ON THE ISSUE OF FORMATION TWO EQUAL IN RIGHTS STATES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE FORMER AZERBAIJANI SSR
Mikhail Aghajanyan
15.12.2011
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict expert
One of the most substantive and at the same time vital issues for the
adequate presentation of the essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
and ways of its long-term setting is the issue of formation of two
states – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) and Azerbaijan Republic (AR)
on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR.
In the discussions between the Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, which
cover rather wide range of political and legal aspects of Karabakh
conflict and its setting, this issue have not been analyzed properly,
though, in our opinion, it is the experts’ “cross” discussion of
this issue that can clarify further discussions round setting of
the conflict.
There is a lot said and written about the legal aspects of the
issue from the academic and research point of view. The political
component of the issue, no matter how strange it may look taking into
consideration the postulate that the conflict should be settled by
political means, which seems to be established in the understanding
of the international mediators, seems to be pretty “unfinished”. At
the same time one cannot disregard close interdependence of political
and legal issues every time when we try to approach understanding of
the objective reality of appearing of two new states on the territory
of the Azerbaijani SSR from the researchers’ stances.
In general outlines the Armenian stance on the issue of formation
of two states was presented on the level of the Republic of Armenia
and from the highest international tribune in summer 2004 during
the well-known address of the president of Armenian R. Kocharyan
at the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe
in Strasburg. R. Kocharyan mentioned that “As a result of the
collapse of the USSR on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR
two independent states were formed – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and
Azerbaijan Republic. The legal grounds of existence of those states
are identical”.
Can the same be said about the political grounds of formation of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Republic?
This question cannot be answered without going 20 years back, to
1991, when after the adoption of the legal documents, declaring the
formation of the NKR and AR, the large-scale political and military
campaigns were unfold by the latter for suppression of the will and
right of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh to dispose their own
political destiny. Azerbaijan of “autumn-winter 1991” did everything
to suppress by political and military means the NKR declared by the
Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and, which is very important for
objective understanding of the issue, to make it before the state
independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was declared. Unlike
Azerbaijan Republic, which refused from the legal heritage of the
Azerbaijani SSR by the fact of stating its independence and considered
its forbearer the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic of 1918-1920, on
September 2, 1991 the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in its Declaration
stated formation of the NKR but not the withdrawal from the legal
space of the USSR and even more not the withdrawal from the USSR,
which still existed de-jure at that moment1.
The aggressive attitude of the political leadership of Azerbaijan
in autumn-winter 1991 proved their unwillingness to settle the
conflict with Nagorno-Karabakh by political means. Instead of making
efforts after the declaring its own independence on August 30, 1991,
which was adequately followed (in political and legal aspects) by
the Declaration of Independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
of September 2, 1991, to take the conflict (together with the NKR)
to the constructive tideway of political settlement, Azerbaijan set
a course for its further escalation. Azerbaijan could have turned
to the political means of conflict settlement based on the legal
grounds, for example, by holding on its territory referendum on the
status of Nagorno-Karabakh, but instead, it, by one of its first
legal acts, annihilated autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh of the Soviet
times (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region) and laid a course for
the military and political escalation of the conflict hoping to take
advantage of the transition period (transition the Soviet political
and legal heritage to new realities in the post-Soviet space) and to
settle the issue by military means. It resulted in 1991-1994 war,
the outcome of which, together with the reasons of its unleashing,
cannot be disregarded while considering the political grounds of
formation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Republic.
In general, cause and effect chain of the events in the political
dimension of the issue of formation of two new states on the territory
of the former Azerbaijani SSR can be presented in the following way.
In the Azerbaijani SSR the Armenians, being alongside with the
Azerbaijanis the states forming nation in the Soviet Azerbaijan,
suffered from political and social-economic discrimination. In
the period prior to the current stage of the Karabakh conflict,
situation was formed when the state-forming Armenian ethnos of the
Azerbaijani SSR, which had been more developed as for the its social
level, was discriminated in its political possibilities, and that
first of all manifested itself in not allowing access to the people
of the Armenian nationality to the republican political government
institutions. The political rights of the Armenians on the territory
of the Azerbaijani SSR were violated. As it is known political rights
provide the possibility of the citizens to take part in managing the
state and society affairs. Unlike personal rights, political rights are
directed to providing a person not the autonomy but his manifestation
as an active participant of the intrastate political process. As
a rule the political rights are acknowledged after the citizens of
the given state, i.e. possession of those rights is connected with
the citizenship of given state. It is important that “the political
rights are essential condition for realization of all the other rights
of the citizens, as they form the ground of the system of democracy
and take a role of a means of control over the authorities”2.
