The year of 2011 has been marked for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR, or Artsakh as Armenians were calling it for centuries) with the 20th anniversary of its independence from the Soviet Union. The people of Artsakh, despite various endemic challenges, made a choice for a free and democratic development – something previously unheard throughout the oppressive Communist era. The freedom-loving people in Karabakh followed the requirements of then effective (i.e. Soviet) legislation and norms of international law, and voted for independence at a nation-wide referendum on December 10, 1991 – right two weeks before the Soviet Union legally disappeared, leaving its heritage of arbitrary decisions.
One of the toughest challenges for the NKR since restoring its sovereignty remains convincing those against Artsakh’s freedom, and first of all – neighboring Azerbaijan, that the world has changed since 1991, and that decolonization processes take place much smoother with the adequate reaction by former members of a single political-administrative entity. Unfortunately, few capitals of former Soviet republics refuse to accept the new realities, and cherish a partial and selective retention of infamous Stalin’s deeds.
Relations between NKR and Azerbaijan remain complicated and hostile, which impedes the whole region’s comprehensive development and undermine stability and security of the South Caucasus. To promote a proper and unbiased understanding of the situation and, therefore, the search for a lasting peace and a predictable region, it is extremely important to set the facts straight.
Historically and legally, Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh (the word “Karabakh” has Persian roots and means “black garden”[1]) has been one of the ancient Armenian principalities. During the short period of independence of South Caucasus republics (Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan) in 1918-1920, the League of Nations refused to recognize newly-created Azerbaijan because of its state fragility, as well as territorial claims towards Georgia and Armenia, particularly, claims over Nagorno-Karabakh, stating that “frontier disputes with neighboring states did not permit of an exact definition of the boundaries of Azerbaijan”.[2] Thus, it is extremely important to underline and keep in mind that in 1918-1920, international community, particularly the League of Nations, did not recognize Azerbaijan’s authority over Nagorno-Karabakh.
After the region’s Sovietization, in 1921, the Bolshevik government, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, forcibly and illegally placed Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh inside the newly drawn borders of the Soviet Azerbaijan, creating autonomy for the oblast that remained in force for the consequent decades. After Gorbachov declared liberalization of political regime by proclaiming the era of perestroika and glasnost in 1985, the people of Karabakh sought to legally rejoin Armenia, and correct the errors of the past. However, Azerbaijan responded with anti-Armenian pogroms from 1988-1991, hundreds of miles away from Artsakh proper—in Sumgayit, Baku, Kirovabad, Mingechaur, and with a total blockade of Nagorno Karabakh, which was condemned by international community. It has alsoescalated the peaceful process into a full-scale confrontation between the nations.[3] Confrontation, which has claimed thousands of lives, and still continues to overwhelm each and every aspect of Baku’s attitude towards Stepanakert. And mass media, as always, is also a battlefield.
Going back to the historical and legal aspects of the problem, it is essential to emphasize that in 1991, Azerbaijan adopted a declaration on state independence, proclaiming itself the successor of the 1918-1920 Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, thus rejecting the Soviet Azerbaijan’s legal and political heritage, including Soviet-era authority over the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.[4] As noted earlier, the League of Nations didn’t recognize Azerbaijani authority over Nagorno Karabakh in the years of 1918-1920 Republic.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has never been a territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as Baku often tries to portray it by abusing the text and interpretation of four relevant UN Security Council resolutions of 1993. In reality, a legal essence of the confrontation lays in the internationally recognized fundamental principle of equality of peoples and the right to freedom and self-determination. The peaceful appeal of Nagorno-Karabakh to the Soviet Government on reunification with Armenia in February 1988, and declaration of Karabakh independence that followed in 1991 set the example of a people’s attempt to enjoy their right to self-determination, and to master their own destiny.[5]
Basing on the universal principles of human rights, and in compliance with the international and domestic (i.e. Soviet) legal norms, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and adjacent Shahumian region’s national assembly declared independence, and confirmed its choice through the December 10, 1991[6] nationwide referendum. Then acting Soviet legislation, particularly “Law of the USSR of April 3, 1990 concerning the procedure of secession of a Soviet Republic from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”[7] envisaged the right to secession for the Union republics and autonomous regions. Thereby, in 1991, sovereign Azerbaijani Republic and sovereign Nagorno-Karabakh Republic were proclaimed on the territory of the former Soviet Azerbaijani republic.
Azerbaijan responded with a large-scale military aggression against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Thousands of regular Azeri troops, Afghan mujahideens and other forces linked to various international terrorist organizations, also fought against ethnic Armenians.[8] Ultimately, Baku and its certain supporters failed to conquer Artsakh, and had to ask for a cease-fire,[9] which was co-signed by Azerbaijan, Armenia and NKR in May, 1994.
