ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736 E-mail: [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: George Shirinian
DATE: November 5, 2004 Tel: 416-250-9807
AGBU Toronto and Zoryan Institute Host Two Lectures on Karabagh’s
Independence
Toronto, Canada – The AGBU of Toronto and the Zoryan Institute jointly
hosted an evening of two lectures on Nagorno Karabagh on October 29, at the
AGBU Alex Manoogian Cultural Centre, covering its history of independence
and its current status in light of international law and politics, as it was
time for a new, up-to-date assessment.
The issue of Karabagh’s independence, which caused a war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, became a critical subject in international politics during the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. The essence of the conflict was the
priority of the self-determination of the people of Karabagh, an autonomous
republic, versus the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as
a nation-state incorporating the Nagorno Karabagh Republic (NKR). Since the
1994 ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the conflict has dropped from
the headlines, and much of what has been written on the subject in the west,
particularly in English, has generally been pro-Azeri and anti-Armenian. The
exceptions have been the publications of the Zoryan Institute, such as The
Karabagh File, The Sumgait Tragedy, and The Making of Nagorno-Karabagh: From
Secession to Republic, as well as those by a few others.
Prof. George Bournoutian, Senior Professor of History at Iona College, spoke
on “The Armeno-Azeri Academic Conflict over Karabakh.” His lecture was
particularly timely as it coincided with the appearance of his new book, Two
Chronicles on the History of Karabagh, which has just been released by Mazda
Publishers. The book documents, through two Muslim, Persian language
chronicles of the 18th and early 19th centuries, respectively, the existence
of Karabagh as an unquestioned Armenian territory. It clearly refutes modern
Azerbaijani historians, who falsify primary source materials in order to
deny the existence of the Armenians in their ancestral homelands.
Mr. Vardan Barseghyan, Permanent Representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic in the United States, spoke on “The Current Situation Regarding the
Independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and International Law.” He noted that the
population of Nagorno Karabagh never saw itself as part of Azerbaijan, as
Karabagh had never been part of Azerbaijan, and Stalin’s forced separation
of Karabagh from Armenia in 1923 remained a source of continued protest and
international conflict.
Mr. Barseghyan described how, in August 1991, Azerbaijan announced it was
seceding from the Soviet Union. Two days later, in compliance with then
existing Soviet law, which gave the right of self-determination to
republics seceding from the Soviet Union, the NKR declared its independence
from the newly established Azerbaijan Republic. This was followed in
December 1991 with a referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of
Karabagh’s population voted for independence. A principle was being
challenged: if the Republic of Azerbaijan had the right to secede from the
Soviet Union, then the Autonomous Republic of Nagorno Karabagh had the right
to secede from Azerbaijan.
Mr. Barseghyan explained how the NKR meets international criteria for
sovereignty.
1. Effective control over a defined territory.
2. A permanent population.
3. Regular armed forces, which are under civilian control.
4. A democratically elected government with executive, legislative and
judicial branches.
5. Effective conduct of its foreign affairs.
The NKR seeks three main points in its negotiations with Azerbaijan.
1. The existence of Karabagh.
2. Peer-to-peer relations between Azerbaijan and Karabagh.
3. International guarantees for the NKR.
“The most important prerequisite for negotiations,” stated Barseghyan, “is
security and stability in the region, which can not be achieved without
stability in each state..The NKR seeks a political end to the war.Democratic
Karabagh can not be subordinated to Azerbaijan, which violates the rights of
its own citizens.” He explained his government’s position, that in order to
resolve the conflict, the reasons for the conflict have to be addressed,
before the consequences can be eliminated. Karabagh’s status is at the heart
of the conflict. The consequences include the displacement of people on both
sides, creation of a security belt around Karabagh, and the detrimental
impact of the war on the parties’ respective economies. Barseghyan stressed
that had Azerbaijan succeeded in its attempt to crush Karabagh’s assertion
of its freedom, Karabagh would have been the victim of another genocide. “If
Karabagh were to concede any of Azerbaijan’s demands unilaterally,” he
stated, “without any concessions in return, we are convinced that, having
improved their military position at virtually no cost would embolden
Azerbaijan to consider renewing military action.”
Barseghyan pointed out that the Azerbaijani government implemented policies
designed to effect the “ethnic cleansing” of the Armenians from Karabagh.
These policies included economic and cultural discrimination, and the
encouragement of Azeri settlement in Karabagh. After the outbreak of
violence, they also included government-sponsored falsification of the
region’s history.
This view was supported by the main theme of Prof. Bournoutian’s lecture.
Bournoutian described several examples of how, since 1988, Azerbaijani
historians have falsified primary sources by removing all mention of Armenia
and the Armenians from them, in an attempt to deny Armenians’ ancestral
claims to this territory. “Historians have a duty to facts,” Bournoutian
emphasized. “Such desperate acts not only reduce Azeri historical claims to
Karabagh, but strengthen the Armenian case,” he remarked.
The reason it seems that most of the publications in the west are very pro
Azeri, he observed, is that “Azerbaijan, as well as its staunch supporter
Turkey, give lots of grants to western writers. Armenians are not producing
enough books and articles giving a more balanced point of view. There are
very few academics who deal with modern Armenian history; universities
discourage them, feeling it is too political. In this regard, I must say
that there are very few organizations or individuals who address this
critical problem, but I must acknowledge the efforts of the AGBU, the Zoryan
Institute, the National Association of Armenian Studies and Research, and
Mr. Kourken Sarkissian.”
“The political impasse and neglect of the Karabagh issue is somewhat
surprising,” commented K.M. (Greg) Sarkissian, President of the Zoryan
Institute. “The recent secessionist movements in East Timor in South East
Asia, and Eritrea in Africa, for example, are vivid examples of how the
Karabagh conflict could be resolved by the international community. In both
cases, history shows us that two distinct cultures can not be forced into a
successful union. Therefore,” he continued, “it is essential to understand
this conflict not just from an Armenian perspective, but to know the larger
history surrounding it, as well as the international legal and political
realities. We hope that through such analytical and informative lectures, we
are able to provide people with an understanding of the situation in
Karabagh from a universal perspective.”