Tweet
PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN: TIMES OF COLONIZING A NATION LIVING ON ITS OWN LAND HAVE LONG PASSED
Panorama.am
17:42 10/02/2010
President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, who is in the
UK on a three-day official visit, delivered a speech on "Values and
Security in the South Caucasus" in the Chatham House of the British
Royal Institute of International Affairs. The speech particularly
reads:
Values and Security in the South Caucasus
"It is my pleasure to visit with this reputable institution, the
Chattem House, for the first time.
When I was invited to speak here, I was not aware that the discussion
would be chaired by my old friend and "ally in arms," Sir Robertson.
Hence, it is more of a pleasure for me to participate in this
discussion. Why 'friends in arms'? Because we have travelled a long
path with Lord Robertson; we have even agreed upon and organized the
engagement of Armenian Military Units in the Kosovo Peace-Keeping
Mission. I am glad to see you here, Mr. Robertson.
I would like to speak before the esteemed audience present here
today on Armenia and the South Caucasus; peace and threats; the
creative people that live in our region and security; the extent to
which politicians, policy-makers, and opinion leaders are genuinely
committed to the values they preach; and what should not be forgotten
today in order to earn a better tomorrow.
Mark Twain was quite candid in admitting that preparing a good
impromptu speech usually took him over three weeks. I have prepared a
speech for today. In fact, I started preparing my speeches on security
over 20 years ago in Mountainous Karabakh, when a whole people found
themselves facing the threat of extermination only because of being
Armenian and wanting to live free.
The security formula for the Caucasus, which I find acceptable, is to
craft lasting peace on the basis of combining the existing interests
and respecting the values professed by our peoples, including the
right to live and to create, the preclusion of violence, and humanity.
Armenia is a firm believer in values such as freedom, peace, and
cooperation. We believe that our shared vision of a peaceful and
stable region can be achieved only through regional cooperation and
dialogue. The South Caucasus is one of those regions where there are
ostensibly insurmountable divisions, the internationally-recognized
political map of states differs from the reality, fragile peace is
extremely vulnerable, and re-establishing peace demands enormous
efforts.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
The newest history of Europe is one of overcoming differences through
cooperation. Armenia has always been a proponent of this approach. It
lies at the heart of our policies. It is also the way in which we are
ready to move forward in resolving the Mountainous Karabakh issue,
a vital cause for the Armenian people, a problem that has inflicted
unspeakable pain and losses to my people.
We have witnessed a policy of the most brutal ethnic cleansing and
displacement. The people of Mountainous Karabakh were forced to pay by
blood to defend their right to live freely in a war that was imposed
on them. We must find solutions the implementation of which will not
lead to further displacement and ethnic cleansing. We have to realize
that the people of Karabakh consider that they have managed, on the
one hand, to restore historical justice distorted during Stalin's
dictatorship, and, on the other, to safeguard the minimum conditions
necessary for their physical survival. It is with this realization
that we continue the talks with Azerbaijan and perceive the peace
process and the efforts of the mediators.
The truth is that Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan.
It was forced into Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party
authority, which, defiant of the League of Nations decision and the
popular referendum as a means of determining the border between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, decided in its Caucasus Bureau session in 1921, under
Stalin's direct pressure, and in violation of the procedure, to annex
Mountainous Karabakh on the condition of forming a national autonomy
on these Armenian territories within the Soviet Socialist Republic
of Azerbaijan. Throughout the Soviet period, the people of Karabakh
never reconciled to this decision. I will not dwell upon details of
Azerbaijan's state-level policy of cleansing Karabakh from Armenians
and the periodic uprising of the Karabakhis during the Soviet period,
as I believe you all are well-aware of them.
However, I would like to reiterate that the Autonomous Province of
Mountainous Karabakh seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line
with the Soviet laws and all the applicable principles and rules of
international law, exactly as the 15 Soviet Republics did.
