Recognition of unrecognized: Nagorno Karabakh press digest

Read it in Russian

“Vardan Oskanyan’s refusal to meet with the Azeri FM means that he is afraid that his arguments might be weak,” 525^th Daily (Baku) reports the Spokesman of the Azeri Foreign Ministry Tair Tagizade as saying. Tagizade says that the main point is that the talks must be continued. “All Oskanyan’s statements about Azerbaijan’s activities at the UN show the real extent of Armenia’s commitment in the regional and world politics,” says Tagizade. He notes that the OSCE MG co-chairs still believe that the next meeting should be between the Armenian and Azeri FMs.

The press office of the Armenian Foreign Ministry has published the response of the acting spokesman of the FM Vladimir Karapetyan to Public Radio’s question:

"In their last few days’ comments some Azeri officials have used quite new diplomatic vocabulary. Particularly, the spokesman of the Azeri Foreign Ministry has appeared with a very strange statement that the Armenian side is “avoiding” the FM meeting because of “the weakness of its arguments.” Do we actually have nothing to say during the forthcoming meeting?

I am trying to understand what psychic complexes might have forced my Azeri colleague to make such unbecoming statements about the FMs meeting. Perhaps, the only thing left for a diplomat of a country who has lost the war it started itself is to cover his impotence with senseless arrogance and idle talk. I am really surprised to hear such a bunch of words from Azeri officials. I say “bunch of words” because what they are saying makes absolutely no sense, no logic, nothing one could call a thought. I see absolutely no responsibility and sense of the moment in their words.

The Armenian side takes the talks very seriously and expects the same from the opposite side. We have repeatedly said that we approve of the last proposals of the OSCE MG co-chairs and hope that the talks will be continued. In the last years Azerbaijan has shown increasingly strong negation towards the peace talks: in 1998 they rejected the “common state” scenario, in 2000 they dismissed the Key-West proposals and, today, they are drawing back from the agreements produced by the Minsk Group. We would like to say once again that the Minsk Group is the best format for the Armenian side at the moment.

The transfer of the problem to other instances necessitates the involvement of Nagorno Karabakh in the talks. Talks are not an end in itself for us: we are not going to take part in the Azeri games. If Azerbaijan has no more arguments to give to the MG and hopes to get some dim profits in a structure where members are not well aware of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, it is playing a dangerous game. If Azerbaijan got into this game against its will only because it tried to capitalize on the agendas of other participants, it should have well estimated the possible consequences of such a policy. Azerbaijan must realize that we will not solve the problem by imposing scenarios on each other. We must find the solution ourselves however hard it might be.

On the other hand, the Azeri authorities may well be trying to use the “card” of Nagorno Karabakh for their own domestic needs. If so, this is not a political question. In any case, the Azeri side will not be able to mislead anybody. They will not be able to deny that it was they who carried out the first ethnic cleansing in the former Soviet Union, it was they who first started a large-scale war against people they consider to be their own citizens, it is they who are destroying Armenian cultural heritage, it is they who are showing absolute negation of any contacts with the Armenian side – contacts that could pave the way for cooperation and could alleviate the tensions (Noyan Tapan).

“One could expect such a position from Armenia. Armenia believes that it has won the war, and Azerbaijan must concede during the talks, but Azerbaijan will not deign to do it,” Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov says in an interview to APA news agency while commenting on Armenia’s attempts to evade the talks. Musabekov says that there is only one way to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem: “The hegemonic states must bring Yerevan to reason, otherwise, the talks will give no results, and Armenia will continue pushing forward its non-constructive position.”

Azeri political expert Zardusht Alizade says that, in fact, there is no negotiating process, it’s just a show: “Neither side wants to drastically change its position. There is no real ground for concessions. Armenia says that Nagorno-Karabakh must become independent and join it, Azerbaijan says that it will not give Armenia a single inch of its land. Nobody is searching for concessions outside these principles and appeals to the public and the international law. Both the sides and the co-chairs approach the problem superficially and are trying to find a solution that would bring closer the interests of the sides, but the interests are not coming closer. For the problem to be resolved, one of the sides must renounce its basic principles.” Alizade says that some powerful forces are trying to freeze and to prolong the conflict. Now, the sides are in a stalemate and are just feigning talks.

