Demanding Artsakh’s unilateral and immediate recognition is not yet an evidence of determination and bravery and being abstained from taking this step – a lack of determination and bravery. The four-day or the second Karabakh war in Armenia’s political field again raised the question of the appropriateness of recognition/non-recognition of the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh by the Republic of Armenia. It seems we are talking about a simple thing but as you can see there is a need for further clarification given the extent of all messed up circumstances and notions.
First of all, the government authorities gave a new impetus to the problem by making is an agenda issue at the government session, which was followed by the unclear fuss of Russian press, then Mr. Lavrov assumed the role of everyone’s savior from the “panic” while Mr. Peskov hurried to announce why Yerevan “has not agreed with Moscow” the issue of recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh. And as to why Yerevan should have agreed on it with Moscow after breaking the Russian-Azerbaijani conspiracy, nobody asked this question.
Let’s move forward. All this would be understandable if the debate in Armenia was not refreshed again on whether or not to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh at this stage, from which Yerevan officially abstained in the entire course of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The reaction of the first President Levon Ter-Petrosyan to the question, in its turn, promoted and exacerbated the debate. Yes, both the first president and the current government authorities are not in favor of unilateral recognition. And if the government silently rebukes by conditioning its posture with “if”, i.e. if Azerbaijan unleashes aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh again, then Levon Ter-Petrosyan also notes even though without detail what are the risks of unilateral recognition. Indeed, it is beyond doubt: the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, sooner or later, will be recognized by the international community, the process of Artsakh people’s right to self-determination for the establishment of an independent state through the referendum is inevitable.
Azerbaijan’s politics in 1918-20 both in the Soviet and post-Soviet years showed that this way has no alternative, all possible alternatives have been eliminated. Azerbaijan itself has not left any alternative. And the “territorial integrity” visualized by Baku is equivalent to a new Armenian genocide, this time in Karabakh, which the Armenian people will not tolerate and will not allow. L. Ter-Petrosyan pointed out this in his article reminding also about the principle and doctrine of remedial secession, according to which when any state at the level of authorities systematically abuses the civil right of ethnoterritorial minority within its composition on the ground of racial, national, religious and xenophobia, resorts to violence, threatens with deportation or extermination, then the international community considering the coexistence of the nations no longer possible shall be forced to separate its occupied territory from the said state for the sake of preserving of the existence of the minority. But when the successful experiences of the independence of national minorities are mentioned that have taken place thanks to the support of the international community or one of the superpowers and among them the names of the Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are mentioned next to Kosovo, Eritrea and East Timor, then here to say the least questions arise. First, the last three are the most prominent example of not only unilateral recognition but also all the harmful consequences rather than a successful experience. Another similar “successful” example should certainly be added to it – the Northern Cyprus. It is beyond doubt that these examples cannot be a milestone for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its future.
Read also
Artsakh, as well as Kosovo unlike East Timor or Eritrea or South Sudan are an integral part of the Euro-Atlantic territory, therefore, the Minsk Group represented by three co-chairs having the mandate of the OSCE is dealing with the settlement of the conflict. It has been repeatedly mentioned by the authorities and expertise community that the Minsk Group mediation format has no alternative for the Armenian parties as it is the best balanced and then, the MG proposals aimed at exclusion of resumption of war (monitoring on the contact line with technical means, international investigation mechanisms) are those that are derived from the interests of both the Armenian sides and the conflict settlement.
In other words, the intersect of the Armenians side and the international community are crossed and coincided at this point, this is the starting point from where the process for the implementation of the remedial secession principle starts, and the grounds for its necessity was completed by the war in April this year. So what? How does the unilateral recognition improve the positions of the Armenians sides? Nothing. Moreover. This is a gift to Baku and its patron the Kremlin that is the number one enemy of Armenia and Artsakh. This step will simply blow up the OSCE Minsk Group and will lead the Armenian sides to international isolation and will make Moscow the main operator of the conflict.
This is what Russia is dreaming about. Azerbaijan and Turkey are allied to Russia on this who do not even hide their intolerance towards the Minsk Group. And it would just be a “wonderful” idea if this “great trio” achieves its goal by the hands of Armenians after which we will surrender to the mercy of Moscow for the latter to mediate, let’s say, Nauru Vanuatu and perhaps Zimbabwe to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. So what? Is it in vain that the Russian embassy official announced in a direct text that without the recognition of Artsakh’s independence by Armenia “no weapon will go to Karabakh” … Again a Russian trap … Is this what you want?… Yes, the way to achieving the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh internationally is one – it is the way of Kosovo. Simply we need to have a good inventory of who are our true allies and enemies on this way and what do they want here. And giving to false dilemma of recognizing/not recognizing, we deviate from our main problem of this stage: the return of Nagorno-Karabakh to the negotiating table, reaffirmation of 1994-95 ceasefire agreements and introducing international mechanisms for excluding the resumption of war. And, of course, it is vital to refrain from actions that could jeopardize the success of these steps. Finally, it is necessary to put an end to this unhealthy “patriotic race” and to reconcile with the “traffic rules” of international relations no matter how tempting, “critical” or “bravery” is the opposite. The price of the mistake is unacceptable, the consequences to be mistaken – irreparable. Azerbaijan cam make a mistake and lose several times while we – in no way and in no case. Ben Franklin used to say, “Dreaming about the impossible, act realistically, at that time the impossible will become possible.” And we must not allow the feeling of realism to betray us at this crucial period. And here’s the possible betrayal rather than in the domain of false starting conversations of recognizing/non-recognizing.
Ruben MEHRABYAN
“Aravot” daily