The conflict was devastating indeed. Dozens of thousands casualties, territorial losses, mutual flows of refugees, and a deepening distrust – these are the direct consequences of the 1991-1994 war. In efforts to reject its responsibility and mislead the international community, Azerbaijan has been constantly complaining about “occupation of its territories” often referring to the UN Security Council’s resolutions. Nonetheless, in reality none of those resolutions has ever mentioned Armenia as aggressor,[10] since the conflict is between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh.
The mentioned resolutions urged both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides to “refrain from any hostile acts and from any interference, which would lead to the widening of the conflict and undermine peace and security in the region”.[11] The history of those days clearly shows that this is not how Azerbaijan had been willing to behave. Aggressive stance and continued provocations by Baku were repeatedly evidenced by then co-chairs to the OSCE Minsk Group. For instance, Russia’s envoy to the Group from 1992 to 1996, Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov has many times stated that revanchist Azerbaijan had always been responsible for violating the UN resolutions and undermining international peacemaking efforts. In one of his writings, Ambassador Kazimirov reiterated that
all four Resolutions were adopted at the peak of the military operations (April-November 1993). That’s why it’s natural that their most principal, key demand was to cease fire, military operations and hostile acts….During that period and later, till May 1994, i.e. more than a year Azerbaijan’s leadership persistently ignored the main demands of all 4 Resolutions and continued staking on the forcible solution of the conflict, several times violated the cease-fire, deviated from agreements about it and from other peace-making initiatives. … This has a most direct relation to the grave consequences of the war, as seizure of territories, growth of the number of displaced persons are also on the conscience of Azerbaijan’s leadership, and not only on Armenia’s and Nagorno Karabakh’s.”[12]
Another quote by a European official makes the picture far clearer. Besotted by a temporary military success the Azeri army reached with a significant help of mercenaries from Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, Baku has been decisive in “solving” the problem once and forever the only way Azeri Government imagined – killing each and every Armenian in Karabakh.[13] Mario Rafaelli, the first Chairman of the Minsk Conference (Minsk Group’s antecedent), wrote in his September 23, 1992 letter to the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Jozef Moravčík: Azerbaijan’s continued “actions aimed at the restoration of its control over the given territory are incompatible with the country’s obligations to seek peaceful solution of the conflict through negotiations. … How can the Minsk Group quietly continue negotiations, when the very object of the negotiations eventually vanishes? In the case that Nagorno-Karabakh returns under the control of that country in the result of the military offensive, what would then remain for negotiations?”[14]
The bottom-line is that the Nagorno Karabakh Republic’s independence has nothing to do with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan – the legal predecessor of the only independent Azerbaijani Republic of 1918-1920, which, as it was mentioned above, never included Nagorno Karabakh. For those who reject to accept the regional realities and existence of the sovereign Artsakh, the international community has repeatedly reaffirmed its vision of the Karabakh settlement, which has to be based on the three main and equal principles of the international law: right for self-determination of peoples, territorial integrity of states, and non use and non threat of use of force.
However, Artsakh survived and since declaring independence in 1991, the NKR has established itself as a free and democratic state with effective democratic governance, active civil society and developing market economy. Local reforms have created a favorable environment for business activity and attracted multi-million foreign investments. More than $130 million have been invested in Artsakh’s relatively small economy January – June 2011 alone.[15] Mining, telecommunication, construction, energy, tourism, food processing and agriculture are among the most attractive spheres for a business-activity in the republic. The number of visitors passed 20000 in 2011.[16] Karabakh economy continues to demonstrate a stable growth with the average real GDP growth around 5 percent in the aftermath of the global economic crisis.[17]
Thus, during the last decade, Artsakh, being deprived of international financial assistance except for the annual humanitarian assistance by U.S. Congress, proved to be able to restore from ruins its economy and infrastructure. Deepening of the democratic values remains the essential task for the republic’s authorities, which were elected through a voting monitored and assessed by international observers as free, democratic and transparent.[18]
It seems that two gentlemen haven’t heard about uti possidetis. Moreover, League of Nation did not recognise independence of Armenia and non of South Caucasus states emerged after collapse of Russian Empire. Nowadays territory of Armenia was subject of dispute between Armenia-Georgia, Armenia-Azerbaijan. Zangezur-Geokcha(Sevan) Lori-Pambak etc. areas were disputable between South Caucasian states.
So Question arise who granted Zangezur to Armenia? Territory which belonged to Erivan khanate and later transformed to Erivan oblast within Russian Empire half of population which consisted with Azerbaijanis.
Its better to think about it rather than to speculate about belonging of Karabakh to Armenia, no any state of those times recognize Armenia or authority of Armenia over Karabakh. In comparison to Armenia, British government which represented Entente in Caucasus, recognised authority of Azerbaijan over Karabakh which included Zangezur area as well.