The violation of the rights of the Armenian people of the union
republic was manifested in political aspect mainly in the tuned
system of “ethnic filtration” while taking administrative and partisan
positions. Such a system brought to the discrimination of the Armenian
ethnos which was derogated from their rights through the restriction
of the political rights of separate representatives of the ethnos.
Violation of the individual political rights of the Armenians of the
Azerbaijani SSR brought to putting forward the collective right of
the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh on withdrawal from the republic
where individual and collective discrimination of, correspondingly,
representatives of the ethnos and ethnos in general was taking place3.
In the active phase of resumption of the Karabakh conflict in
1980s the following components of political character were clearly
presented: 1) being initially a state-forming ethnos of the union
republic the Armenian people of the Azerbaijani SSR, represented by
the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, as bearers of the objective rights
of the state-forming nation, came forward as a collective initiator
of reconsideration of its staying within the Azerbaijani SSR; 2)
as one of the main reasons for such an initiative the Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh put forward the fact of violation of their rights
as a state-forming nation in the Azerbaijani SSR.
We often mention the Armenian people in Azerbaijani SSR as a
state-forming ethnos of that republic within the USSR. In support of
this the following argumentation can be brought.
Azerbaijani SSR was established as a soviet socialist republic of
the Muslims (Caucasian Tatars) and Armenians, and in substantiation
of this the political motives of including Nagorno-Karabakh in the
administrative borders of the Azerbaijani SSR according to a well-known
decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the RCP(b) of July 5.
1921 can be brought: “on the assumption of the necessity of setting
peace between the Muslims and the Armenians”. In 1921 the Caucasian
Bureau of the RCP(b) in fact recognized the Armenians and Muslims
parties to the conflict round the national and state organization of
Azerbaijan, and, correspondingly, source and bearer of that soviet
form of statehood. In the Decree of Central Executive Committee of
the Azerbaijani SSR “On Formation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous
Region” of July 7, 1923, national and state organization of Azerbaijani
SSR is formulated as “joint state union” of Muslims and Armenians. In
the Decree setting of brotherhood cooperation between the Armenians
and Muslims within “the joint state union” (and the Azerbaijani SSR had
to become the one) is stated as the main purpose of the Soviet power.
Non-national character of the Soviet Azerbaijan was conditioned not
only by the multi-national character of the Eastern Transcaucasia, not
only by the fact that the Caucasian Tatars did not play a key role in
that region, especially in industry where all the key positions were
in the hands of the Armenians and Russians, or by not only social and
historical circumstances, but also by the peculiarities of the ethnic
and territorial organization. Azerbaijani SSR included territories
which both historically and ethnically were Armenian4.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, established by the Decree of
the CEC of the Azerbaijani SSR, was a confirmation of the state-forming
status of the Armenians in the Soviet Azerbaijan, who received
objectivization of that status by forming their national and state
autonomy in Nagorno-Karabakh. In this context Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy
can be considered the main form of political and legal immunity of
the state-forming status of the Armenians in the Azerbaijani SSR.
Connecting in one problem context the violation of the political rights
of the ethnos on the territory of its historical and state-forming
settlement with the issue of legitimacy of secession demands of
that ethnos, brings the author to stating the exclusions in the
international rule “no-rights-for-secession”, regarding the states,
which borders are internationally recognized but factually are not
preserved. Thus, H. Hannum believes that the first exclusion must
be recognizing the right for secession in the places where mass
“ethnically focused” violations of human rights, approaching to
genocide exist. The second exclusion is connected with deprivation
of the political representation in the given state5.
In this regard, it is also interesting to bring the opinion of a
well-known British diplomat, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Great Britain J, Straw expressed last year on setting the Cyprus
conflict which can also be related to the realities of the setting
Karabakh conflict either. While discoursing of the Cyprus settlement
the former head of the Foreign Office underlined that it was necessary
to get rid of the stereotypes: “If a single state cannot provide the
equality of the political rights (underlined by us) it is necessary
to recognize independence of both states – South and North Cyprus”,
– stated he and mentioned that it would contribute to the resolution
of the problem6.