To sum up this part of my speech, I would like to reiterate that
Mountainous Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan:
it was annexed to Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party
body. The people of Karabakh never put up with this decision, and upon
the first opportunity, seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line
with the laws of the Soviet Union and the applicable international law.
The problem has many sensitive and delicate aspects. I urge everyone to
exercise utmost caution when making public statements on the problem of
Mountainous Karabakh, to take into account all the dimensions, possible
consequences, and the perceptions of the sides, and always to rely on
the positions of the organizations that are familiar with the details
of the problem and specialize in its peaceful resolution: in this
case, it would be the OSCE. The problem can only be resolved in the
context of the international law principles of the self-determination
of nations, territorial integrity, and the non-use of force. All
the stakeholders now realize this truth. Whenever one refers to the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, the notion of territorial integrity
should not be emphatically underlined, especially that even if that
notion is perceived to be the only one applying in the case of the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, it would not lead to its application
in the form envisioned by Azerbaijan.
I would pose a rhetoric question to all who consider themselves
advocates of territorial integrity. Where were they when the
Soviet Union collapsed and the borders changed? Where were they
when Yugoslavia was falling apart? Why do you think that Azerbaijan
could secede from the USSR, but Mountainous Karabakh could not? Why
do you think that large empires should disintegrate, but small ones
should persevere? What is the basis? Instability? I cannot perceive
it. I do not accept it. Because unfair decisions are the very cause
of instability.
Azerbaijan has exhausted the resources of trust in terms of autonomous
status for minorities within its boundaries. It was not and is not
capable of providing guarantees of even internal security to such
autonomies. There was once another Armenian autonomy in Azerbaijan:
Nakhijevan. What happened to it? Not a single Armenian is left in
Nakhijevan. Can such guarantees be taken for granted? You might say
Azerbaijan was different then, and is different now. During the last
18 years of that "difference" more Armenian and Christian monuments
were destroyed than in the preceding 70 years. The international
organizations tasked with protection of the cultural heritage were
unable to do anything: Azerbaijan did not even permit them to visit
and see the obliterated Armenian monuments.
In the meantime, a full-blown race of arms continues in the South
Caucasus. It is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous not only for
the South Caucasus peoples, but also for Europe and the powers that
have a stake in the region, the corporations that have invested
in the Caucasus, and everyone else. Azerbaijan has not faced any
substantial confrontation for having exceeded all the possible caps
on conventional arms. Even if not used in a war against Karabakh, the
weapons Azerbaijan is stockpiling today will shoot somewhere. The only
question is where and when. While spending large sums on purchases of
oil, the advanced states, in my opinion, cannot remain indifferent to
how their moneys are being spent. The fact is that these very proceeds
can become a source of threats, something that has happened elsewhere
in the past.
Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash
a war. We despise war, as our generation was forced to look death
straight in the eyes, and has seen and lost more than can be imagined.
However, we realize that we must be ready for war in case others wish
to fight. We cannot turn a blind eye to recurrent belligerent threats
coming from a neighbouring state, whose President's New Year address to
his people sounded no different from the speech of an army commander
motivating his units for a battle. The war rhetoric is intensifying
in the Caucasus. Armenia predominantly refrains from responding to
the threats. Quoting John Kennedy, we do not need to utter threats
to prove that we are firm. However, it does not solve the problem.
Threats also amount to violence, and violence usually begets violence.
The irony is that Azeri propaganda, spending hundreds of millions
of dollars, does not miss any opportunity to label Karabakh as an
aggressor, despite the fact that the people of Karabakh had to take
on arms literally to avoid extermination. This conduct reminds the
French saying: "This creature is fierce: it will defend immediately
after you attack it." The reality is that the people that live in
Karabakh are and will always be ready to defend their right to survive,
their values, churches, and cross-stones.