The act of Armenia is similar to Nazi Germany which occupied neighbouring elzas -lotharingia from France claiming these territories being historical lands of Germans and we know consequences.
Dvorak is new azeri surname?
The Nagorno Karabakh conflict became as one of the most tragic conflicts in the history of XX century and affected the destiny of millions. This conflict provoked in 1988 retains still its hostile status because the Armenian side believes that the conflict is the antagonistic one and runs by its own rule “either all or nothing”. Backstage-minded events which were out of the public limelight have paved the way to the open and precedent like phase of the conflict. This hidden and latent part of the story has been unfolding in long lasting activities of some Armenian public figures in the Soviet Union and the Armenian Diaspora abroad. The Armenian side has cared for years to deteriorate the hostile situation by having pondering on the ethnocratic nature of its plot. The ethnocratism has been intended to enable the realization of the Armenian goals at the expense of other peoples. It aimed the following irredentist idea – to attach the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (established in 1923) of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. First patterns of the irredentist idea (so-called “miatsum”) formed for many years have got its shape during mass rallies in Yerevan in Autumn 1987 where the public demands to subordinate NKAO (Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic have been explicitly announced. In this light, the conflict has gradually passed to the phase of incidents. The process had some inner dynamics: it was known by the velocity of events which have logically led to the bloodbath, the tragedy for many people who were odd to the idea of the territorial expansion.
The activities of the Armenian ethnocrats have been supported by A.Aganbekyan, the academician in his scandalous interview given to L’Humanite newspaper in November 1987. It became the ominous sign which demonstrated that some part of the Soviet elite of Armenian origin is openly ignoring the official norms of peoples’ coexistence in the Soviet Union. While “Ochag” book written by the ethnocrat Z.Balayan and published in Armenian in 1985 in both Armenian and Russian languages was a mere monumental detail deplored by the society, Aganbekyan’s statement signaled an open passage to the systematic actions and declarations.
In November 1987, the conflict gets the massive character: the campaign to oust Azerbaijanis from the Kaphan district of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic is being launched. For the first time since 1920 in South Caucasus, innocent people are put on sufferings due to their ethnic background. In the end of January 1988, no any single Azerbaijan has been left in Kaphan region. In November – December 1988, the same destiny awaited also other Azerbaijanis living in other regions of Armenia. In this regard, the massive exodus of people in large numbers is starting in 1988-1990 with the exact same mutual direction – Azerbaijanis are leaving for Azerbaijan and Armenians are heading back to Armenia. The ethnically colored panorama, which could allow in the past to talk about the mutual influence on the living style and culture, is drastically fading out.
First picketing on Karabakh issue has been organized in NKAO’s oblast Center in February 13, 1988. Starting from February 16 till March 2, 1988, public rallies are being held in NKAO. The reply came immediately – the public picketing is held in Baku on February 19. The idea to struggle is propelled extensively in both Azerbaijani and Armenian societies by creating environment to sanction the actions of “the front type” persons. This chain called as the politically inexperienced masses and leaders of public rallies is defining the shapes of the policy in 80-90 years of XX century. It is indeed in the beginning of 1988, the drastic rise of opposition gets its full swing because the Armenian ethnocrats are succeeding in replacing the social discontent by the nationalist one and to spearhead the public opinion towards illusions and non-tolerance.
In February 20, 1988, the Oblast Soviet of the People’s Deputies of NKAO – regarded as the stronghold of ethnocrats and criminals – has voted for its attachment to Armenia. The special public structure called “The Committee for Reunification of NKAO with the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic” and destined to tear down the State integrity of the Union’s Republic came to light on March 2. In March 5, it got registered under the name of “Groong”. The irredentist nature of the conflict has been reflected in the establishment of “Karabakh” Committee in Yerevan. In February 21, 1988, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union takes the decision on “The Events in Nagorno Karabakh”, which qualifies the decree of the Oblast’s Soviet as the action “provoked by the nationalistic elements”. Moscow is adopting another decree “On Measures to speed up the Social and Economic Development of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic in 1988 -1995” on March 24, 1988.
In June 14, 1988, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia gives “its consent to include” NKAO in the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Immediately, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan takes the opposite decision on June 17, 1988: NKAO remains within the Republic. The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of USSR adopts the logical decision on the impossibility of changing the national and territorial compositions of the Azerbaijani SSR and the Armenian SSR on July 18, 1988 taking into account the destructive character of any other step. In this case, the Supreme Soviet of USSR is guided by (the Article 78) of the Soviet Constitution which stipulates that “the territory of the Union’s Republic cannot be changed without its own consent”. During this pre-war phase of the conflict and subsequently, the moral truth was on the Azerbaijani side which defended the status quo – the administrative territorial composition which did not impede at all the comprehensive development of the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples. It has to be underlined that main indicators of the NKAO’s social development have dominated the average Republic level of the Azerbaijani SSR and the Armenian SSR.
