by The Armenian Mirror-Spectator
Dr. Arshavir Gundjian, C.M.
Special to the Mirror-Spectator
This September 19 marked the sad anniversary of the short-lived glorious independent Artsakh’s tragic end. The purpose of this article is to develop the seeds of a serious and planned strategy in order to put Artsakh on a realistic trajectory towards resurrection, based on the use of all the resources that the Armenian world can provide.
Read also
As I was putting down the last words of my thoughts in my draft of this article, I received and read with great interest the most pertinent article that my good friend and international law expert Philippe Raffi Kalfayan had just published in this paper, entitled “Analyzing Legal Options for the Return of Artsakh Armenians, on First Anniversary of Ethnic Cleansing.”
As I have no pretentions of any legal expertise, I was delighted to confirm that my entirely pragmatic approach as a longtime community leader ran on a parallel course fundamentally consistent with Kalfayan’s legal arguments and would benefit from all of Kalfayan’s legal prescriptions. My current article exhorts Armenians to push their efforts further. Examples of conflicts throughout the world indicate that efforts based on mere legal justification do not lead in practice to justice prevailing.
Artsakh was certainly not a mere dream, nor an illusion. Independent Artsakh was a vivid reality which was achieved in 1994. It provided from that moment on, unprecedented stamina, optimism, enthusiasm and national pride for the Armenian world, which lasted for almost three decades. It became a lighthouse radiating pride to all, especially to young Armenians across the planet, in the wake of Armenia’s independence in 1991. Many fiery patriotic songs, dances and poems about Artsakh have filled the classrooms of Artsakh, Armenia and the diaspora’s Armenian schools, and over the years, brought tears to the eyes of thousands at almost any Armenian gathering or event.
This was the fruit of a difficult and victorious – arguably even holy – war of a kind that Armenians had not experienced for several centuries. Though this may sound like some kind of idealized exaltation, it genuinely evokes the mindset of Armenians in the nineties of the last century.
“Artsakh-e meren eh!” was the slogan that rang out in the streets and squares of Armenia in early 1988. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians raised their fists defiantly, encouraged by the prevailing Perestroika mood across the USSR. That mood spread like wildfire across the continents to the different corners of the diaspora, following a crusade headed by the likes of Zori Balayan touring its largest communities. The author of this article recalls one such defiant big protest in Montreal, Canada, which he headed, together with religious and lay community leaders of all organizations of this vibrant community. It took place in front of the austere and intimidating General Consulate of the USSR in Montreal, where the initial weak attempts of the consul general to qualify the Karabakh movement as “hooliganism” was quickly squelched by our uncompromising demand for justice and freedom for the multimillennial Armenian Artsakh.
The entire Artsakh saga of those years is well recorded and documented. After a referendum, in line with the laws of the land of that time, held in Artsakh in December 1991, and then a victorious liberation war, which stopped with a ceasefire in 1994, Artsakh became a legitimate independent republic. However, the recognition of this independence was withheld by the inconvenienced international community. For some still not satisfactorily explained reason, that independence was not even recognized by the independent Republic of Armenia itself, even though the latter had been the staunchest ally and even leader of the Artsakh liberation war.
It is now evident that all the arguments that were offered over the years by all the successive authorities both in Armenia and Artsakh to justify such a hesitant and cautious Armenian policy were misguided and fruitless in providing any so-called “expected strategic benefits” to the cause of Artsakh. Quite to the contrary, it can now be justifiably argued that the Armenian hesitance and reluctance to promote and outright defend the independence of Artsakh, right from the very beginning, has actually led to its ill fate, which ended with the final blow brought by the genocidal complete evacuation of some 120,000 Artsakh Armenians within 24 hours, on September 19, 2023.
Today, one whole year beyond that latest Artsakh catastrophe, the big elephant in the room is the haunting question as to what’s next for Artsakh.
Both the uneasy silence on this critical issue maintained by the present authorities, as well as the random noisy attempts of protest made by different groups in Armenia, are in fact signs of uncertainty and inability to propose a clear answer to this fundamental and persistent question. Certainly, silence, vagueness as well as mere populist noise is worthless when facing such a momentous issue. Armenians need to confront the problem and must come up with a strategy that takes into consideration all the hard realities presently surrounding this issue. We then need to act on it without hesitation.
