Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Helsinki Principles Ignore Artsakh's Right To Independence

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

  • Helsinki Principles Ignore Artsakh's Right To Independence

    HELSINKI PRINCIPLES IGNORE ARTSAKH'S RIGHT TO INDEPENDENCE
    By Michael Mensoian

    http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/06/27/helsinki-principles-ignore-artsakhs-right-to-independence/
    June 27, 2013

    In an aside to the June 17-18 meeting of the Group of Eight (G8)
    Industrialized Nations in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, Presidents
    Barack Obama (U.S.), Vladimir Putin (Russian Federation), and Francois
    Hollande (France) reaffirmed their support of the Helsinki Principles
    as the basis for a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh
    conflict. The three leaders lamented the fact that "...the parties
    have continued to seek one-sided advantage in their negotiation
    process," adding that "the use of military force...will not resolve
    the conflict."

    They then appealed to both sides "...to refrain from any action
    or rhetoric that could raise tensions and lead to an escalation of
    the conflict."

    To make such statements while ignoring the continuing build-up of the
    Azerbaijani military into the largest offensive force in the South
    Caucasus shows a serious disconnect from reality. The three leaders,
    and their respective co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group monitoring the
    negotiations, continue to ignore the constant threats by President
    Ilham Aliyev to use force to resolve the conflict, as well as the
    virulent anti-Armenian rhetoric and actions coming from Baku.

    Against this backdrop the leaders have the temerity to stress the
    importance of the Helsinki Principles as the basis for continued
    negotiations, especially those principles "...relating to territorial
    integrity, and equal rights and self-determination of people."

    Territorial integrity, which is the key principle, nullifies the
    principles of equal rights and self-determination if these principles
    properly refer to the right of a people to declare their independence.

    If not, then the only way by which equal rights and self-determination
    can co-exist with the principle of territorial integrity is
    by interpreting these principles to mean the granting of local
    autonomy to the Karabagh Armenians under the political jurisdiction
    of Azerbaijan. This solution would ignore the independence that
    the Artsakh people have (1) unanimously declared, (2) defended in
    a war brought on by Azerbaijan, (3) maintained for two decades, and
    (4) have the right to be recognized. Maintaining that Azerbaijan's
    territorial integrity negates the legal right of the Karabaghtsis
    to their independence, as well as their moral and inalienable right
    to free themselves from the oppressive rule by a government that has
    discriminated against them and their culture for 70 years.

    The Helsinki Principles are supportive of Azerbaijan's interests.

    Using these principles as guidelines leaves nothing substantive to
    be negotiated, nothing that would advance the needs and interests of
    our brothers and sisters in Artsakh.

    PRINCIPLE 1 requires the return of all liberated territories to
    Azerbaijan. These liberated territories are absolutely vital to
    Artsakh's security and its ability to function as an independent
    state. The occupation of these liberated territories by Azerbaijan
    would make the Nagorno-Karabagh districts of Artsakh an enclave,
    isolated from Armenia and shorn of its security zone. The districts
    of Artsakh comprising Nagorno-Karabagh will have lost their defensive
    perimeter.

    PRINCIPLE 2 addresses the right of displaced people and refugees
    to return to their original place of residence. This is an internal
    issue that Baku has refused to ameliorate. The abysmal human rights
    record of the Azerbaijani government has been citied time and again by
    international watchdog organizations. Given the Azeri government's
    long-standing discrimination of its Armenian citizens and its
    actions to destroy Armenian cultural artifacts, few Armenians would
    be interested in returning to any former places of residence under
    Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Those Azeris who have been displaced-their
    numbers inflated by Azerbaijan-are victims of a devastating war
    initiated and sustained by their own government, which is using them
    solely for political purposes vis-a-vis a Karabagh solution.