The Republic of Mountainous Karabakh is a well-established state
with its institutions, army, and most importantly, citizens that
exercise control of their fate. Today we, as well as the international
community, witness Artsakh as a contemporary state that is implementing
the ideals of freedom, sovereignty, and democracy; in spite of natural
and manmade difficulties and grave challenges, it is progressing,
strengthening its democratic institutions, government, economy, and
culture, and defending peace. In its "Freedom in the World" Report,
a reputable human rights watchdog, the Freedom House has ranked the
Republic of Mountainous Karabakh among partially free democratic
states, while ranking Azerbaijan as a non-free state. No further
comments are needed here.
The obvious conclusion is that the times of colonizing a nation living
on its own land have long passed. Our belief is that the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict should be based on human rights and the will of
the Karabakh people as an expression of their collective identity. It
is the only way to achieve lasting, feasible, and peaceful settlement.
The alternative to this settlement is the forcing of the Karabakh
people back into Azerbaijan, which will inevitably lead to attempts of
new ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh. There is no alternative
here, especially given that Azerbaijan has labelled the vast majority
of the Karabakh population as "criminals" over the last two decades.
Hence, in view of the consequences of this alter¬na¬tive, we clearly
rule out any pressure-driven concessions in the Karabakh process that
would threaten the Artsakh people's physical existence, security,
and right to live in dignity.
Dear Colleagues:
I am confident that you are also interested in the ongoing dialogue
between Armenia and Turkey and its current stage. I have noticed
that experts everywhere are rigorously following and analyzing this
process. Let me remind you that my initiative to invite President
Gul to Armenia and to launch dialogue between Armenia and Turkey was
first expressed in a similar meeting with experts in Moscow; and it
then received a wide acclamation a in a matter of just minutes.
During the last year, we have made significant progress towards the
normalization of relations with Turkey without any preconditions. We
regard the Armenia-Turkey relationship in a much broader regional and
international context. I am confident that the time of closed borders
and ultimatums has passed. The palette of the modern world is much
more diverse than just black and white. We all must realize it and
create possibilities for natural relations, cooperation, and dialogue.
It must be done not only because Armenia and Turkey will benefit
from it, but also because it will do good for the whole region,
and therefore, Europe.
We have indeed approached a milestone at which we can achieve a
breakthrough. It is the path of cooperation without preconditions,
without making bilateral relations contingent upon issues related
to third party states. At this time, we have the signed protocols
on the establishment of diplomatic relations and the development of
bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey, which are awaiting
ratification by the parliaments of our two states.
In Armenia, the ratification process is progressing in accordance
with the regular procedure, without any undue delays, as proven by
the decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia issued over a
month before the statutory deadline for its adoption. I would like
to draw your attention to the fact that the Constitutional Court made
the decision unanimously, without any dissenting opinions: this fact
in itself is telling. The Constitutional Court of Armenia found that
the Protocols do not contain any provision that could be interpreted
as contravening the requirements of the Armenian Constitution. The
decision is now in the Office of the President, and the whole package
of documents is ready for submission to the Parliament. Immediately
after today's meeting here at the Chattem House, I am going to instruct
my staff to submit the Armenia-Turkey protocols to the Armenian
National Assembly for the ratification process to be initiated.
Speaking at this esteemed institution today, I reiterate the commitment
of the Republic of Armenia to this process. As the political leader
of the political majority of the Armenian Parliament, I reiterate
that I rule out any possibility of the Armenian Parliament failing
to ratify the protocols in case Turkey ratifies the protocols without
preconditions, as agreed.
Senior Turkish officials repeatedly assert the political independence
of their parliament and the unpredictability of its decision.
Moreover, they try to obtain non-partisan ratification by securing
the potential support of opposition parties, as well. It is
understandable. However, they ought to remember that in case of
Armenia they deal with a country, which persevered throughout the
process and did not stop even in spite of losing a key ally in the
ruling coalition. I am confident that President Gul and Prime Minister
Erdogan will, subject to the demonstration of political will, find
sufficient support within their party that holds the majority of
seats in the Turkish Parliament.
