Consequences of Montenegro referendum

Yerkir.am
July 07, 2006

Armen Rustamian, chairman of the Armenian National Assembly’s Foreign
Relations Committee and Armenian Revolutionary Federation Armenia
Supreme Body representative, delivered a speech at the Council of
Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly summer session.

Below is the text of the speech.

First, I would like to congratulate the peoples of Serbia and
Montenegro for their ability to settle their issue in a civilized and
peaceful manner. It is not hard to imagine what could have happened
if the will of people was ignored, if people were denied the right
to determine their fate on their own, if conducting a referendum was
obstructed or its results were not recognized.

Fortunately, it didn’t happen in Montenegro, it is worthy example to
follow. But sadly, there are many other negative examples. One of them
is the Karabakh conflict. The history of that conflict demonstrates
that efforts to silence a people’s voice and imposing others’ will from
outside result in large-scale humanitarian catastrophe and bloodshed.

This is exactly how, 15 years ago, Azerbaijan responded to the Nagorno
Karabakh people’s legitimate independence referendum conducted in
line with the USSR laws. It was then that an opportunity to settle
the conflict in civilized and peaceful manner was missed.

In those terms, the key conclusion stemming from the Montenegro
referendum is as follows: On the one hand, it is more than apparent
that in the modern world it is impossible to apply the obsolete
mechanisms to complex conflicts and settle them by means of arbitrary
methods.

On the other hand, the necessity to establish situations that would
allow a people to apply its right of self-determination under
international law and through democratic means is becoming more
apparent.

This is the exact key to the Karabakh conflict settlement —
to respect the natural right of the Nagorno Karabakh people to
self-determination. There are no legal, political or historic
alternatives to such settlement.

I would also advise my Azeri colleagues to refrain from abusing the
Karabakh conflict unnecessarily just to justify domestic problems.
I realize that it is necessary for propaganda reasons but it becomes
absurd sometimes.

For example, Azerbaijan’s stance could not be considered constructive
when it declares no cooperation with Armenia in regional projects is
possible until the Karabakh conflict has been settled.

It is absurd when Azerbaijan says no fundamental democratic reforms
are possible in that country unless the conflict has been resolved.
This is either self-deception or an effort to render an ultimatum
to the Council of Europe in order to either force it help settle
the conflict in its favor or stop criticizing Azerbaijan for
democracy-related issues.

But the European experience — and particularly the Serbia and
Montenegro case — proves the contrary: the more democratic the
countries engaged in conflict are the more their people are tolerant
and the more efficient the negotiations.

The Montenegro referendum proved once again the known truth: there
are no democracy, common security and stability without the respect
for a people’s right to express its will freely.

Only when conflicts are resolved without victors and losers there is
a common victory of democracy as is the case with Montenegro.