    PRINCIPLE 3 would address the need, which is presently unnecessary,
    to put in place safeguards to guarantee the security and the right
    of self-government by the Artsakh Armenians during an interim
    or transitional period. Essentially, the Armenian negotiators are
    expected to negotiate away Artsakh's present ability to protect itself
    in return for a guarantee of protection by a third party as provided
    for in Helsinki Principle 4. How much sense does this make? Artsakh
    is already providing for its security through its own military force
    and support from Armenia. As it is, Azerbaijan continually flaunts
    the ceasefire they agreed to by repeated incursions along the Line of
    Contact (LoC), which has resulted in the murder of multiple Armenian
    military personnel. To trust Azerbaijan would be beyond foolhardy;
    its record during the past two decades is confirmation enough of
    its duplicitousness.

    PRINCIPLE 4 would address the security issue made necessary if
    the Helsinki Principles govern the negotiations. An international
    peace-keeping force under the aegis of the United Nations or the
    OSCE would be responsible for maintaining Karabagh's security. This
    is as ludicrous as it comes. Peace-keeping forces have no authority
    beyond reporting violations by either side. They purposely are not
    given the authority to intervene, nor do they have the capability
    to prevent violations. Should Azerbaijan move forces into areas
    prohibited to it, the peace-keeping force would simply move aside,
    observe, and file a useless report that would change nothing on the
    ground. Confrontation and prevention are not within the scope of their
    responsibilities. Why the Minsk co-chairs would expect the Artsakh
    Armenians to render themselves defenseless and then dependent upon a
    peace-keeping force for their protection defies logic. How can this
    be offered as a viable option?

    PRINCIPLE 5 would address the need to guarantee a secure corridor
    linking Karabagh with Armenia. This presumably would be the present
    Lachin Corridor that is already secured by Karabagh's military forces.

    Principle 1 requires the occupation by Azerbaijan of the liberated
    territories; this means that the already secured Lachin Corridor
    highway that passes through Armenian liberated territory would
    become an unsecured corridor that will need to be protected by an
    international peace-keeping force. How senseless is this? As it is,
    this solitary link is already vulnerable to Azeri missile and air
    attack. Its vulnerability would only increase if Azeri forces occupied
    the liberated territories through which the corridor passes. Presently
    a second highway will be expanded and improved beginning in 2014
    that links Vartenis in Armenia to the Martakert district in northern
    Karabagh. Sections of the road are currently a morass of mud and
    impassible during the rainy season. This northern road will pass
    through the liberated Kashatagh region and be secured by Armenian
    forces. It will be economically and militarily significant to Artsakh's
    security and future development. This much-needed second highway would
    be impossible if the Azeri are occupying the liberated territories.

    PRINCIPLE 6 will presumably set up the mechanism for a plebiscite to
    be held sometime in the future to determine the political status
    of the Artsakh districts (excluding Shahoumian) that comprise
    Nagorno-Karabagh. If the Helsinki Principles have determined the
    course of negotiations, the liberated territories have already been
    occupied by Azerbaijan. What remains to be negotiated with respect
    to the plebiscite is when it will take place; who will be eligible
    to vote; how will it be administered; and what the options are to be
    voted on. For the Karabagh Armenians, the best option they can hope
    for is being granted limited local autonomy as an enclave within
    Azerbaijan. If this is where negotiations will ultimately lead us,
    then we have already turned a hard-won victory into defeat.

    This was an objective analysis of the Helsinki Principles, as they
    would affect Artsakh if applied. Yerevan is either constrained by
    Russian interests or is unwilling to pursue an aggressive diplomatic
    policy in support of Artsakh's independence. However, there should
    be no constraint for any political party or coalition of parties
    in tandem with the government of Artsakh and Armenian Diasporan
    organizations to vigorously support an aggressive independence policy.

    Will it be said years later that some 7,000 azatamartiks sacrificed
    their lives in vain?

    This is the first political victory that Armenians have won since the
    genocide, when our nation faced near annihilation. It is the first
    victory that gives credence to Hai Tahd. It is the first victory
    that provides our people with some measure of justice. However,
    it is a victory that has not yet been completed.

Working...
X