Meanwhile, political expert Vafa Guluzade calls the Karabakh peace process “just a nonsense.”

168 Zham daily asks Spokesman of the Armenian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Karapetyan: “A few months ago Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said that, if the Karabakh talks reach a deadlock, Armenia will recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Will Armenia actually do it?”

Karapetyan responds: “You have said yourself – ‘if the talks reach a deadlock.’ The present situation is not a deadlock.”

168 Zham asks: “And what about Armenia’s statements that if Azerbaijan continues its attempts to transfer the Karabakh problem to the UN, it will have to negotiate with Nagorno-Karabakh – something Azerbaijan will never agree to. Isn’t it a deadlock?”

Karapetyan answers: “You can’t be 100% sure it will not, more precisely, we will learn this during the forthcoming processes.” “One thing is sure, Armenia wants the talks to be continued in one or another form. The Armenian side will in no way lead the process into a deadlock.”

“The present deadlock in the Karabakh peace process is the result of Azerbaijan’s illegal territorial claims, the removal of Karabakh – the most interested party — from the talks and the excessive stupidity and historical-legal ignorance of various mediators,” the first Russian Ambassador to Armenia Vladimir Stupishin says in an interview to PanARMENIAN.Net. He says that for the same reasons one should not expect progress in 2007 and 2008. “That’s exactly why it is hard to say when Karabakh will come back into the process.”

As regards the possibility of military solution, Baku is not calling for application of force, in fact, it is threatening Armenia with war. This is inadmissible, even if this is just a bluff," says Stupishin. He says that the optimal way now is to preserve the status quo in all parameters lest the Armenians might be charged with wrecking the talks: “Talks – however long they might be — are always better than war.” “During the 15 years of their independence the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic have strengthened their statehoods, have tried to overcome the problems of blockade existence, have successfully resisted the aggression of Azeri revenge seekers. Armenia have preserved friendly, allied relations with Russia and has cooperated with Moscow in the framework of the CIS, CSTO and other organizations,” says Stupishin.

“Though not recognized formally by any government, Karabakh’s continued march to secure lasting independence is irreversible,” says Nagorno-Karabakh’s Representative to the United States, Vardan Barseghyan.

Referring to DiplomaticTraffic.com, PanARMENIAN.Net reports Barseghyan as saying: “There is no going back for us.” “Just because Stalin gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan does not mean that the international community has to reinforce what Stalin did.” “What Stalin did at the beginning of the last century was against the will of our people. And now we are at the beginning of the 21st Century.”

So far, negotiations among the key players since the 1994 ceasefire, notably through the OSCE’s Minsk Group, have produced a lot of statements and occasional glimmers of hope, but no concrete progress on a lasting political solution.

But, clearly, Karabakh is not waiting for others to decide its future. It has been working to shore up its defenses while steadily improving its economy and the lot of its 145,000 people. Barseghyan notes that GDP doubled from 2001 to 2005 (increasing to $114 million from $53 million), and economic growth last year was 14 percent.

Although Karabakh is still a very poor country in a seemingly precarious political situation, its people are evidently working hard to improve their economy and prospects for the future.

Asked about possible recognition of their republic, Barseghyan says: “There are positive tendencies” in that direction. He said “governments recognize the fact that the Nagorno Karabakh Republic has been established and functioning as a country, and more and more contacts look like regular government-to-government contacts.” “However, Washington closely watches the developments in Karabakh including economic progress and democratization though the US government tries not to portray these as regular contacts, for obvious reasons,” says Barseghyan.

“I believe the world recognizes that we deserve to be free, and as a minimum we should avoid another disaster. International recognition of Karabakh’s independence will discourage another attack by Azerbaijan. The ceasefire has lasted for 12 years already, and we believe this is due to the natural balance of forces,” says Barseghyan. He notes that Azerbaijan’s oil revenue has been used in part to strengthen its armed forces, and Karabakh (and Armenia) stress to the US Congress and administration that a military balance should be maintained to prevent a new attack by Azerbaijan," says Barseghyan.

