive feature that makes Karabakh
    deserving the recognition and peaceful life: it is a democratic
    country. Unlike the Azerbaijani nouveau-riche elite, where the victory
    in presidential elections with 85% of votes is declared even before
    the elections are finished, the Artsakh authorities have never used
    the pretext of the conflict as an obstacle to democratic reforms.

    The gates are open. Welcome to Karabakh, it is not a difficult travel,
    and you will see firsthand the evidence that Karabakh is far ahead
    of Azerbaijan in the issue of human rights and civil liberties.

    The inevitable international recognition of that republic should not
    be viewed as an act of hostility towards Azerbaijan. In the long run
    it will serve common interests. Azerbaijan and Karabakh can soon
    begin to put their tragic past behind and move toward a brighter
    future together.

    Two words about Armenia.

    Here in the European Parliament, I would like to mention that the
    frustration with the latest political developments in Armenia from
    the side of our colleagues - Members of the European Parliament, is
    obvious and maybe even partly understandable. Of course, we would
    like our colleagues to remember the day in 2008 when the highest
    representatives of the EU, and the USA expressed in their welcome
    speeches the strong wish for Turkey to lift the blockade of Armenian
    borders. The blockade is still in place, choking my country.

    And when I see the latest amendments to the EU report and resolution
    on Azerbaijan and Armenia tabled by some of our distinguished European
    colleagues, I realize that the lack of understanding of the situation
    around Mountainous Karabakh conflict continues to produce more and
    more dangerous mistakes.

    Take only one example - the proposal to make the future approximation
    of both countries to Europe dependent on the progress in the MK
    conflict resolution. Sounds good. But it is a trap which can create
    an impenetrable obstacle to the conflict resolution. The problem
    is that unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan is absolutely not interested in
    such approximation. So can this approach be considered as a kind of
    punishment. But for what? For our attempt to deal with the reality?

    I noticed that in the last years the fiercest attacks of Azerbaijani
    forces against the Armenian troops and civil population were happening
    not spontaneously. There has been a grim logic un them. If you try
    to draw a correlation graph it will immediately become evident that
    those violations of the cease-fire established almost 20 years ago have
    coincided with the most important key meetings during the long process
    of the EU-Armenia negotiations. One does not need a wild imagination
    to realize that behind that coincidences a cunningly considered policy
    lies: precisely - to scare off, to deter the government and the society
    of Armenia from the idea of the approximation and integration with
    Europe. I would not speculate on the matter of how and from where such
    attacks could be inspired and whose interests they apparently served.

    Anybody can compare the dates of the main meetings and events of the
    negotiation process with the dates of the sniper or diversionist
    assaults of the Azerbaijani troops on the Armenian civilians and
    positions on the borderline. I am not going to overburden your
    attention with the dates or events. I will simply publish them
    very soon.

    In spite of all the difficulties whether they were predictable or
    emerged unexpectedly, I am absolutely confident that the European
    integration has no alternative for Armenia. Today we are compelled to
    take into account that some of the vital aspects of our existence:
    military security, energy security and economy prevail over our
    inspirations. But that will not last forever. In process of time the
    political and ideological vectors will straighten our course.

    The proposal "that the conclusion of the EU association agreement
    with Armenia and Azerbaijan be linked to the progress towards the
    resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" creates a serious
    problem. It puts Armenia in the position of a hostage. Azerbaijani
    autorities are absolutely not interested in the peaceful solution based
    on the principles of self determination of the peoples, territorial
    integrity and non-use of force. They reject any mutual concessions
    and openly prepare their country for war. More than that: they do not
    even consider the association agreement with the EU as a political
    goal of their country, being sure that the "caviar diplomacy" is self
    sufficient. All they do is to use the pretext of the "unresolved
    conflict" to avoid any real reform aimed on the democratization
    of Azerbaijan.

    Thus, linking the future association agreement with the resolution
    of the MK conflict is exactly what Azerbaijani authorities want,
    as it will create new obstacle for Armenia's ability to maneuver
    independently. I hope my point of view will be taken into
    consideration.

    Thank you for your kind attention.

    http://www.arfd.info/2013/10/18/third-european-armenian-convention-karabakh-
    president-in-the-european-parliament/

Working...
X