Tweet
ARTSAKH: A ZERO SUM SOLUTION WEIGHTED IN FAVOR OF AZERBAIJAN
By Michael Mensoian on July 16, 2014 in Featured, Headline, Michael G. Mensoian
Special for the Armenian Weekly
We seem to overlook the fact that the ongoing negotiations concerning
the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) conflict (as it is commonly referred
to) has been set-up to yield a zero sum solution favoring Azerbaijan.
>From the very beginning, the Madrid Principles that set the
parameters for the negotiations have been biased against Armenia's
interests and Artsakh's declaration of independence. These principles,
supported by the United States and the European Union through their
representatives on the Minsk Group, which is monitoring the progress
of the negotiations, give undue credence to Azerbaijan's claim that
its territorial integrity has been violated by Armenia.
In large measure this is our fault. We defeated Azerbaijan when it
sought to prevent the Artsakh Armenians from carrying through with
their declaration of independence. Since then (1994), we have allowed
Azerbaijan not only to define the issue, but the solution as well.
President Ilham Aliyev has been relentless in casting Armenia, in
any and every venue available, as the aggressor neighbor seeking
to reclaim its lands and unite its people with their compatriots in
Armenia. This has allowed Baku to invoke the prohibition contained
in Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter,
which states that "All members shall refrain...from the...use of force
against the territorial integrity...of any other state...inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations." If this is the issue (since
this prohibition can only apply to Armenia and not Artsakh), it allows
Azerbaijan and the Minsk Group to ignore Artsakh's declaration of
independence as well as deny its representatives to be a party to the
negotiations. Note that in all of the published reports that relate
to the negotiation process, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever
that refers to the likelihood of Artsakh's ultimate status as a free
and independent entity.
Whenever foreign leaders or representatives of their governments weigh
in with respect to the Nagorno-Karabagh issue, they all stress the
importance of a negotiated settlement. Obviously that is preferable
to a military solution. However, it is a pro-Azeri solution--that
begins with a return to the pre-1991 borders--that meets Azerbaijan's
demand that its territorial integrity be restored. Once our military
forces have withdrawn from Artsakh and the Artsakh defense force is
demobilized, they will be replaced by some ineffective international
peacekeeping force. At that point, Aliyev can rightfully declare
victory for having restored the occupied lands to his control. From
that point on, there would be no need for further negotiations because
there would be nothing of substance left to negotiate. Unfortunately
this is the zero sum solution that awaits us: Azerbaijan regains its
territory and the Artsakh Armenians lose their independence. In a zero
sum solution there is no middle ground or comprise available. Make
no mistake, Artsakh's freedom is absolutely essential to Armenia's
future economic and political development.
I accept that it is easy for me to say that we will not hesitate
to defend Artsakh's independence, but let's contemplate the
alternative: Are we willing to be witnesses to Artsakh becoming
another Nakhitchevan, purged of our people and our cultural artifacts?
The vote that was to have taken place at some time in the future that
is part of the Madrid Proposals is a hypocritical gesture that never
was intended to allow Artsakh to retain its independence. By the time
the mechanics for such a vote would have been worked out (assuming
the negotiations went that far), the region would have been overrun
by Azeri settlers under a government-sponsored program to marginalize
those remaining Armenians before the referendum took place.
Unfortunately, Armenia's political and economic power is limited.
However, are we so devoid of a national spirit and the determination
to protect our nation's future potential that we must sit on our
haunches like beggars waiting to be told what will be best for
our country? Shame on us for not having learned from numerous past
experiences when we have placed our cause in the hands of foreign
governments the likes of England, France, the United States, and even
Russia, only to be betrayed by their perfidiousness.