The Azerbaijani political elite based its position on the protectionist and State interests, but its human potential was not adequate to the complexity of the situation. The absence of Heydar Aliyev, the statesman who had the experience in ruling the multinational society, had a huge and direct impact of the conflict unfolding and its subsequent phases.
As the overall weakening of the State machine of USSR became faster, all measures destined to calm down the Azerbaijani and the Armenian communities in NKAO were doomed to failure. In this context, the activities of the Committee of the Special Administration (CSA) (existed from January 12 to November 28, 1989) became also ineffective. The situation was further exacerbated by still going on Cold War between USSR and USA. The US Senate passed the resolution entitled “the US assistance in peaceful regulation of the Nagorno Karabakh dispute at the basis of the desire of the people of the Soviet Armenia” on July 19, 1989. In November 19, 1989, the US Senate expresses its wish “to assist the fair resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in the course of bilateral talks with the Soviet Union, which would really reflect the aspirations of the people of that Oblast”. The rights advocating movement formed in USSR and in particular, “The Memorial” organization are unilaterally defending the Armenian separatists saying rightly that this choice is something more meaningful than the tacit domination.
In December 1, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR has taken the unprecedented decision “On the Reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno Karabakh”. In January 9, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia has included the plan on the social and economic development of NKAO in the Republican plan for 1990. NKAO held the parliamentary elections to send its representatives to the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR on May 20, 1990. This series of events have left no doubt in irredentist position of Armenia which was subsequently just masked. In May 1990, the Armenian All National Movement has won the parliamentary elections in Armenia. Ascension of separatists to power meant the only thing: to wage an aggressive war with the ideas like “reunification” and “people’s self-determination right”. In fact, the military ethnocratic circles have acceded to power in Armenia, which advocated the only forceful way of the problem resolution.
The decision “On the Reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno Karabakh” taken on December 1, 1989 had very serious consequences to the relations between peoples by stirring up the cold war between Azerbaijani and Armenia, and accordingly, the rise of mass hatred towards aggressors. It leads openly to the qualitative enlargement of the zone of conflict and its general expansion. After known January events of 1990 in Baku, the Kremlin profile and President Gorbachev’s image became negative indices in the country.
Heydar Aliyev’s revealing speech made in Moscow on January 20 has ensured the combination of sound intellectual grounds for the society which were directed to sort out from the crisis of the Azerbaijani Statehood. January Events in Baku have been marked by the passage of the Azerbaijani elite to a new political and philosophical position – the deteriorating conflict became the catalyst in formatting new program goals. The failure of the authorities of the Azerbaijani SSR in January 1990 has signaled the inadequacy of the policy based upon the class internationalism in large Imperial space. A new ideological paradigm was destined to ensure the transition of Azerbaijan to the National State. But newly formed leaders of Azerbaijan were late in passing to a new policy. They have made mistakes in temporal measuring of events. Meanwhile, Heydar Aliyev was also in forced isolation. This was the man with already proved political drive who could feel the timeliness and the space. He was able to analyze the course of events before actions and understand that every of the planned step should rely upon the tough subjective will of the State.
The Republican Organizing Committee for NKAO created at the basis of the decree of the Supreme Soviet of USSR was helpless – it is well seen today – because it has been linked to the weakening possibilities of the overall Union’s system, which was objectively interested in self-survival. Nevertheless, starting from January 25, 1990, the Organizing Committee has strived in its every step the political-legal and psychological basis of NKAO by helping the population to get rid of the ethnic intolerance feelings. Its activities became definitely idle in the aftermath of the August events of 1991 which have completely discredited the all Union’s Statehood. Hypocrisy and duplicity of the Gorbachev’s policy were seen as the elements “to build” a new political reality. It was far from promising any relieving prospective to the Azerbaijani nation. In September 2, 1991, “The Nagorno Karabakh Republic” (NKR) has been declared within boundaries of NKAO and the Shaumyan region of the Azerbaijani SSR. As a reply measure, Azerbaijan has taken the decision on November 23, 1991 which repealed the autonomous status of Nagorno Karabakh. But, in November 27, 1991, the latest creature of Gorbachev – so-called “The State Council of USSR” has deemed this decision of Azerbaijan as the anti-Constitutional. In December 10, 1991, the referendum masterminded earlier was held in “NKR” to vote for the independence of the Armenian community. The Independence Declaration of the mono-ethnic “Nagorno Karabakh Republic” has been adopted on January 6, 1992. After having adopted these decisions, the Armenian separatists have provoked the transition from the cold war to the full scale military operations accompanied by the mass perishing of absolutely innocent Azerbaijanis and Armenians who became the hostages of the Yerevan aggressive aspirations.
