From the Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia Vartan Oskanian

History

at the International Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Durban, August 31 – September 7, 2001

Today, in the world we live in, we continue to struggle with the consequences of injustices committed in the past. Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh have, for decades, fought to free themselves from discrimination, persecution, arbitrariness, denial of rights, and physical threats to which they were subjected during the Soviet empire. A striking example of the consequences of ignorance and xenophobia was the subordination of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani authority in 1921. Just a year earlier, in 1920, the League of Nations had refused to admit Azerbaijan as a member of the organization because of its claims to Armenian-populated territories in the eastern part of the South Caucasus, namely Nagorno-Karabakh. In a memorandum regarding Azerbaijan’s request for membership, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations stated: “It may be of interest to note that this territory [i.e., Azerbaijan], covering a considerable expanse of about 40,000 square miles, appears never to have constituted a state before.” And it was precisely to this “territory which had never before constituted a state” that Soviet rulers transferred Nagorno-Karabakh, a region historically Armenian and administered by Armenians. As a result, Armenians were subjected to systematic massacres, deportations, segregation, discrimination, and other manifestations of intolerance in the decades that followed. The proclamation of self-determination gave Nagorno-Karabakh the only opportunity to escape discrimination and oppression at the hands of Azerbaijan. Armenians pursued this right consistently throughout seven decades of Soviet rule and continued to demand it during the era of perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan continued to deprive Armenians and other peoples living in Karabakh of their human rights. Ten years ago, Armenian populations in the Azerbaijani cities of Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku were subjected to massacres and pogroms. This led to the exodus of Armenians from Azerbaijan. Between 1988 and 1994, Armenia sheltered about 500,000 refugees. Since then, the Government of Armenia has done everything possible to alleviate the hardships endured by the refugees. In Armenia, refugees were granted all the rights and privileges enjoyed by Armenian citizens. In Azerbaijan, by contrast, the government continues to use refugees as pawns, leaving them to live in refugee camps.

Source: United Nations – World Conference Against Racism Statements (Unofficial translation from English)

OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting

Bucharest, December 3–4, 2001 Decision No. 2 Statement of the Ministerial Council

  1. We express our deep concern that a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has not yet been achieved, despite intensified dialogue between the parties and active support from the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group. We reaffirm that the immediate resolution of this protracted conflict would contribute to lasting peace, security, stability, and cooperation in the South Caucasus.
  2. We reiterate the importance of continuing peaceful dialogue and call upon the parties to persist in their efforts toward a speedy settlement of the conflict on the basis of norms and principles of international law. We also encourage the parties to consider additional measures aimed at strengthening mutual trust and confidence, including the release of prisoners of war.
  3. We welcome the commitment of the parties to the ceasefire and to achieving a comprehensive peaceful settlement. We encourage the parties, with the active support of the Co-Chairs, to continue their efforts toward a just and lasting resolution.

Source: OSCE Website (osce.org in Bing)

OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting

Porto, December 6–7, 2002 Statement of the Ministerial Council

  1. We remain deeply concerned that a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has not yet been achieved, despite intensified dialogue between the parties and active support from the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group. We reaffirm once again that the immediate resolution of this protracted conflict would contribute to lasting peace, security, stability, and cooperation in the South Caucasus.
  2. We reiterate the importance of continuing peaceful dialogue and call upon the parties to persist in their efforts toward a speedy settlement of the conflict on the basis of norms and principles of international law. We also encourage the parties to consider additional measures aimed at strengthening mutual trust and confidence.
  3. We welcome the commitment of the parties to the ceasefire and to achieving a comprehensive peaceful settlement. In particular, we welcome the ongoing meetings between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as their special representatives. We encourage the parties, with the active support of the Co-Chairs, to continue their efforts toward a just and lasting resolution.

From the Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia Vartan Oskanian

at the OSCE Ministerial Council Session Porto, December 7, 2002

In today’s world, new states are emerging in Asia, new borders are being established and redrawn in Europe, and divided countries are uniting in various forms. In this new world, Karabakh—which did not belong to Azerbaijan in the pre-Soviet years and which is not under Azerbaijani control today—cannot tomorrow be part of Azerbaijan.

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia (Unofficial translation from English)

From the Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia Vartan Oskanian

at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, September 25, 2003

The new Azerbaijani Prime Minister, speaking yesterday from this podium, made it clear that in an election year they are prepared, at their own risk, to ignore obvious realities. Nearly a decade of negotiations brought us, two years ago, to Key West, Florida, where—at the invitation of the U.S. Government and under the close observation of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group—the President of Armenia and, whether the Azerbaijani Prime Minister likes it or not, the President of Azerbaijan, in fact reached an understanding that reflected those realities. In Azerbaijan, two myths prevail—both false, miscalculated, and dangerous. Since 1992, Azerbaijan has convinced itself that by simply dragging out time, Armenia’s economy would collapse, forcing Armenia to withdraw support from Nagorno-Karabakh and leave it defenseless. Equally flawed was Azerbaijan’s calculation that the blockade of Armenia would stagnate our economic and social development, while their oil-driven economy would flourish. Armenia’s economy not only resisted political pressure, but our growth rates have surpassed those of Azerbaijan—and not only Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan continues to rely on the second myth. Dreaming of future oil revenues to be spent on arms purchases, Azerbaijan anticipates the day when it will possess the resources to pursue a purely military solution. This too is self-deception. Azerbaijan has forgotten that similar fantasies drove them, in 1992, to respond with military force to the peaceful demand of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to recognize their right to self-determination. At that time, the military balance was overwhelmingly in their favor—far greater than anything they can hope for in the future. Yet the balance of moral, historical, legal, and psychological factors was in favor of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, who fought to defend their homes, their families, their security, their lives, and their future. Azerbaijani weapons did not break—and will never break—the will of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to live freely on their own land. In reality, Azerbaijanis are victims only of their own aggression. They unleashed the war, they initiated the massacres of Armenians—their own citizens—living in Azerbaijani cities such as Sumgait, Baku, and Ganja. This was the most irresponsible reaction any government could resort to, employing the most inhumane methods associated with pogroms. The ensuing war reshaped the worldview of two generations of Armenians who had never lived under Azerbaijani rule. The leadership of Azerbaijan—old and new—rather than remaining prisoners of the Soviet era, an era they themselves rejected as historically illegitimate, can build a future only on the basis of compromise, peace, regional cooperation, and prosperous, stable development. Armenia intends to move forward—we are already doing so.