Having said that, is it fear of a Russian reprisal, timidity, or
have we simply convinced ourselves that there is not much we can
do to protect our nation's interests? Why do we constantly fail to
present to the world community at every opportune time the litany of
legitimate reasons why there never can be acceptance of any agreement
that denies Artsakh its independence? Whenever (which is all too
often) the Azeri leadership flaunts its lack of political civility
(without any evident repercussions) that should exist between any
two nations, or ignores the norms of international protocol, then
it is time for Yerevan, Stepanakert, the political parties, and the
diasporan organizational leaders to question the purpose of continuing
negotiations with a government that denies its own citizens their
basic human rights. A government that has yet to achieve a democratic
form of governance that Stepanakert has already achieved in its 20
years of de facto independence. A government that was responsible for
the unprovoked Sumgait and Baku pogroms where innocent Armenians were
wantonly murdered simply because of their ethnicity. A government that
routinely threatens to renew military action by constantly referring
to its ever-expanding military establishment. A government that had
Ramil Safarov, the imprisoned Azeri murderer of Lt. Gurgen Margaryan,
extradited from Hungary under false assurances only to be honored as
a returning hero in Azerbaijan. This is a government that has waged a
constant cultural war by destroying centuries-old Armenian artifacts,
the most egregious act being the desecration and total destruction
of the thousand-year-old Armenian cemetery at Julfa in Nakhitchevan
with its irreplaceable khatchkars. How can a government led by leaders
who foster hatred for Armenians and their culture ever believe that
the Artsakh Armenians, whether through negotiations or the threat
of war, would give up their freedom and independence? How can the
United States, the European Union, and possibly Russia even harbor the
thought that the Artsakh Armenians, after having sacrificed so much,
would be deterred should Azerbaijan foolishly opt for a military
solution if negotiations fail to meet its demands?
Success in Artsakh represents our first step in obtaining the justice
that has eluded us for the past 100 years.
If President Serge Sarkissian and Foreign Minister Nalbandian are
constrained by protocol from forcefully responding to Azerbaijan's
constant transgressions along the Line of Contact as well as President
Aliyev's continued attempts to obscure the issue and revise history
directly, then pre-designated officials can speak. Political parties,
jointly and separately, can respond appropriately, as can our diasporan
leaders worldwide. An effective offensive strategy depends on the
creation of a united front ready to respond to Azerbaijan's constant
dissemination of misinformation. The talking points should come from a
single source to keep the message timely, accurate, and on point. The
subtext of all responses should be that a peaceful resolution is
preferable, but that the Artsakh Armenians will not be intimidated
by any threat of force. This is a message that the United States
and the European Union need to hear. Russia may be our ally in need,
but Russia is not yet our master. Although it is necessary for the
diasporan organizations to continue the vital task of improving the
quality of life of our brothers and sisters in Artsakh and to expand
its economy, who will ultimately benefit from these good works if
Artsakh is torn from us a second time within a century?
Note that with all the pressure placed on the Ukraine by Russia,
its newly elected president, Petro Poroshenko, did sign a free
trade agreement with the European Union. Although that signing
will do nothing to equalize its military capabilities vis-a-vis
the pro-Russian insurgents (likely active or former Russian army
personnel) or the Russian forces on the other side of the frontier,
the agreement was still consummated.
I accept that it is easy for me to say that we will not hesitate to
defend Artsakh's independence, but let's contemplate the alternative:
Are we willing to be witnesses to Artsakh becoming another
Nakhitchevan, purged of our people and our cultural artifacts? The
loss of Artsakh would be a political and psychological disaster of
seismic proportions. Armenia would be thrust into political oblivion.
Forget our preoccupation with genocide recognition; or the return of
church property by Turkey; or any agreement on a meaningful program
of indemnification; or expecting Georgian leaders to improve the
quality of life of our Javakhahayer. If we cannot successfully
complete the task in Artsakh, which component of Hai Tahd are we
capable of achieving?
During the two decades that this continuous onslaught of misinformation
from Baku has been going on, neither Yerevan nor Stepanakert has
mounted any meaningful counteroffensive. It is time for Yerevan to
forcefully refute Baku's constant charge of aggression.