In both past and present the only relevant goal for the Azerbaijani
leadership in the light of full and final favourable resolution of the
Karabakh issue was and still remains full cleaning of Nagorno-Karabakh
from the Armenians. And under the availability of such obvious and
unveiled goals on behalf of today’s authorities of the Azerbaijani
Republic, it is impossible to build political formation of the Armenian
and Azerbaijanis within the framework of a single statehood.
Among the Armenian experts there is an opinion that Baku is tending
to return to the situation of 1988 and that is why it cherishes plans
about the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy. In reality, today’s Baku regime
is not even interested in returning to the situation of 1988 in the
Karabakh issue, because this issue will never be taken by Baku as the
resolved one if even one Armenian stays and works in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Wherever the representatives of “Azerbaijani-Turk” nation
self-determined, no Armenian was left there or the situation is close
to it in the upcoming decades (in the Turkish Republic).
Autonomy for Nagorno-Karabakh “in Azerbaijani way” is taken by the
Azerbaijani politicians and experts not only as a realization of a
right on self-determination for the Armenians from Karabakh, but also
as an unalienable right of the Azerbaijani minority of the NKAR. Is
it possible to reason sustainably such an absurd scenario within the
domestic political practice of a separate state when a nation, an
ethnic group has already self-determined twice within the framework of
that state and would claim self-determination for the third time? The
Azerbaijanis self-determined within the framework of the Azerbaijani
Republic declaring it the successor of the Azerbaijani Democratic
Republic of 1918-1920, Azerbaijanis self-determined within the
framework of Nakhijevan Autonomous Republic and now they are preparing
to self-determine in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijanis has already
claimed their pretentions to self-determination in Nagorno-Karabakh,
particularly, in form of a letter sent to the UN Secretary General
signed by the representative of Azerbaijan to UN T. Musayev. The
“press release of June 5, 2009, issued by the Azerbaijani community
of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijani Republic”, in which
it was mentioned about the “congress of the Azerbaijani community of
Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijani Republic”, was attached. The
final thesis of the Azerbaijani letter addressed to the UN Secretary
General read: “Conflict can be settled only on the grounds of respect
for the territorial integrity and indissolubility of internationally
recognized borders of Azerbaijan, and peaceful co-existence of the
Armenian and Azerbaijani communities fully and equally enjoying
democracy and prosperity in the Nagorno-Karabakh region”7,
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Sh. Kocharyan gave
rather terse reply to such a vision of the conflict resolution by the
Azerbaijani side, saying in March 2010 that “Baku continues to distort
international law, stating about the necessity of self-determination
of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh within the framework of territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan. In reality the solution of the issue is in
preserving territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within the framework of
self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and responsibility
of Azerbaijan for using power against the self-determined people”8.
Violation of political rights, perpetrating genocidal actions against
the Armenians on the territory of Azerbaijani SSR in the areas of their
compact settlement in Sumgait, Kirovabad, Baku and other population
centers outside the administrative borders of the Armenian autonomy
within the Soviet Azerbaijan (NKAR), as well as unleashed military
aggression by the Azerbaijan Republic, which declared itself the
successor of the 1918-1920 Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, against
the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh brought to the political
separation of two new state formations, which appeared on the territory
of the former Azerbaijani SSR.
Political principles of current existence of the NKR and AR, with the
exception of the element of international recognition of both state
formations, which, however, is not determinative while assessing the
political viability and state consistency of a definite state subject
in the international relations, are comparable. The NKR has its own
bodies of state power, formed on the democratic basis of elections,
has public and political institutions of expression of the opinion of
its citizens, Constitution and laws, army and law machinery, state
symbols and other attributes of statehood necessary for creation
normal conditions for the vital activity of its population.
The argumentation of the Armenian parties contains obvious thesis
about the impossibility of existence of the NKR and AR within the
framework of a single statehood, in which the political rights of
both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis would equally be respected. There
are many indirect indicators of the fact that for the external actors
such a reality is immutable stating of the factual situation, and it
is simply out of considerations of diplomatic character that they do
not express it directly, and the subjective nature of it has nothing
to do with the objective reality of the state consistency of the NKR,
with the right of the people of the NKR to claim political principles
of building their statehood on the part of the territory of the former
Azerbaijani SSR.
