Armenian defence minister outlines key priorities of Karabakh settlement
Regnum, Moscow
12 Apr 05
Armenian Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan has said that Armenia is
not planning to vacate Azerbaijan’s occupied territories without a
scrupulous consideration of the security interests of the Karabakh
people. In his address to the Armenian parliament during the
recent hearings on ways of solving the Karabakh conflict, Sarkisyan
said that Yerevan is ready for certain compromises provided that
Azerbaijan guarantees the physical security of the Nagornyy Karabakh
population. At the same time, he called on the country’s relevant
bodies for closer cooperation at the international level to protect
Karabakh’s independence and outlined Armenia’s key priorities in
solving the conflict. The following is an excerpt from the report by
Russian news agency Regnum. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
The Armenian parliament held hearings on the Nagornyy Karabakh problem
and ways of solving the conflict on 29-30 March. The hearings were
organized by the standing foreign relations commission of the Armenian
National Assembly.
Regnum news agency released detailed reports on the hearings. However,
taking account of the importance of the issue, the agency decided
to publish the full text of the report of the Armenian National
Security Council secretary and defence minister, Serzh Sarkisyan,
in the Armenian parliament on 30 March 2005.
Sarkisyan calls on relevant bodies for closer cooperation on Karabakh
“First, I consider it necessary to note that drawing up the list
of issues, which the commission sent to the participants in today’s
hearings in advance, is a useful initiative. However, I do not think
that there is a point in following this list accurately because
this would turn my report into an interview. I shall try to give my
answers in the form of a military-political analysis of the roots
of the Karabakh armed conflict and the key factors that define the
process of its dynamics.
1) A brief assessment of the state of affairs in our foreign policy:
In my opinion, in the sphere of advancing the interests of the Karabakh
settlement, we can note both certain success and difficulties which
are well-known to us. However, on the whole, there are no grounds for
panic. It is another matter that noting remarkable achievements, it
is more useful to pay more attention to the problems and the lessons
we have learnt as a correct understanding of them can help us advance
the Karabakh settlement better, proceeding from the security interests
of Armenia, Karabakh and the Armenians as a whole.
I think that at this stage of the Karabakh settlement, we have to
concentrate on the systematization of our resources in counteracting
the sly and cynical enemy who resorts to the most despicable methods
and tricks in order to discredit the international image of Armenia and
Nagornyy Karabakh. We must proceed from the realities that specialized
departments of Turkey and other allies are helping Azerbaijan in the
political attack on Armenia.
Therefore, it is extremely important in the Karabakh process to
join the efforts of Armenian government institutions, including
the National Assembly, government, ministries and departments and
foreign representative offices. This requires the correct selection and
professional training of representatives of state organizations which
should represent our highest national interests in the world community.
They must receive professionally-prepared information about our
national interests and priorities in the most important issues, how
to defend them by political and diplomatic means during the forums
of international organizations and visits or receptions by foreign
delegations.
Roots of the modern phase of the Karabakh problem
At the same time, we must periodically “synchronize watches” on
the Karabakh settlement. Today’s session of the commission is a
good example of the clarification of assessments, principles and
approaches taking into account the dynamics of the Karabakh foreign
policy process.
2) On the correlation between “history” and “politics” in
substantiating Armenia’s position as one of the principles of
protecting our national interests.
The roots of the modern phase of the Karabakh problem lie at the turn
of the catastrophic change in Karabakh’s state status as a constituent
part of Russia and the USSR.
[Passage omitted: historical background]
3) On current approaches and principles of solving the Karabakh
problem and substantiating them.
In the process of the 13-year talks under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk
Group, four major approaches to the settlement of the Karabakh conflict
were discussed:
Nagornyy Karabakh’s reunification with Armenia;
The recognition of the independence of the legally self-determined
Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR];
The establishment of a common state on the basis of Azerbaijan and
the NKR;
The granting of the highest degree of autonomy to Nagornyy Karabakh
within the Azerbaijani Republic.
Accordingly, the basis of these approaches on the Armenian side
is the concept of the self-determination of the Nagornyy Karabakh
people. Azerbaijan’s approach is invariably based on the principle
of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and inviolability of borders.
Nevertheless, as a member of the Minsk negotiating process, Armenia
is building its relations on these models and proceeding from the
principles of ensuring the physical security of the Karabakh Armenians,
as well as conditions for its stable and democratic development.