Armenia should buttress its support of the Artsakh Armenians who were
forced into a war for survival by the Azerbaijani government. The
indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas by the Azeris would have
continued unabated without the intervention of Armenia. The Azeri
military had no qualms about raining artillery shells from the
mountain fortress of Shushi upon the defenseless civilians in the
city of Stepanakert below. Even to this day, Azeri snipers target
Armenian villagers working their lands along the eastern border
region of Artsakh or tending their animals or working their fields in
northeastern Armenia (Tavush region), which shares a common border
with Azerbaijan. All of this is occurring without repercussions to
Azerbaijan. Yerevan should develop a position paper that nullifies
Azerbaijan's constant misuse of the principle of territorial integrity
in the context of the Artsakh issue. Although the principle of
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) refers to a government protecting
an ethnic minority within its jurisdiction from harm, it shouldn't
deter Armenia from invoking R2P to protect its people in a neighboring
country whose government is engaged in the indiscriminate killing of
innocent Armenian civilians. Resourceful legal scholars can support
Armenia's right to have come to the aid of the Artsakh Armenians
by reference to this evolving new principle; or the principle of
Consensual (Military) Intervention; or the principle of Humanitarian
Intervention. We should not hesitate to interpret any principle or
concept that strengthens our position with respect to Azerbaijan. This
is not the time to be stoic and expect miracles to happen.
In the same manner, Stepanakert must support its right to have declared
its independence. Self-determination is an accepted principle in
international law. The case must be made that either the Soviet
constitution provided the Artsakh Armenians with this right; or
the principle of self-determination; or the principle of remedial
secession. If Artsakh had the right to declare its independence then
it must be a party to the negotiations that should be considering its
final boundaries, a program for indemnification, and the timing of
its recognition as a free and independent entity. Success in Artsakh
represents our first step in obtaining the justice that has eluded us
for the past 100 years. We should be guided by Voltaire's cautionary
insight of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/07/16/artsakh/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+ArmenianWeekly+(Armenian+Weekly)
By Michael Mensoian on July 16, 2014 in Featured, Headline, Michael G. Mensoian
Special for the Armenian Weekly
We seem to overlook the fact that the ongoing negotiations concerning
the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) conflict (as it is commonly referred
to) has been set-up to yield a zero sum solution favoring Azerbaijan.
>From the very beginning, the Madrid Principles that set the
parameters for the negotiations have been biased against Armenia's
interests and Artsakh's declaration of independence. These principles,
supported by the United States and the European Union through their
representatives on the Minsk Group, which is monitoring the progress
of the negotiations, give undue credence to Azerbaijan's claim that
its territorial integrity has been violated by Armenia.
In large measure this is our fault. We defeated Azerbaijan when it
sought to prevent the Artsakh Armenians from carrying through with
their declaration of independence. Since then (1994), we have allowed
Azerbaijan not only to define the issue, but the solution as well.
President Ilham Aliyev has been relentless in casting Armenia, in
any and every venue available, as the aggressor neighbor seeking
to reclaim its lands and unite its people with their compatriots in
Armenia. This has allowed Baku to invoke the prohibition contained
in Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter,
which states that "All members shall refrain...from the...use of force
against the territorial integrity...of any other state...inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations." If this is the issue (since
this prohibition can only apply to Armenia and not Artsakh), it allows
Azerbaijan and the Minsk Group to ignore Artsakh's declaration of
independence as well as deny its representatives to be a party to the
negotiations. Note that in all of the published reports that relate
to the negotiation process, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever
that refers to the likelihood of Artsakh's ultimate status as a free
and independent entity.