During military campaign of 1992 and 1993, Armenia has occupied 20 percent of the Azerbaijani territory. “As an outcome of the war, more than one million of people have been subjected to the ethnic cleansing by Armenia”. Mr.Ilham Aliyev, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan has underlined the following: “The occupation of the territory of the sovereign State with its internationally recognized boundaries – our territorial integrity is recognized by the United Nations… has been left out of due attention of the international community… All of these facts are the ever seen injustice which lasts over long years”.
In 1993, the Azerbaijani nation has personally experienced the need for building strong basis of the State, human potential in quality of professional staff worked for life and in particular, the creative minded leader. This Nation got the historic Fortune: all of this was in its hands. In order to attain this level, there was a need for the will of people which Aristotle used to call as the Entelechy – to transit from the potential into the factual.
Heydar Aliyev’s comeback on June 15, 1993 has turned a new page in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. In 1993, Heydar Aliyev has paved the way towards a new Azerbaijani Statehood. In this context, the Nagorno Karabakh problem has been considered only through the following prism: “The Territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not and will never be the topic of negotiations… Azerbaijan will not retreat from this position in any single step. This means that in territorial integrity of Azerbaijan … there will be no compromise”. These words are reflecting the continuation of the political course of Heydar Aliyev realized by Mr. Ilham Aliyev, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
In 1993, Heydar Aliyev has factually been left in front of the very grave consequences caused by objective and subjective reasons. He concluded that the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh problem envisages the synthetic approach and the necessary consideration of many factors in internal and external policies. In particular, it meant the beginning of the formation of the regular mighty army, the creation of the stable authorities, the restoration and reformation of economy, the signature of oil contract and definitely, the consolidation of the nation. Heydar Aliyev used to say: “I needed two and a half years to establish order”. In 1993-1994, Heydar Aliyev has been acknowledging that he used “to spend 80 percent of his long working day” for solving this problem.
In May 5, 1994, Bishkek Protocol on ceasefire has been signed. In the result of the Armenian aggression, the following seven regions have fallen under the occupation – Kelbajar, Lachin, Kubatly, Zanghilan, Agdam and Fizuli. Almost one million of people have become refugees and internally displaced persons.
The escalation of the armed conflict in 1993 has brought the UN Security Council to the decision to adopt 4 resolutions in 1993: April 30, July 29, October 14 and November 12, 1993. These resolutions confirm the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan and use the following wording – “The Nagorno Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan” which is incorporated into the texts of UN General Assembly annual resolutions “On Co-operation between the Organization of the United Nations and the Organization for the Security and the Co-operation in Europe”.
The decisions taken in OSCE framework are based upon the UN Security Council resolutions, the legal-normative basis and the mechanism of the negotiation process. Already, in 1992, Foreign Ministers of CSCE have expressed their concern about the extending armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh at the additional Helsinki meeting and their desire to convene the special conference in Minsk. During CSCE Budapest Summit held in 1994, the adherence to the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council has been confirmed by the participants. They have also decided to pass to the active actions of CSCE in relation to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. At the same time, heads of States and governments have inducted the CSCE Chairman-in-office to nominate the co-chairmen of the Minsk Conference in order to forge the common and consistent basis for talks as well as to ensure the full coordination of all mediation and negotiation activities. Heads of States and governments have also expressed their political readiness to allocate multinational forces of CSCE to maintain peace as both sides will reach the political agreement on stopping the armed conflict.
While heads of CIS States have been signing the Memorandum on Maintaining the peace and stability in the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1995, Armenian has refused to endorse 7th and 8th Items of the document which stipulate the following: “The participating States will undertake in their own territories measures to prevent any pattern of separatism, nationalism, chauvinism and fascism, and they are also committed neither to support the separatist movements in the territories on the territories of other participating States and any separatist regimes nor to extend them economic, financial, military and other assistance”.
In December 2-3, 1996, Armenia is blocking the Final Declaration in OSCE Lisbon Summit which recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Mediators of OSCE Minsk Group are presenting a new plan for peaceful settlement on September 20-24, 1997. In accordance with this plan, “Nagorno Karabakh is the State and territorial entity within Azerbaijan”. In November 1998, OSCE Minsk Group proposes the idea of the so-called “common State” rejected by Azerbaijan. Final documents of OSCE Istanbul Summit held in November 1999 do not contain a direct reference to the principle of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan in relation to the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has been also considered in the Council of Europe. In 1997, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted the resolution “On the Conflicts in the South Caucasus” which stipulates that the political settlement of the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh must be the topic of talks taking into account, in particular, the principles of inviolability of the State borders and the large autonomy status for Nagorno Karabakh.
In April 25, 1999, the President of Azerbaijan and Armenia – Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharian are holding the first bilateral meeting in Washington. They meet again in Paris on January 26 and March 4-5, 2001 and later on, in Key West on April 3-7, 2001.