We are confident that the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
can become the greatest input of the recent decades in achieving peace
and stability in the South Caucasus. With this vision, we have agreed
to move forward without any preconditions, not making our relations
contingent upon Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
However, if, as many suspect, it is proven that Turkey's goal is
to protract, rather than to normalize relations, we will have to
discontinue the process.
I would not claim that the process has so far been easy. It is common
knowledge that Turkey repeatedly attempted to voice preconditions
related to the resolution of the Mountainous Karabakh issue. It is,
however, obvious that attempts to link these two processes will
undermine both the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations and the
talks around the Karabakh issue. I, however, believe that the rapid
normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations can set an example of a
proactive problem-solving attitude that will positively stimulate
and set an example the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.
I would like to take one step further and inform you that I am going
to invite President Aliyev to the potential opening ceremony of the
Armenian-Turkish border. I believe it can serve as an essential
and in some ways exemplary measure for the region, which will
clearly demonstrate how existing problems should be solved and that
every conflict, even the stalest one, can be resolved by means of
negotiations and the ability to look truth in the eye. I am sure that
the best way to facilitate the resolution of the Karabakh issue is
setting the example of one's own country being able to resolve issues
for the benefit of the whole region.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Armenians, as a people that have survived the Genocide, have a moral
duty towards mankind and history in the prevention of genocides. We
have done and will continue to do our best to support the persistent
implementation of the Genocide Convention. Genocide cannot concern
only one people, because it is a crime against humanity.
Yesterday, I was inquired about how one should present facts related
to the Armenian Genocide to Great Britain, and whether Great Britain,
by recognizing the Armenian Genocide, would not harm security in
the Caucasus. I responded that there are numerous countries that do
not need these facts to be presented to them, because they have vast
archives of their own regarding the Armenian Genocide. What is needed
here is other work.
Armenian-British relations did not start after the collapse of the
USSR. They date back to centuries. Exceptional and genuine interest
has been demonstrated by British society in respect of the tragedies
that befell the Armenian people at different times in history and
their fate, as best illustrated by the powerful humanitarian movement
that started in Britain in support of Armenians and the amazing
philanthropic activities of the British people that were the first to
reach out with protest in support of the Armenian people surviving the
Genocide. The British people learnt about the Armenian Genocide from
the well-known works and statements of James Bryce, Arnold Toynbee,
William Gladstone, and Lloyd George.
The Mayor of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, together with
many other famous British people, established the Armenian Refugees
(Lord Mayor's) Fund in the aftermath of the Genocide to alleviate
the suffering of the displaced Armenians. This list of names could
be continued much longer.
Finally, Great Britain, Russia, and France were the co-authors of
a joint statement issued in May 1915 that labelled the massacres
and atrocities against Armenians as "crimes against humanity and
civilization."
As to my interlocutor's concern about Genocide recognition undermining
security, I said to him that it would be analogous to suggesting
a choice between security and a system of values. I believe that
lasting security is possible in our region only if it is built on a
deeply-understood system of values.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Armenia appears before the world as a stable, predictable, and reliable
partner from positions that are understood and appreciated.
Key international actors and power centres treat my country
respectfully as one that has proven its credibility in both regional
and international bilateral and multilateral dimensions. Our foreign
policy is based on mutual trust and interests, as well as commitments
and shared responsibility for creating an environment of political
stability, security, cohesion, and economic development in the region.
We are open to building and strengthening relations with all states
in this manner.
At the end, I would like to quote the great Byron, a true symbol
of Armenian-British friendship: "It would be difficult, perhaps,
to find the annals of a nation less stained than that of Armenians
... But whatever may have been their destiny, and it has been bitter,
whatever it may be in future, their country must ever be one of the
most interesting in the world."
We believe in our future. We believe that, with stability, prosperity,
and peace, we will remain one of the most interesting countries in
the world in the 21st century, as well.