Whenever foreign leaders or representatives of their governments weigh
in with respect to the Nagorno-Karabagh issue, they all stress the
importance of a negotiated settlement. Obviously that is preferable
to a military solution. However, it is a pro-Azeri solution--that
begins with a return to the pre-1991 borders--that meets Azerbaijan's
demand that its territorial integrity be restored. Once our military
forces have withdrawn from Artsakh and the Artsakh defense force is
demobilized, they will be replaced by some ineffective international
peacekeeping force. At that point, Aliyev can rightfully declare
victory for having restored the occupied lands to his control. From
that point on, there would be no need for further negotiations because
there would be nothing of substance left to negotiate. Unfortunately
this is the zero sum solution that awaits us: Azerbaijan regains its
territory and the Artsakh Armenians lose their independence. In a zero
sum solution there is no middle ground or comprise available. Make
no mistake, Artsakh's freedom is absolutely essential to Armenia's
future economic and political development.
I accept that it is easy for me to say that we will not hesitate
to defend Artsakh's independence, but let's contemplate the
alternative: Are we willing to be witnesses to Artsakh becoming
another Nakhitchevan, purged of our people and our cultural artifacts?
The vote that was to have taken place at some time in the future that
is part of the Madrid Proposals is a hypocritical gesture that never
was intended to allow Artsakh to retain its independence. By the time
the mechanics for such a vote would have been worked out (assuming
the negotiations went that far), the region would have been overrun
by Azeri settlers under a government-sponsored program to marginalize
those remaining Armenians before the referendum took place.
Unfortunately, Armenia's political and economic power is limited.
However, are we so devoid of a national spirit and the determination
to protect our nation's future potential that we must sit on our
haunches like beggars waiting to be told what will be best for
our country? Shame on us for not having learned from numerous past
experiences when we have placed our cause in the hands of foreign
governments the likes of England, France, the United States, and even
Russia, only to be betrayed by their perfidiousness.
Having said that, is it fear of a Russian reprisal, timidity, or
have we simply convinced ourselves that there is not much we can
do to protect our nation's interests? Why do we constantly fail to
present to the world community at every opportune time the litany of
legitimate reasons why there never can be acceptance of any agreement
that denies Artsakh its independence? Whenever (which is all too
often) the Azeri leadership flaunts its lack of political civility
(without any evident repercussions) that should exist between any
two nations, or ignores the norms of international protocol, then
it is time for Yerevan, Stepanakert, the political parties, and the
diasporan organizational leaders to question the purpose of continuing
negotiations with a government that denies its own citizens their
basic human rights. A government that has yet to achieve a democratic
form of governance that Stepanakert has already achieved in its 20
years of de facto independence. A government that was responsible for
the unprovoked Sumgait and Baku pogroms where innocent Armenians were
wantonly murdered simply because of their ethnicity. A government that
routinely threatens to renew military action by constantly referring
to its ever-expanding military establishment. A government that had
Ramil Safarov, the imprisoned Azeri murderer of Lt. Gurgen Margaryan,
extradited from Hungary under false assurances only to be honored as
a returning hero in Azerbaijan. This is a government that has waged a
constant cultural war by destroying centuries-old Armenian artifacts,
the most egregious act being the desecration and total destruction
of the thousand-year-old Armenian cemetery at Julfa in Nakhitchevan
with its irreplaceable khatchkars. How can a government led by leaders
who foster hatred for Armenians and their culture ever believe that
the Artsakh Armenians, whether through negotiations or the threat
of war, would give up their freedom and independence? How can the
United States, the European Union, and possibly Russia even harbor the
thought that the Artsakh Armenians, after having sacrificed so much,
would be deterred should Azerbaijan foolishly opt for a military
solution if negotiations fail to meet its demands?
Success in Artsakh represents our first step in obtaining the justice
that has eluded us for the past 100 years.