In 2006, OSCE Minsk Group has proposed to hold in future the referendum to define the status of Nagorno Karabakh with the condition to withdraw the Armenian troops from the Azerbaijan lands which are currently under occupation.
It should be noted that such meetings were also held between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharian starting from their first talks in Geneva on December 11, 2003.
Such order of events demonstrates the radical difference either in the nature of steps made by Azerbaijan and Armenia – two States of the South Caucasus, or in their conceptual approach to the conflict resolution.
The Statehood building culture of Azerbaijan has been representing and still represents the synergy of knowledge, abilities and experience of peoples lived in Azerbaijan for centuries. The Azerbaijani political, e.g. civil nation has been forming in the course of XX century. “The State becomes richer if it is populated by many peoples because every of these peoples bring its own contribution to the world culture and civilization”. This formula of Heydar Aliyev is reflecting the quintessence nature of the modern Azerbaijani Statehood. These are the political and psychological as well as ideological-cultural origins of the policies of the modern Azerbaijani State.
The modern Republic of Azerbaijan regards the existence of a people as the result of the civil and political self-determination of the peoples in Azerbaijan. In this main sense, the problem of “the ethnic self-determination further up to the separation” within one nation is considered as the false problem. The ethnocratic nationalism used as a tool to breakdown the national States is groundless in its main argument. The ethnos within the nation-State cannot be the political-legal entity. It can enjoy only being as the cultural and historical entity. The modern nation-States are multiethnic. The State where the many ethnos communities are not united into the political nation under the common national interest and supra-ethnic ideology can exist only in critical situation, if possible. This is the general political philosophy of the Azerbaijani State that can be applied to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
The future of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is not the direct continuation of the current state of affairs. It is mainly linked to the fact that the events in the diplomatic history after the signature of ceasefire are valued at the basis of the only moral criteria formulated by Mr. Ilham Aliyev, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan: “Of course, we are happy to gain the diplomatic success… But if our lands are still under occupation, it means that all these results do not enjoy the principal importance. They will be only meaningful as the Azerbaijani lands will be liberated from the occupational forces and our fellow citizens will go back to their native homes. Our compatriots must come back to the occupied lands – territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh and the Nagorno Karabakh itself”.
Criteria of evaluating the diplomatic efforts are reflected in the practice and the incontestable achievements of the Azerbaijani State which are extrapolated rightly in the overall might of the country. “Our largest compromise is our commitment to the peace talks. But we have to create a new situation using these possibilities. I want to reaffirm that the strengthening of the military potential is not leading to the automatic restoration of war. This is the very last option. We have to be ready for it. Every country must be ready, including our country which is in the state of war with its occupied lands. At the same time, I am convinced that we will be able to exert a strong pressure on Armenia by using all political, economic, diplomatic and regional factors. This is already felt by anyone.” – says Mr. I.Aliyev, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
The Nagorno Karabakh problem will be solved in favor of the citizens of the multinational Azerbaijan. Our country was and will be the common house of all its residing peoples.
Very good article which reflects the reality.
Oh, Mohhamad is a new “Armenian” name.
So many lies and falsified things in the article!!! Complete BS, so tzpical to Armenian propaganda
Aram Avetisyan and Hovhannes Nikoghosyan article is an outstanding piece of work. They have managed to bring past and present realities of Artsakh in comprehensive and transparent manner. As for the past, what they have done is depict true historical events that could not be disputed by someone who can think clearly. It is clear and simple what historical facts say! Artsakh has never been part of Azerbaijan in the past including during the Soviet era. It was an autonomous republic, again, annexed by Stalin illegally to Azerbaijan. However, in the end, the freedom loving people of Artsak voted for independence. At present, this small but proud nation has an exemplifying form of government institutions where its citizens enjoy full democractic rights and run their country in a fair and orderly fashion. Something the Azerbaijan has failed to do. In fact, they have done exactly the opposite. Perhaps it is high time the Azeri people and its corrupt and dictatorial government stop dreaming about getting back this small territory by force or otherwise and learn a few lessons on ruining a country in a civilized and equitable manner.
Did anyone ever asked karabakh people about their opinion about all this troreas ? i dont think so !
Did you ever heared about Sumgait and such a things ? i dont thing so !
Do you really belive on what you wrote , or that’s just a step to feel your self a good aseri ? Just think sometimes! I dont need an asnwer
Ziyad – “prokaznik”.