Thank you for your attention.
Panorama.am
17:42 10/02/2010
President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, who is in the
UK on a three-day official visit, delivered a speech on "Values and
Security in the South Caucasus" in the Chatham House of the British
Royal Institute of International Affairs. The speech particularly
reads:
Values and Security in the South Caucasus
"It is my pleasure to visit with this reputable institution, the
Chattem House, for the first time.
When I was invited to speak here, I was not aware that the discussion
would be chaired by my old friend and "ally in arms," Sir Robertson.
Hence, it is more of a pleasure for me to participate in this
discussion. Why 'friends in arms'? Because we have travelled a long
path with Lord Robertson; we have even agreed upon and organized the
engagement of Armenian Military Units in the Kosovo Peace-Keeping
Mission. I am glad to see you here, Mr. Robertson.
I would like to speak before the esteemed audience present here
today on Armenia and the South Caucasus; peace and threats; the
creative people that live in our region and security; the extent to
which politicians, policy-makers, and opinion leaders are genuinely
committed to the values they preach; and what should not be forgotten
today in order to earn a better tomorrow.
Mark Twain was quite candid in admitting that preparing a good
impromptu speech usually took him over three weeks. I have prepared a
speech for today. In fact, I started preparing my speeches on security
over 20 years ago in Mountainous Karabakh, when a whole people found
themselves facing the threat of extermination only because of being
Armenian and wanting to live free.
The security formula for the Caucasus, which I find acceptable, is to
craft lasting peace on the basis of combining the existing interests
and respecting the values professed by our peoples, including the
right to live and to create, the preclusion of violence, and humanity.
Armenia is a firm believer in values such as freedom, peace, and
cooperation. We believe that our shared vision of a peaceful and
stable region can be achieved only through regional cooperation and
dialogue. The South Caucasus is one of those regions where there are
ostensibly insurmountable divisions, the internationally-recognized
political map of states differs from the reality, fragile peace is
extremely vulnerable, and re-establishing peace demands enormous
efforts.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
The newest history of Europe is one of overcoming differences through
cooperation. Armenia has always been a proponent of this approach. It
lies at the heart of our policies. It is also the way in which we are
ready to move forward in resolving the Mountainous Karabakh issue,
a vital cause for the Armenian people, a problem that has inflicted
unspeakable pain and losses to my people.
We have witnessed a policy of the most brutal ethnic cleansing and
displacement. The people of Mountainous Karabakh were forced to pay by
blood to defend their right to live freely in a war that was imposed
on them. We must find solutions the implementation of which will not
lead to further displacement and ethnic cleansing. We have to realize
that the people of Karabakh consider that they have managed, on the
one hand, to restore historical justice distorted during Stalin's
dictatorship, and, on the other, to safeguard the minimum conditions
necessary for their physical survival. It is with this realization
that we continue the talks with Azerbaijan and perceive the peace
process and the efforts of the mediators.
The truth is that Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan.
It was forced into Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party
authority, which, defiant of the League of Nations decision and the
popular referendum as a means of determining the border between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, decided in its Caucasus Bureau session in 1921, under
Stalin's direct pressure, and in violation of the procedure, to annex
Mountainous Karabakh on the condition of forming a national autonomy
on these Armenian territories within the Soviet Socialist Republic
of Azerbaijan. Throughout the Soviet period, the people of Karabakh
never reconciled to this decision. I will not dwell upon details of
Azerbaijan's state-level policy of cleansing Karabakh from Armenians
and the periodic uprising of the Karabakhis during the Soviet period,
as I believe you all are well-aware of them.
However, I would like to reiterate that the Autonomous Province of
Mountainous Karabakh seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line
with the Soviet laws and all the applicable principles and rules of
international law, exactly as the 15 Soviet Republics did.
To sum up this part of my speech, I would like to reiterate that
Mountainous Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan:
it was annexed to Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party
body. The people of Karabakh never put up with this decision, and upon
the first opportunity, seceded from the Soviet Union fully in line
with the laws of the Soviet Union and the applicable international law.