1The Declaration of the NKR stipulated that the representatives of
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh who accepted that Declaration “are
taking as a ground the existing Constitution and Laws of the USSR,
which provide the people of the autonomous formations and compactly
living national groups with the right for independent decision making
on their state and legal status in case of withdrawal of the republic
from the USSR”, as well as taking into consideration the fact that on
the territory of the NKR before the adoption of Constitution and Laws,
the Constitution and the Laws of the USSR and other laws in force,
which do not contradict to the goals and principles of the Declaration
and peculiarities of the Republic are in force”
2 ìÕËÁÛÅ×Á å.a., ôÅÏÒEÑ ÐÒÁ×Á E CÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Á (ÐÏÄ ÒÅÄ. íÁÎÏ×Á c.î.),
í., , 1995, Ó. 239.
3 Formation of the ruling partisan and economic bureaucracy had
preceded over the recent 20 years under the close control of Heydar
Aliyev – “sole master” of the party and the state in this part of the
USSR. The positions of the secretaries of party committees and heads
of the executive committees, ministers and their deputies and etc.
were usually sold for bribes, though there were exceptions. Besides
the bribes, personal relations and ties played important role. For
30 years Aliyev had managed to place in key positions many of
his relatives and fellow-townsmen in both state governing bodies
and spheres of economy, culture and education. Ideological factor
of loyalty to Communist ideas was not taken into consideration;
here the loyalty to Aliyev was crucial. This was the way the
backbone of the partisan and economic elite was formed. (aÌE-ÚÁÄÅ
ú., aÚÅÒÂÁÊÄOÁÎÓËÁÑ UÌEÔÁ E ÍÁÓÓÙ × ÐÅÒEÏÄ ÒÁÓÐÁÄÁ oooò,
).
4 íÁÎÁÓÑÎ a.o., ëÁÒÁÂÁÈÓËEÊ ËÏÎÆÌEËÔ: ËÌÀÞÅ×ÙÅ ÐÏÎÑÔEÑ E ÈÒÏÎEËÁ,
åÒ., , 2005, Ó. 25.
5 Hannum, Hurst. The Right of Self-Determination in the Twenty first
Century // Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action
(Eds. Richard Pierre Claude, Burns H. Weston, Gavin H. Boyles).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2006. pp. 242-249.
6 Jack Straw, No ifs or buts, Turkey must be part of the EU // The
Times, November 8, 2010.
7 Persons who pose themselves as the leaders of the Azerbaijani
community of Nagorno-Karabakh, the number of which, by the way,
according to Azerbaijani sources is 75 thousand people, state about
the in-between tasks on the way to their final self-determination in
Nagorno-Karabakh: “The most important today is to change the current
status-quo, i.e. to withdraw Armenian military units from the occupied
territories, return displaced persons and set the status of the region
within the borders of Azerbaijan” (interview of the leader of the
Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh B. Safarov to the Russian
“Novaya gazeta”, 19.09.2011).
8 íea aÒÍÅÎEE: âÁËÕ ÐÒÏÄÏÌOÁÅÔ EÓËÁOÁÔØ ÍÅOÄÕÎÁÒÏÄÎÏÅ ÐÒÁ×Ï,
, 15.03.2010.
“Globus Energy and Regional Security”, Issue 6, 2011
——————————————————————————–
Another materials of author
*THREE PRINCIPLES, SIX GUIDELINES AND “STATUS-QUO” IN THE KARABAKH
CONFLICT SETTELEMENT[20.10.2011] *POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS
OF THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT ROADMAP AT CURRENT
STAGE[18.02.2011] *RUSSIA-TUKREY RELATIONS IN THE SPOTLIGHT OF THE US
AND UN[21.12.2010] *RUSSIA AND SOME ASPECTS OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SITUATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION [08.07.2010] *”BLACK SEA
SYNERGY” INITIATIVE AND THE SOUTHERN CAUCASUS[25.01.2010]
http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6184
http://www.sakharov-center.ru/publications/azrus/az_0055.htm
http://news.am/rus/news/16699.html