I just wonder, where do such Azeris learn to write about the history with cutting and stapling its different parts? And what do they do with the missed parts, swallow or hide in dark archives of their “mind”? Dear Ziyad, I wonder, how you didn’t manage to receive a Stalin Prize for the protection of the imposed Soviet neo-colonialism. Actually, I understand the joy of Azeris with Soviet heritage, who were not only granted a chance to have a never-existed-before statehood, but also to create and hold an identity, artificially become a nation from the hordes. Where are the parts of Soviet pre-history, part of Sumgait, part of operation “Koltso”, and other big segments of historical past? AAAA, you don’t have an authority from your Shah Ilham to write about them. Oh, I guess I have some websites, which can refresh your minds. http://baku.am/, http://xocali.net/. Uncover the real history!
Well done Aram Avetisyan and Hovhannes Nikoghosyan!
Dear Dvorak and Ziyad: Firstly, You seem to be educated and intelligent people, therefore, why don’t you prob deeper in the history where you will find, specially on cuneiform clay tablets the name of “URTEKHIN” meaning Artsakh, often mentioned by foreigners as one of the eastern provinces of Armenia? where among other events, army of your ancestor chenguiz khan!was defeated and driven away! Secondly, Mr. Ilham Aliyev by now has revealed his true character and intentions. At the end of his speech “our country was and will be common house of all its residing people” the true intention which is “in dead condition only” is hidden. He has declared war not only on live Armenians but on dead ones also! Remember destruction of dead Armenians’ millennium old crosses “khachkars” in the Armenian cemetery of Jugha in the Armenian territory of Nakhijevan? not to mention murder of innocent shepherds and farmers? Oh, by the way, I am sorry that wishes of the British Empire was not accomplished!, the same British who closed their eyes while you massacred twenty thousand defenseless women and children during 1920? Gentlemen, your country is disintegrating, run while you can! Y.R.
Aram Avetisyan and Hovhannes Nikoghosyan’s “article ” is a reflection of self deception and represent the songs doninating in Armenia. It is designed for unknowledgeable audience and is not worth for commenting. It is worth to note only the role of brutal Stalin in formation of the Sovietization. if you start tiying all territorial formations with Stalin then let’s eliminate all republics of former soviet union. All central asian republics were formed during stalin period. Ukraine, then Moldova, Russia’s territorial structures have been formed by Stalin. Georgia’s territories and finally Armenia. If no Stalin where would be Armenia today? Armenia was also created by Stalin dear friends. And armenians must erect a monument to Stalin for today’s armenia. Who signed Aleksandropol peace treaty with Turkey? and under your argument Stalin negotiated Turkish withdrawl and created today’s Armenia. And azerbaijani bolsevic commanders granted zangezur to Armenian soviet republic again by Stalin’s dictation if I again follow your argument. If you also want to get truth about Nagorno Karabakh and again “Stalin’s decison” in July 5,1921 then go to archive and search it but do not listen to armenian street if you are willing to be reperesented as a scholar. Stalin “decided” to leave NK within Azerbaijan ( decison of KavBuro in Vladigafgaz although Stalin was not there and Lenin was effectively ruling at that time)and if it was not Azerbaijani then how it could be left within Azerbaijan.Sure if you want a truth. Sure for sensless propoganda you can write whatever you want. Who cares in the US? Who will search or research?
But the name of Nagorno Karabakh was also invented by Azerbaijani governmnet in 1923 when it adopted a decision on formation of Daglig Garabag Muxtar Vilayeti ( in russian Nagorno Karabakh avtonomnaya oblast). There were no geographical name of like Nagorno Karabakh or Daglig Garabag before. But any history does not play any role now.If look at the history then all borders should be changed now.
Azerbaijan is recognized within its Soviet boundaries and no one can change it without permission of Azerbaijani people. If Nk had any right for separation no one would have asked Azerbaijan for that and would recognize it. So there is no space for propoganda.All interested agencies are well aware of the situation.
Indeed, you are “prokaznik”. I have no doubt that you have no information about historical events. It is a pity!
Ziyad,why you do not send your article to be published at Foreign Policy Journal if they are not biased towards armenians?
If they reject then the FP Journal is representing armenian street again.
Thank you for this article – will be using it (and its references) going forward to explain the real nature of the conflict to whoever is interested to know the truth.
If we evaluate the article in terms of writing, i would say well-written, but in terms of research and facts, it is completely bias. I will explain why.
1. The majority of the sources are unreliable and unscientific. For example: The statistic of Nagorno Karabakh taken from Armenian website. My suggestion to you always refer to non-Armenian sources if you want to be objective. Do you think readers will believe in the numbers indicated by Armenian officials?
2. You talk about undemocratic regime in Azerbaijan, forgetting mention the situation in Armenia. Probably, you forgot that Armenian president refused to resign after the death of 10 Armenians during protests against regime. This makes your supporting point bias.
3. Looking at your sources i haven’t seen any books or scientific articles. Knowing the fact that article is written by PhD holder i was expecting more strong supporting facts coming from scientific research. I suggest you to take a course: “Research Methods and Design”. It will be helpful for your next publications.