The problem has many sensitive and delicate aspects. I urge everyone to
exercise utmost caution when making public statements on the problem of
Mountainous Karabakh, to take into account all the dimensions, possible
consequences, and the perceptions of the sides, and always to rely on
the positions of the organizations that are familiar with the details
of the problem and specialize in its peaceful resolution: in this
case, it would be the OSCE. The problem can only be resolved in the
context of the international law principles of the self-determination
of nations, territorial integrity, and the non-use of force. All
the stakeholders now realize this truth. Whenever one refers to the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, the notion of territorial integrity
should not be emphatically underlined, especially that even if that
notion is perceived to be the only one applying in the case of the
Mountainous Karabakh conflict, it would not lead to its application
in the form envisioned by Azerbaijan.
I would pose a rhetoric question to all who consider themselves
advocates of territorial integrity. Where were they when the
Soviet Union collapsed and the borders changed? Where were they
when Yugoslavia was falling apart? Why do you think that Azerbaijan
could secede from the USSR, but Mountainous Karabakh could not? Why
do you think that large empires should disintegrate, but small ones
should persevere? What is the basis? Instability? I cannot perceive
it. I do not accept it. Because unfair decisions are the very cause
of instability.
Azerbaijan has exhausted the resources of trust in terms of autonomous
status for minorities within its boundaries. It was not and is not
capable of providing guarantees of even internal security to such
autonomies. There was once another Armenian autonomy in Azerbaijan:
Nakhijevan. What happened to it? Not a single Armenian is left in
Nakhijevan. Can such guarantees be taken for granted? You might say
Azerbaijan was different then, and is different now. During the last
18 years of that "difference" more Armenian and Christian monuments
were destroyed than in the preceding 70 years. The international
organizations tasked with protection of the cultural heritage were
unable to do anything: Azerbaijan did not even permit them to visit
and see the obliterated Armenian monuments.
In the meantime, a full-blown race of arms continues in the South
Caucasus. It is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous not only for
the South Caucasus peoples, but also for Europe and the powers that
have a stake in the region, the corporations that have invested
in the Caucasus, and everyone else. Azerbaijan has not faced any
substantial confrontation for having exceeded all the possible caps
on conventional arms. Even if not used in a war against Karabakh, the
weapons Azerbaijan is stockpiling today will shoot somewhere. The only
question is where and when. While spending large sums on purchases of
oil, the advanced states, in my opinion, cannot remain indifferent to
how their moneys are being spent. The fact is that these very proceeds
can become a source of threats, something that has happened elsewhere
in the past.
Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash
a war. We despise war, as our generation was forced to look death
straight in the eyes, and has seen and lost more than can be imagined.
However, we realize that we must be ready for war in case others wish
to fight. We cannot turn a blind eye to recurrent belligerent threats
coming from a neighbouring state, whose President's New Year address to
his people sounded no different from the speech of an army commander
motivating his units for a battle. The war rhetoric is intensifying
in the Caucasus. Armenia predominantly refrains from responding to
the threats. Quoting John Kennedy, we do not need to utter threats
to prove that we are firm. However, it does not solve the problem.
Threats also amount to violence, and violence usually begets violence.
The irony is that Azeri propaganda, spending hundreds of millions
of dollars, does not miss any opportunity to label Karabakh as an
aggressor, despite the fact that the people of Karabakh had to take
on arms literally to avoid extermination. This conduct reminds the
French saying: "This creature is fierce: it will defend immediately
after you attack it." The reality is that the people that live in
Karabakh are and will always be ready to defend their right to survive,
their values, churches, and cross-stones.