If President Serge Sarkissian and Foreign Minister Nalbandian are
constrained by protocol from forcefully responding to Azerbaijan's
constant transgressions along the Line of Contact as well as President
Aliyev's continued attempts to obscure the issue and revise history
directly, then pre-designated officials can speak. Political parties,
jointly and separately, can respond appropriately, as can our diasporan
leaders worldwide. An effective offensive strategy depends on the
creation of a united front ready to respond to Azerbaijan's constant
dissemination of misinformation. The talking points should come from a
single source to keep the message timely, accurate, and on point. The
subtext of all responses should be that a peaceful resolution is
preferable, but that the Artsakh Armenians will not be intimidated
by any threat of force. This is a message that the United States
and the European Union need to hear. Russia may be our ally in need,
but Russia is not yet our master. Although it is necessary for the
diasporan organizations to continue the vital task of improving the
quality of life of our brothers and sisters in Artsakh and to expand
its economy, who will ultimately benefit from these good works if
Artsakh is torn from us a second time within a century?
Note that with all the pressure placed on the Ukraine by Russia,
its newly elected president, Petro Poroshenko, did sign a free
trade agreement with the European Union. Although that signing
will do nothing to equalize its military capabilities vis-a-vis
the pro-Russian insurgents (likely active or former Russian army
personnel) or the Russian forces on the other side of the frontier,
the agreement was still consummated.
I accept that it is easy for me to say that we will not hesitate to
defend Artsakh's independence, but let's contemplate the alternative:
Are we willing to be witnesses to Artsakh becoming another
Nakhitchevan, purged of our people and our cultural artifacts? The
loss of Artsakh would be a political and psychological disaster of
seismic proportions. Armenia would be thrust into political oblivion.
Forget our preoccupation with genocide recognition; or the return of
church property by Turkey; or any agreement on a meaningful program
of indemnification; or expecting Georgian leaders to improve the
quality of life of our Javakhahayer. If we cannot successfully
complete the task in Artsakh, which component of Hai Tahd are we
capable of achieving?
During the two decades that this continuous onslaught of misinformation
from Baku has been going on, neither Yerevan nor Stepanakert has
mounted any meaningful counteroffensive. It is time for Yerevan to
forcefully refute Baku's constant charge of aggression.
Armenia should buttress its support of the Artsakh Armenians who were
forced into a war for survival by the Azerbaijani government. The
indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas by the Azeris would have
continued unabated without the intervention of Armenia. The Azeri
military had no qualms about raining artillery shells from the
mountain fortress of Shushi upon the defenseless civilians in the
city of Stepanakert below. Even to this day, Azeri snipers target
Armenian villagers working their lands along the eastern border
region of Artsakh or tending their animals or working their fields in
northeastern Armenia (Tavush region), which shares a common border
with Azerbaijan. All of this is occurring without repercussions to
Azerbaijan. Yerevan should develop a position paper that nullifies
Azerbaijan's constant misuse of the principle of territorial integrity
in the context of the Artsakh issue. Although the principle of
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) refers to a government protecting
an ethnic minority within its jurisdiction from harm, it shouldn't
deter Armenia from invoking R2P to protect its people in a neighboring
country whose government is engaged in the indiscriminate killing of
innocent Armenian civilians. Resourceful legal scholars can support
Armenia's right to have come to the aid of the Artsakh Armenians
by reference to this evolving new principle; or the principle of
Consensual (Military) Intervention; or the principle of Humanitarian
Intervention. We should not hesitate to interpret any principle or
concept that strengthens our position with respect to Azerbaijan. This
is not the time to be stoic and expect miracles to happen.
In the same manner, Stepanakert must support its right to have declared
its independence. Self-determination is an accepted principle in
international law. The case must be made that either the Soviet
constitution provided the Artsakh Armenians with this right; or
the principle of self-determination; or the principle of remedial
secession. If Artsakh had the right to declare its independence then
it must be a party to the negotiations that should be considering its
final boundaries, a program for indemnification, and the timing of
its recognition as a free and independent entity. Success in Artsakh
represents our first step in obtaining the justice that has eluded us
for the past 100 years. We should be guided by Voltaire's cautionary
insight of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/07/16/artsakh/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+ArmenianWeekly+(Armenian+Weekly)