Recognition of unrecognized

Nagorno Karabakh welcomes the conduct of referendums in Transdnestr and South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh President Arkady Gukasyan says in an interview with Novosti Armenia news agency. “I believe that the peoples of Transdnestr and South Ossetia have the right to hold referendums and to once again confirm the will they expressed long before,” says Gukasyan. “I think it is always wrong and bad to ignore a nation’s will. Such problems must be solved on the basis of the right of a nation to self-determination and, naturally, we welcome these referendums,” says Gukasyan.

On Sept 18 Abkhazian Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba received Vice Chairman of the Commission on International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation Sergey Markov and Director of the Russian and Asian Programs of International Security Institute (Washington) NikolaiZlobin. Caucasian Knot news agency reports the sides to discuss the political results of the referendum in Transdnestr and to express their support for the political rights and sovereignty of the Transdnestr people. The sides also discussed some practical steps to raise the international authority of the Republic of Abkhazia and security in the region. If Kosovo’s independence is recognized, the world community will universally apply this principle in Abkhazia, Transdnestr, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh, Markov said after the meeting. He said that this principle will generate a new wave of independences in the post-Soviet area.

“We must respect the wish of the residents of Transdnestr to get independence,” Vice Speaker of the Russian State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky said on Sept 20. He said that a hundred of new independent states will appear on the world map soon and mentioned Karabakh and other unrecognized states. Zhirinovsky proposed opening a Russian consulate in Transdnestr. (Analitika.az).

The European Union does not recognize the results of the September 17 referendum in Transdnestr. Before the referendum, EU and OSCE officials had repeatedly said that it was inexpedient to hold a referendum in Transdnestr. OSCE President Karel de Gucht said that the Transdnestr referendum would make the situation in the region even more complicated, PanARMENIAN.Net reports with reference to the official representative of the European Commission Pietro Petrucci.

Concerning the referendum in Transdnestr, Deputy Chief Editor of Kommersant daily (Russia) Azer Mursaliyev says that referendum is a way to pressure the other conflicting party. “This referendum will have no legal consequences. It was declared illegal from the very beginning by all big international organizations. In fact, it was just a way for Transdnestr to remind of itself. The referendum in South Ossetia will have the same scenario and outcome,” says Mursaliyev. Concerning Nagorno Karabakh, Mursaliyev says that they have already held several referendums: “But all this is simply miserable from the legal point of view. Any referendum is considered recognized if its very conduct is recognized, if it is observed by experts from specific organizations — from the UN to the CE; while several foreigners coming to unrecognized units on their own will or on somebody’s request are not a guarantee of serious legal consequences” (525^th Daily).

The separatist units existing in the post-Soviet area have picked up the habit of holding referendums. Thereby, they are trying to “Balcanize” the post-Soviet area and to acquire the Serbian-Montenegrin and Kosovan experience of ethnic-national self-determination. They are doing it in different ways: electing “presidents,” voting for “constitutions,” imitating “independence referendums.” And all those “countries” forget that the US and the EU have recognized the Montenegrin and Kosovan cases as unique and not subject to blind political imitation. (Zerkalo).

The head of the Inter-Ethnic Relations Department of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis of Russia Sergey Markedonov says that Azerbaijan’s attempt to transfer the Karabakh peace process to the UN is not just a coincidence. “Nagorno Karabakh Republic will shortly join the ‘parade of referendums’ of unrecognized post-Soviet republics – on December 10 2006 the Karabakh people will vote on draft Constitution. The key point of the NKR Constitution is not division of government or distribution of powers among the president, the parliament and the Cabinet, but the territorial problem: the key question of the political debates over the draft Constitution is where the homeland starts and where it ends for the Karabakh people. They in Stepanakert are sure that in three months they will institutionalize their republic both territorially and politically. The last attribute of a fully-fledged state is Constitution and the adoption of own Constitution will bring NKR closer to international recognition,” says Markedonov.