The Republic of Mountainous Karabakh is a well-established state
with its institutions, army, and most importantly, citizens that
exercise control of their fate. Today we, as well as the international
community, witness Artsakh as a contemporary state that is implementing
the ideals of freedom, sovereignty, and democracy; in spite of natural
and manmade difficulties and grave challenges, it is progressing,
strengthening its democratic institutions, government, economy, and
culture, and defending peace. In its "Freedom in the World" Report,
a reputable human rights watchdog, the Freedom House has ranked the
Republic of Mountainous Karabakh among partially free democratic
states, while ranking Azerbaijan as a non-free state. No further
comments are needed here.
The obvious conclusion is that the times of colonizing a nation living
on its own land have long passed. Our belief is that the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict should be based on human rights and the will of
the Karabakh people as an expression of their collective identity. It
is the only way to achieve lasting, feasible, and peaceful settlement.
The alternative to this settlement is the forcing of the Karabakh
people back into Azerbaijan, which will inevitably lead to attempts of
new ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh. There is no alternative
here, especially given that Azerbaijan has labelled the vast majority
of the Karabakh population as "criminals" over the last two decades.
Hence, in view of the consequences of this alter¬na¬tive, we clearly
rule out any pressure-driven concessions in the Karabakh process that
would threaten the Artsakh people's physical existence, security,
and right to live in dignity.
Dear Colleagues:
I am confident that you are also interested in the ongoing dialogue
between Armenia and Turkey and its current stage. I have noticed
that experts everywhere are rigorously following and analyzing this
process. Let me remind you that my initiative to invite President
Gul to Armenia and to launch dialogue between Armenia and Turkey was
first expressed in a similar meeting with experts in Moscow; and it
then received a wide acclamation a in a matter of just minutes.
During the last year, we have made significant progress towards the
normalization of relations with Turkey without any preconditions. We
regard the Armenia-Turkey relationship in a much broader regional and
international context. I am confident that the time of closed borders
and ultimatums has passed. The palette of the modern world is much
more diverse than just black and white. We all must realize it and
create possibilities for natural relations, cooperation, and dialogue.
It must be done not only because Armenia and Turkey will benefit
from it, but also because it will do good for the whole region,
and therefore, Europe.
We have indeed approached a milestone at which we can achieve a
breakthrough. It is the path of cooperation without preconditions,
without making bilateral relations contingent upon issues related
to third party states. At this time, we have the signed protocols
on the establishment of diplomatic relations and the development of
bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey, which are awaiting
ratification by the parliaments of our two states.
In Armenia, the ratification process is progressing in accordance
with the regular procedure, without any undue delays, as proven by
the decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia issued over a
month before the statutory deadline for its adoption. I would like
to draw your attention to the fact that the Constitutional Court made
the decision unanimously, without any dissenting opinions: this fact
in itself is telling. The Constitutional Court of Armenia found that
the Protocols do not contain any provision that could be interpreted
as contravening the requirements of the Armenian Constitution. The
decision is now in the Office of the President, and the whole package
of documents is ready for submission to the Parliament. Immediately
after today's meeting here at the Chattem House, I am going to instruct
my staff to submit the Armenia-Turkey protocols to the Armenian
National Assembly for the ratification process to be initiated.
Speaking at this esteemed institution today, I reiterate the commitment
of the Republic of Armenia to this process. As the political leader
of the political majority of the Armenian Parliament, I reiterate
that I rule out any possibility of the Armenian Parliament failing
to ratify the protocols in case Turkey ratifies the protocols without
preconditions, as agreed.
Senior Turkish officials repeatedly assert the political independence
of their parliament and the unpredictability of its decision.
Moreover, they try to obtain non-partisan ratification by securing
the potential support of opposition parties, as well. It is
understandable. However, they ought to remember that in case of
Armenia they deal with a country, which persevered throughout the
process and did not stop even in spite of losing a key ally in the
ruling coalition. I am confident that President Gul and Prime Minister
Erdogan will, subject to the demonstration of political will, find
sufficient support within their party that holds the majority of
seats in the Turkish Parliament.