Presently, the absence of a clear policy leads sometimes to unthinkable situations. It is indeed reported that some officials representing the current authorities when cornered with discomforting questions even go so far as to openly declare that there is no more Artsakh issue: it is now resolved – “Artsakh is part of Azerbaijan.” Such a statement is outrageous. It would have been condemned as being nothing short of being the most shameful treacherous blasphemy less than a few years ago!
The author of this article cannot believe that deep down, even those who make such statements truly mean what they say. It is certainly an unacceptable outburst motivated by mere political expediency. There is little doubt that the individuals now making such an unthinkable statement were, a few decades back, among those raising their fists in 1988 and shouting “Artsakh-e meren eh!”
On the other hand, it is equally true that none of those who express today outrage for such a blasphemy have so far been able to offer any realistic alternative, beyond the mere expression of outrage. Let us be fair. Outrage is neither a strategy nor any action that leads to any solution.
I strongly believe that both the current authorities and the vociferous opposing factions are equally convinced that for many different and perhaps unrelated reasons their rhetoric on Artsakh is an expression of mere frustration.
Armenians must instead seek a realistic forward-looking plan. For such an effort, we need first to squarely face a number of cold realities which, at first sight, may look like unsurmountable hurdles, but which nevertheless need to be dealt with, in order to bring us back on a realistic course leading to the resurrection of the Artsakh issue. The ultimate sought-for result is the revival of an independent Artsakh, populated by its legitimate Armenian owners, just as it has been for multiple centuries, and which was restored only three decades back, in 1994.
The first undeniable cold reality of these days is that Armenia has lost the war against Azerbaijan. It is by now evident that one big reason for this defeat was an ill-organized Armenian army, fighting with totally inadequate military equipment.
The second and equally disastrous reality is that Armenia has miserably failed diplomatically, throughout its three decades since its independence, to build a solid legal case and has failed to create strong international public opinion for the unquestionable right of Artsakh Armenians to live in their independent homeland.
The first and foremost precondition for any promising strategy that aims at the resurrection of Artsakh, and which may pretend to even start giving any hope of success to achieve that goal, is to correct and erase the above two fundamental deficiencies.
Let us, therefore, proceed by identifying the avenues that may lead Armenians to concrete solutions in this respect.
In order to recover from the demoralizing stigma of a defeated nation, it is absolutely necessary that the Armenian army be fundamentally upgraded both in terms of the reorganization of its structure, and in terms of its being equipped with the most efficient and relevant modern equipment. This task is evidently within the exclusive terms of reference, the rights and the obligations of the current authorities. Needless to say, this is a highly sensitive matter of national security and confidentiality. We certainly cannot expect the authorities to disclose their actions nor give any open account of their current efforts in this respect.
We do, however, welcome a definite and visible increase of Armenia’s activity to improve its position in this respect. The successful current diversification of sources to acquire military equipment, from India, France, and possibly eventually from the USA is praiseworthy. Concerning the uneasy balance of East-West relations in this respect, I submit that Russia should be the preferred alternative, provided, however, that Russia also changes and becomes as generous with Armenia as we all once hoped and believed that it was.
Beyond the external source, however, Armenia must develop also its domestic military equipment production industry. Armenia used to be one of the main providers of USSR’s most sophisticated military equipment. As a well-known example, Armenia was indeed, from the start, at the forefront of developments within the laser field. One unpardonable failure of all governments of Armenia since its independence, has been the evident complete neglect of its inbuilt pre-independence definite advantage in this respect. Overall, the revival and consolidation of Armenia’s military top readiness is evidently of highest urgency not only as part of Artsakh’s revival strategy but certainly also for the security of Armenia itself.
Armenia’s second major deficiency relative to Artsakh concerns the diplomatic and international public opinion handling domains. Unfortunately, at this point in time, this actually requires certainly a more refined approach. Indeed, today, the handling of this issue needs a much more serious and subtle handling than it would have needed only a few years back, before Armenia suffered a defeat in the battlefield and where it consistently failed to forcefully defend the legitimate rights of the Artsakh Armenians.