You are aware of these principles. However, in my opinion, the modern
development of the Karabakh process says that it is expedient to
include in these formulations the fact that Nagornyy Karabakh orients
itself to the world processes of progressive development.
Sarkisyan’s three major principles
These three fundamental principles can be formulated in the following
way:
– The impossibility of Karabakh’s subordination to Azerbaijan;
– The impossibility of Nagornyy Karabakh’s existence as an enclave, the
need to have a land border with Armenia and international guarantees
that conditions will be created for Karabakh’s participation in world
progressive processes;
– The need to have clear international guarantees that the war will
not resume and the security of the Nagornyy Karabakh population will
be guaranteed.
[Passage omitted: historical background]
Finally, a cogent argument of the impossibility of Nagornyy Karabakh
forming part of Azerbaijan is the real threat of its complete
de-Armenianization.
The total ethnic cleansing of the Naxcivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist
Republic from the indigenous Armenian population without the right
to return to their land, which was carried out by official Baku even
when Azerbaijan was part of the USSR, serve as a dreadful lesson and
warning for the Karabakh Armenians.
– On the principle of guaranteeing the impossibility of Karabakh’s
existence as an enclave, the need to have a land border with Armenia
and the NKR’s participation in world progressive processes.
The explanation of the impossibility of the NKR’s existence as an
enclave is based on the fact that in the absence of a land border
with Armenia and in conditions of an overall blockade, the Karabakh
population will be deprived of possibilities to survive. At the same
time, the guarantee that Karabakh will not exist as an enclave is the
necessary condition for fulfilling the will of the NKR to participate
in world progressive processes.
– On the need for the international community to guarantee that the
war will not resume and the security of the Karabakh Armenians will
be ensured.
In this respect, it is extremely important to skilfully bring to
the notice of the international community the basic argument that
Azerbaijan had resorted to aggression against the NKR.
The self-defence of the NKR people was organized in conformity with
Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to the military aggression
of the Azerbaijani Republic against the legally-established Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic. The violation of the principle of “territorial
integrity” with regard to the Azerbaijani Republic occurred following
a forced response to its aggression against the NKR, including the
military construction of a security zone on Azerbaijani territory
regained from the aggressor in the process of eliminating its gun
emplacements.
If we speak about the essence of the issue, we are not planning to
return the territories from the “security belt” without a scrupulous
consideration of the security interests of the Karabakh people. We
are ready to make certain compromises in a negotiated way provided
that we acquire firm guarantees from Azerbaijan that the physical
security of the Karabakh people will be ensured with the backing of
influential international organizations. In fact, Armenia is ready
to discuss the possibility of mutual compromises precisely within
this pragmatic framework.
Peaceful means and mutual compromises key to Karabakh solution
4) The prospects for Nagornyy Karabakh’s status: It is obvious to
me that the resolution of the Karabakh conflict is possible only
by peaceful means on the basis of mutual compromises. What are the
compromises that, in my opinion, the Armenian only side might agree to?
We see as a fundamental compromise the fact that Armenia is refraining
from recognizing the NKR although Karabakh has been legally established
and has been functioning as a democratic independent state for many
years. This is a demonstration of good will with the aim of backing
the peaceful settlement process within the framework of the [OSCE]
Minsk Group.
[Passage omitted: reference to international documents]
In our view, we can base the second fundamental compromise on this
proposal: Although the NKR has been legally established and has been
functioning as a democratic independent state for many years, Armenia
can agree to conduct an additional referendum among the residents
of the former Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region in their current
places of residence if the referendum is organized under the aegis of
the OSCE and the UN. In this case, we are obliged to professionally
study the constructive experience of the UN mission for the affairs
of the provisional administration in Kosovo, as well as the OSCE
mission in Kosovo.
Speaking about Karabakh’s future status, I want to underline the
logic of the process of establishing the NKR and Armenian statehood
as a whole. The vital interests of maintaining the national and
international security of the Armenians imply the importance
of the parallel membership and fruitful cooperation of the two
fraternal Armenian states – the Republic of Armenia and the NKR – in
international organizations. Along with this, based on the fact that
the NKR has been established legally and is an independent state, this
approach can soften the protests of the Council of Europe to Armenia
regarding “the wish to annex” Nagornyy Karabakh. In other words,
the model “one Armenian people, two Armenian states” is definitely
of benefit to all Armenians on a strategic scale.
[Passage omitted: historical background]