4. You mention the words of Russian Ambassador as a supporting point of your argument. Who is he? Why we have to believe him. What shows that he approach is objective. I would rely on words of a some researcher from lets say Norway more than Russian ambassador.
This 4 evidences make me think that article is completely bias or just simply part of Armenian propaganda.
Dear Thomas:
Why are you wasting your times and energy to discuss and get excited about an issue which has long been solved, in fact since 1991?
Open your eyes to the fact that the anti-Armenian hate campaign unleashed by your president serves only to miss-direct your peoples attention so that he along with his gang can amass the wealth of your natural resources in the foreign banks?
There is an ancient proverb in the middle east that says “THIS ROAD THAT YOU ARE FOLLOWING LEADS TO TURKEY”, meaning you are being pushed towards death, destruction and a dark future.
Sincerely, Y.R.
To “Thomas” – let me try to answer to your comments:
“1. The majority of the sources are unreliable and unscientific…”
In general – I agree – in such loaded issues I am careful to not to fall into ‘propaganda trap’ set by either side. However, in this case your statement is not factually correct. Most of the links are from independent sources, with few from .am sites (and a couple from .az). NKR statistics you are complaining about are nowhere else to find, thus I understand the rationale to take it from the de facto administration of the Republic. Unless there’s another independent source – say, United Nations – which you may want to kindly refer if you have it.
“2. You talk about undemocratic regime in Azerbaijan, forgetting mention the situation in Armenia. Probably, you forgot that Armenian president refused to resign after the death of 10 Armenians during protests against regime. This makes your supporting point bias.”
Well, death of demonstrators and some policemen is a tragic event, but it doesn’t mean the president had to resign. If you know the modern history of USA (the beacon of democracy) there were tragic death of students during the anti-war demonstration on Nixon’s watch. Did he resign after that?
All in all, Armenia is not an ideal democratic state, but everything is relative. Relative to Azerbaijan – Armenia is. Independent Freedom House which assesses on an annual basis democracy levels in each country (even those which are not recognized) each year puts Azerbaijan next to the worst tyrannies in the World – while Armenia and even NKR are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
“3. Looking at your sources i haven’t seen any books or scientific articles. Knowing the fact that article is written by PhD holder i was expecting more strong supporting facts coming from scientific research. I suggest you to take a course: “Research Methods and Design”. It will be helpful for your next publications.”
Indeed, you do sound like a scientist yourself. Perhaps you may be satisfied with the argument that most of the references were links to various resolutions, protocols etc. and some to articles in reputable newspapers like Washington Post or NYT. I may be an ignorant, but events from the last 20 years may not warrant an in-depth “scientific research” – a collection of facts put into narrative with its own conclusion would do just fine.
“4. You mention the words of Russian Ambassador as a supporting point of your argument. Who is he? Why we have to believe him. What shows that he approach is objective. I would rely on words of a some researcher from lets say Norway more than Russian ambassador.”
The “Russian Ambassador” is somebody who was personally involved in the negotiations, and personally knows the leaders from both Armenia and Azerbaijan, who has been there – unlike you and me – all the time. Besides, Russia (unlike Norway) is an official co-sponsor of the negotiations, and is very much relevant to the problem.
I did spend all this time to patiently respond to your (frankly, unintelligent) remarks, not really hoping to change your mind (it seems to be set firmly). But if there’s a glimmer of hope that I helped some other readers to understand the gist of this dispute, my time was well-spent.
IT IS INTERESTING WHERE WAS AZERBAJDZHAN IN 1ST CENTURY WHEN ROMAN HISTORIAN STRABON WROTE THAT THESE TERRITORIES BELONG TO ARMENIAN KINGDOM? AND IT IS INTERESTING HOW THE STATE THAT TAKES THE NAME OF THE OTHER STATE FROM THE NORTHERN IRAN CAN HAD WISHES TO TAKE CONTROL OVER THE PART OF THE ARMENIA. ARMENIA WAS OCCUPIED BY COMMUNIST RUSSIA AND DIVIDED IN 1920 BETWEEN TURKEY AND RUSSIAN BOLSHEVIKS. THE RESENTS GAVE THE PARTOF EASTERN ARMENIA TO THEIR NEW SATELITE THAT NURI PASHA PROCLAIMED AS AZERBAJZHAN. TO THAT END NOW AFTER PROCLAMATION OF INDEPENDENCE ARMENIA REGAINED CONTROL OVER THESE TERRITORIES, AND THE ARTICLE MAINLY REFLECTS THIS REALITY. THATS IT FALKS. AND MISTER THOMAS YOU NEED TO READ ROMAN AND GREEK SOURCES, BEFOR SPEAKING ABOUT THE “SCIENTIFIC” RESEARCH. I THINK YOU DON’T DO IT…