Public Radio of Armenia
Armenia’s President forwards the protocols to Parliament and invites
Aliyev to the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border
10.02.2010
President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, made a speech In
the Chattem House of the British Royal Institute of International
Affairs.
`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 reg logue. 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 r ion. 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 indifferening
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 richdog, 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 people living
on its own soil 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 expres¬sion 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
Gül 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 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.
on-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 Gül 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 then 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 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.