Source: United Nations Webcast – 58th General Assembly (Unofficial translation from English)

OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting

Maastricht, December 1–2, 2003 Chairman’s Statement of Understanding

The Ministers remain deeply concerned over the failure to achieve a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They reaffirmed their conviction that the immediate resolution of this protracted conflict would contribute to lasting peace, security, stability, and cooperation in the South Caucasus.

The Ministers again emphasized the need to give new impetus to the peaceful dialogue and called upon the parties to redouble their efforts toward a speedy settlement of the conflict on the basis of norms and principles of international law. They also urged the parties to consider additional measures aimed at strengthening mutual trust and confidence.

The Ministers welcomed the commitment of the parties to the ceasefire agreement and to achieving a comprehensive peaceful settlement. Now that presidential elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan are behind us, a new opportunity has emerged to make progress in the negotiations. They strongly urged the parties, with the active support of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, to resume their efforts as soon as possible toward achieving a just and lasting settlement.

Source: OSCE Documents (osce.org in Bing)

From the Statement of the President of the Republic of Armenia Robert Kocharyan

at the Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Strasbourg, June 23, 2004

Mr. President, Members of the Parliamentary Assembly, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would now like to turn to one of the issues of paramount importance for Armenia. When Armenia joined the Council of Europe, it undertook the commitment to take steps toward the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We did so because we highly value the necessity of maintaining friendly relations between neighboring states. However, in order to effectively secure a long-term and lasting settlement, it is essential to understand the true nature of the conflict. I would like to outline two important factors that characterize the Karabakh conflict.

First: Karabakh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. At the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, two states emerged: the Republic of Azerbaijan on the territory of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh on the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. Both of these states were established on the same legal basis. Consequently, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. We are ready to discuss the settlement of the conflict within a legal framework.

Second: The war of 1992–1994 was the result of aggression by the Azerbaijani authorities, who attempted to carry out ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh with the aim of annexation. The situation today is the outcome of the selfless struggle of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to survive on their own land. This is a classic example both of the realization of a people’s right to self-determination and of the distortion of the concept of “territorial integrity” used to justify ethnic cleansing.

The people of Karabakh prevailed in their aspiration to live independently in an egalitarian society. Independent Karabakh has now existed for sixteen years. A new generation has grown up there, one that cannot imagine any other status for their country. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic today is a functioning state that, in essence, meets all the criteria for membership in the Council of Europe. This is a reality that cannot be ignored. That is why we insist on the direct participation of Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiations in which Armenia is actively engaged.

The settlement must be based on the essence of the conflict, not on assumptions about Azerbaijan’s possible strengthening through “oil money.” An approach based on oil revenues is a formula for confrontation, not compromise. Armenia is prepared to maintain and reinforce the ceasefire.

We are ready for serious negotiations on a comprehensive settlement of the conflict. This is precisely why we agreed to the last two settlement formulas proposed by international mediators, which, unfortunately, were rejected by Azerbaijan.

The importance of developing regional cooperation in the South Caucasus cannot be overstated. There is a wide range of potential cooperation here: from harmonizing legislative frameworks to restoring interconnected transport systems and joint projects in the energy sector. We are convinced that regional cooperation is the right path toward conflict resolution.

We have no doubt that the South Caucasus, as a region of natural economic cooperation, can achieve far more than the three states of the region could ever hope to accomplish individually. We believe in peace and cooperation. We recognize our responsibility for regional stability, and our actions will contribute to solving problems rather than creating new ones. This approach has enabled us to establish relations of trust with the United States, the European Union, and Iran, and to strengthen our traditional friendship with Russia.

In this same context, I would also like to address Armenian-Turkish relations—or rather, their absence. These relations are overshadowed by what happened in the past: the genocide, its consequences, and the lack of repentance. Today, the situation has worsened as a result of Turkey’s blockade of Armenia. I would like to set forth two principles which, in my view, are key to finding a way out of this deadlock.

First: the development of practical ties and the discussion of inherited problems must proceed in different dimensions, and one issue should not affect another.

Second: Armenian-Turkish relations must not be conditioned by our relations with a third country (Azerbaijan). Any precondition eliminates all positive expectations.

Source: Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly Session, Strasbourg, June 21–25, 2004 (Unofficial translation from English) 798

Yuri Barsegov “Nagorno-Karabakh in International Law and Global Politics”

Artatsolum

Read Also:

You might also like:

Idea of a Deferred Referendum on the Status of Nagorno-Karabakh

Idea of a Deferred Referendum on the Status of Nagorno-Karabakh

Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council

Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council

ISTANBUL SUMMIT MEETING

ISTANBUL SUMMIT MEETING

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *