The interlocutor of “Aravot” is Davit Karabekyan, a political scientist and lecturer at Artsakh State University.
– Mr. Karabekyan, after the tripartite meeting held in Brussels on May 14, the President of the Council of Europe, Charles Michel, announced that Armenia and Azerbaijan confirmed the recognition of mutual territorial integrity based on the Declaration of Alma-Ata, 1991. How do you assess the negotiation process, and to what extent is the Almaty declaration related to Artsakh?
– The Almaty declaration has nothing to do with the same 29,800 sq/km and 86,600 sq/km mentioned in Charles Michel’s declaration. And it is desirable to have the original statement of Charles Michel at hand. Secondly, in 1991, the CIS was established by the three founding Slavic states, and then Kazakhstan entered the CIS. Kazakhstan’s entry was because it was the largest Turkic republic, and in fact, the complete end of the USSR was strengthened by that. In other words, it had purely political significance; it showed no return to the Soviet past.
Read also
Therefore, it cannot be considered that by adopting the Almaty Declaration, the parties stopped their territorial claims and rejected the right of nations and peoples to self-determination. Thirdly, as we know, Azerbaijan joined the CIS in 1993; at that time, the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh was already established. And most importantly, Azerbaijan declared itself the successor of the democratic republic of Azerbaijan, which was much smaller in its borders than Soviet Azerbaijan.
They talk about Soviet maps, but after subjugating Karabakh to Azerbaijan, many territories of the Republic of Armenia were also annexed to Azerbaijan. And the legal borders of Armenia should be much larger than 29,800 square kilometers. By the way, thanks to the victories of the Karabakh army, Azerbaijan joined the CIS. In other words 1993, our army was winning; Heydar Aliyev announced after the elections that he was ready to join the CIS. Azerbaijan joined the CIS when Karabakh was an independent state with a victorious army.
Let’s remember that Azerbaijan signed a bilateral memorandum with Artsakh on ceasing war. At that time, the United Nations had already adopted the famous four resolutions, which talked about the Artsakh Armenians; it was mentioned that the exit of the war from the borders of Artsakh led to the flow of refugees, which could destabilize the situation. Azerbaijan should remember that the UN has indirectly recognized the collective rights of Artsakh Armenians.
In other words, the actual borders of Nagorno Karabakh, the need to protect the collective rights of Artsakh Armenians, the formats of peaceful settlement, the co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group, and the armed forces of Artsakh, which are called local Armenian forces in UN resolutions, have been recognized by the UN. And based on the resolution of the UN Security Council in 1994, the famous decision of the Budapest summit was adopted, where the operation of multinational peacekeeping forces under the auspices of the UN was discussed.
In 1992, many countries, including the USA and the European Parliament, accepted that Karabakh could not submit to Azerbaijan because it would lead to the danger of destroying the population. Arguing that the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh were being massacred to save the Armenians of Artsakh and solve the problem politically, the Council of Europe recognized Artsakh’s right to self-determination in 1992.
Today, it would be more fitting if Artsakh acted as a full-fledged party to the conflict. The principle of territorial integrity derives from the right to self-determination. In other words, the fundamental principle is the principle of equality and self-determination, it must be preserved. And in this case, Azerbaijan acts as an aggressor state, threatening the existence of Artsakh and Armenia. And in this context, the blockade of Artsakh should also be taken into account.
– In other words, do you consider it necessary that Artsakh, as an entire party, should participate in the negotiations at this stage? And what possibilities do you see for it?
– Yes, Artsakh should be a negotiating party. Criticizing the European Council, we must consider the context in which the negotiation process occurs. The European Council and the European Union have repeatedly stated that they do not have the military potential or ability to prevent the parties’ actions, but they can help resolve the issue. The European Union assumes economic, cultural, and other humanitarian functions.
Secondly, Artsakh Armenians’ security level should be high enough to be safe from harassment. And when the borders of Artsakh are determined, the fact should not be forgotten that the population of Northern Artsakh was deported during the Soviet years, that the boundaries of Artsakh have been changed many times, and the Armenians living on the right and left sides of Azerbaijan in the Eastern Transcaucasia, who are indigenous people, being subjected to the policy of assimilation, were forced to leave their residences.
And the rights of those people should be restored; they should fully enjoy their rights within the borders of the Artsakh state. Those borders should not only be safe and ensure the connection of Artsakh Armenians with Armenia and the expected economic, political, and spiritual development of Artsakh, but also, there should be international mechanisms that will allow Artsakh Armenians to exercise their collective rights.
Artsakh should be able to develop economic, spiritual, and cultural ties with Armenia and have its representative in international organizations. And Artsakh should be able to organize its internal administration according to international standards.
Unfortunately, the European Union and the European Council’s tasks repeat the shortcomings recorded before and after 1994. After the ceasefire, when Russia, the primary mediator, insisted that if this or that condition is not accepted, “Azerbaijan can refuse, it is the injured party, the conflict is in the territory of its state.” In other words, a plan of settlement was born from a distorted approach, an approach that eventually led to imbalance, double principles, and war all that needed to fix.
Now Azerbaijan acts from the position of power and dictator; it seems to be the winner. And in fact, the international structures give in to that pressure again, especially if a plan acceptable to Baku and Ankara is imposed, which will not contribute to stable and lasting peace. In other words, restoring the balance of approaches and eliminating double approaches is necessary. We see how the European Union, which declares that it is not a military organization, helps Ukraine with weapons and money.
We know what hard approach is being taken towards Russia and what concessions there are towards Azerbaijan. We must get rid of false narratives and understand that the security of Armenia is inseparable from the safety of Artsakh. The security zone did not protect Artsakh but Armenia. We should not be depressed because, in the same 1992, our positions were even more terrible.
Roza HOVHANNISYAN