We are confident that the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
can become the greatest input of the recent decades in achieving peace
and stability in the South Caucasus. With this vision, we have agreed
to move forward without any preconditions, not making our relations
contingent upon Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
However, if, as many suspect, it is proven that Turkey's goal is
to protract, rather than to normalize relations, we will have to
discontinue the process.
I would not claim that the process has so far been easy. It is common
knowledge that Turkey repeatedly attempted to voice preconditions
related to the resolution of the Mountainous Karabakh issue. It is,
however, obvious that attempts to link these two processes will
undermine both the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations and the
talks around the Karabakh issue. I, however, believe that the rapid
normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations can set an example of a
proactive problem-solving attitude that will positively stimulate
and set an example the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.
I would like to take one step further and inform you that I am going
to invite President Aliyev to the potential opening ceremony of the
Armenian-Turkish border. I believe it can serve as an essential
and in some ways exemplary measure for the region, which will
clearly demonstrate how existing problems should be solved and that
every conflict, even the stalest one, can be resolved by means of
negotiations and the ability to look truth in the eye. I am sure that
the best way to facilitate the resolution of the Karabakh issue is
setting the example of one's own country being able to resolve issues
for the benefit of the whole region.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Armenians, as a people that have survived the Genocide, have a moral
duty towards mankind and history in the prevention of genocides. We
have done and will continue to do our best to support the persistent
implementation of the Genocide Convention. Genocide cannot concern
only one people, because it is a crime against humanity.
Yesterday, I was inquired about how one should present facts related
to the Armenian Genocide to Great Britain, and whether Great Britain,
by recognizing the Armenian Genocide, would not harm security in
the Caucasus. I responded that there are numerous countries that do
not need these facts to be presented to them, because they have vast
archives of their own regarding the Armenian Genocide. What is needed
here is other work.
Armenian-British relations did not start after the collapse of the
USSR. They date back to centuries. Exceptional and genuine interest
has been demonstrated by British society in respect of the tragedies
that befell the Armenian people at different times in history and
their fate, as best illustrated by the powerful humanitarian movement
that started in Britain in support of Armenians and the amazing
philanthropic activities of the British people that were the first to
reach out with protest in support of the Armenian people surviving the
Genocide. The British people learnt about the Armenian Genocide from
the well-known works and statements of James Bryce, Arnold Toynbee,
William Gladstone, and Lloyd George.
The Mayor of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, together with
many other famous British people, established the Armenian Refugees
(Lord Mayor's) Fund in the aftermath of the Genocide to alleviate
the suffering of the displaced Armenians. This list of names could
be continued much longer.
Finally, Great Britain, Russia, and France were the co-authors of
a joint statement issued in May 1915 that labelled the massacres
and atrocities against Armenians as "crimes against humanity and
civilization."
As to my interlocutor's concern about Genocide recognition undermining
security, I said to him that it would be analogous to suggesting
a choice between security and a system of values. I believe that
lasting security is possible in our region only if it is built on a
deeply-understood system of values.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Armenia appears before the world as a stable, predictable, and reliable
partner from positions that are understood and appreciated.
Key international actors and power centres treat my country
respectfully as one that has proven its credibility in both regional
and international bilateral and multilateral dimensions. Our foreign
policy is based on mutual trust and interests, as well as commitments
and shared responsibility for creating an environment of political
stability, security, cohesion, and economic development in the region.
We are open to building and strengthening relations with all states
in this manner.
At the end, I would like to quote the great Byron, a true symbol
of Armenian-British friendship: "It would be difficult, perhaps,
to find the annals of a nation less stained than that of Armenians
... But whatever may have been their destiny, and it has been bitter,
whatever it may be in future, their country must ever be one of the
most interesting in the world."
We believe in our future. We believe that, with stability, prosperity,
and peace, we will remain one of the most interesting countries in
the world in the 21st century, as well.
Thank you for your attention.