WE NEED TO KEEP TERRITORIES
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
11:41:19 – 22/07/2009

There is a common opinion in connection with the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue settlement that the most important issue in this conflict for
both Armenia and Karabakh is the status of Karabakh. Moreover, the
official Yerevan insists on this opinion. Let alone the question if
this is the axis of the negotiating process, or this is an ordinary
question. Let us just view if there is anything more important than
the status for the Armenian side.

I think that there is another question more important than the
status. It is the question on the liberated areas. In other words,
the question is who is to control those territories. If they are out
of the Armenian control, Karabakh will have only a temporary status,
which is going to repress the Armenians.

The liberated areas for the Armenian side are a ground for both
physical security and moral rise. Being deprived of them, the Armenian
side will be deprived also of physical security and moral supremacy. By
attributing some kind of status to Nagorno-Karabakh the life does not
end, it does not stop but goes on, which means that the geopolitics is
going to continue. And the geopolitics supposes for infinite interests.

Karabakh has already been once granted a status as a part of
Azerbaijan SSR.

The question is not what status was granted. The question is that the
status changed only in20result of a war. What is the guarantee that
there will not be shaped a new geopolitical atmosphere after several
years, which will enable Azerbaijan change the Karabakhi status with
the help of the international society? Depriving Armenia of moral
and physical supremacy of the liberated areas, Azerbaijan gets a very
good precedent to deprive Karabakh of its status in the future.

If today, the world assures Azerbaijan that it will secure the return
of territories if Azerbaijan reconciles with its loss of border
with Armenia and Karabakh, who may say for sure that tomorrow the
world will not be saying to Azerbaijan that they may also return
Karabakh. The return of the territories fits into the geopolitical
interests of superpowers, depending on who is going to be the "sponsor"
of the return.

If the developments after the 1994 war brought about the point that the
international society thinks that the issue must be solved by returning
the territories to Azerbaijan, so it is not impossible that the same
international society one day will decide to solve another question by
returning Karabakh to Azerbaijan. The Armenians will surely fight but
we must not forget that during our history we had not only military
victories but also defeats. Moreover, if before this war, without
thinking of a possible war, we agree to cede a part of our victory.

In addition, it is considered to be done in order to avoid any
war. Sure, maybe some future generation or we will manage to avoid the
war, though it is not known who says that keeping the territories means
a war. Sure if the territories become the richness and the property
of several people, and in response to the international proposal to
return them, we say if you take them, we will fight, so it is natural
that the international society may "get angry" and force a war to us.

However, if relevant work is done to make Armenia and Karabakh
countries with modern measurements and the liberated areas to
be a legal, a vital component of that country based on law, so
the international perception of the liberated areas will change
completely. They will stop being viewed as saved "coins" during the
war, which would be needed for an exchange with Karabakh. The point
is that the present aspect of the negotiation seems to show that they
do not want to take something from Armenia and give it to Azerbaijan,
but they want to leave something to Armenia.

It is understandable, that the reality and the issue of the
negotiations differ and fortunately, no one forces Armenia yield
anything. But the problem, as many people notice, is that the
international attitude towards the topic of negotiations is going to
change rather than the topic of negotiations itself.