Let’s be fair and realistic. Today, while a defeated Armenia is insistently pursuing the signing of a peace treaty with victorious Azerbaijan and while it appears to have succeeded in securing strong international support in that respect, one can hardly demand and realistically expect that Armenia could and should also demand explicitly from that same Azerbaijan the return of Artsakh to its legitimate Armenian owners.
It certainly could and should have held such a position rather forcefully all along the past thirty years. It certainly could and should have argued its case at that time, without any restriction, as many, including the author of this article urged repeatedly that Artsakh’s right for independence must be justifiably demanded forcefully from international instances, such as the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council, using Kosovo’s case as a natural and perfectly consistent precedent.
Today, truly nothing has changed, neither from historic facts which support that Artsakh has been overwhelmingly a multimillennial Armenian populated land while Azerbaijan did not even exist on the map, nor from the parallel that can be made with Kosovo, and hence its right to be given internationally, a similar treatment. Therefore, the Artsakh Armenians must still immediately be allowed to return to their homeland which must further be given all the privileges of an independent country.
What needs to be subtly restructured are the names of the entities that will undertake the roles played in conducting this legitimate yet most difficult effort.
Whereas the government of Armenia may strategically and at least temporarily have to keep a relatively low profile in this respect, and even perhaps diplomatically may remain mute on this issue, it definitely must, at the same time, actively help Armenians to develop an effective alternate well-structured plan, and quietly help its implementation.
In any case, Armenia never does need to go as far as denying that Artsakh is Armenian. As much as Ararat may be in Turkey, yet it is eternally Armenian, equally, Artsakh may be in Azerbaijan, but it too is eternally Armenian.
To be practical, for the immediate short term, the actual Artsakh rhetoric on the international scene may have to be conducted in a format where Armenian authorities take a back seat. Instead, based on expert legal advice, an “Artsakh Government in Exile (AGE)” or its equivalent, bearing an appropriate name, must be established and must be given a welcome home in Armenia. The AGE must then officially take ownership of the Artsakh case. The AGE must be given generously broad help comprising all necessary legal, human and financial resources. In addition, and most importantly, this is where the so far badly underused, not to say largely wasted, resource of the Armenian diaspora must be brought into active duty.
It has been frequently pointed out, not the least by the author of this article, that the diaspora, with its geographic immensity and equally vast human and financial resources, has the potential to play a key role in favor of all Armenian issues. The Artsakh revival effort is one specific most invigorating issue that must be started with. However, to accomplish this mission seriously, the diaspora needs to have, over and beyond its existing dispersed and uncoordinated otherwise valuable entities, one well-structured body devoted exclusively to the mission of connecting diaspora organizations and individual contributors to Armenia. This requires a professional and nonpartisan structure seriously supported by both the Armenian government, and all serious diasporan entities. In this respect the revival of the Ministry of the Diaspora in Armenia is an absolute necessity. As its counterpart, this leads me to propose that within such a structure, a “Diaspora Central Committee for Armenia (DCCFA)” must be created with affiliates in all major diasporan Armenian communities to echo amplify and complement internationally, the work and actions undertaken by the above proposed AGE, the DCCFA and the Ministry of Diaspora. In terms of international diplomatic issues, the greatest advantages of such a diaspora-based structure is obviously its complete independence from any foreign, ally or adversary nation’s self-serving pressures that currently weighs heavily on Armenian authorities.
The discussion of the details of effective structures and the backing financially and in human resources of both the AGE and the DCCFA are outside the scope of this article. It is also obvious that such task is essentially nonpartisan and is expected to be wholeheartedly backed by all Armenian entities within Armenia and the diaspora.
The key question is if we are capable, as Armenian individuals, and more importantly, through our Armenian organizations, whether political, religious, academic, and nonacademic, including rival institutions, to respond willingly and effectively to such a patriotic need. There lies the great challenge that is offered to us to meet.
As I expect this plan to be easily deemed to be too optimistic, as I insist that in fact it is not, I also remind readers that otherwise the next challenge is to advance a better alternative on the occasion of this first sad anniversary of proud Artsakh’s destructive dismantling.
Artsakh was certainly not a dream. To let it now fade in the past is certainly not a permissible option for the Armenian world.
Let us remind ourselves of the days where every Armenian raised their fists defiantly and shouted “Artsakh-e Meren eh.” Has something changed since then?
