WHAT MAKES KOSOVO AND ERITREA BETTER THAN KARABAKH?
by Yuri Simonjan
DEFENSE and SECURITY
March 5, 2008 Wednesday
Russia
Post-Soviet self-proclaimed republics intend to achieve international
recognition
WHAT NAGORNO-KARABAKH COUNTS ON IN CONNECTION WITH THE KOSOVO
PRECEDENT?; An interview with David Babajan, Chief of the Main
Directorate of Information of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Kosovo set a precedent for non-recognized republics of the post-Soviet
zone. Here is an interview with David Babajan, Chief of the Main
Directorate of Information of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Question: Recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign state, the Western
community all but denies other self-proclaimed states similar
acknowledgement. Is it all right to draw parallels between Kosovo
and Nagorno-Karabakh?
David Babajan: The Kosovo precedent is unique because it amends
international law and introduces something new into nations’ right
to self-determination. Regardless of all claims that Kosovo is not a
precedent, this episode will certainly have far-reaching consequences.
The United States recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state promoting
its own geopolitical interests. The situation with Nagorno-Karabakh
is different. Our foreign policy may be well-balanced, democratic
institutions may develop and so on, but all of that will be a waste
of time and energy unless our actions suit movers and shakers. We
should use this period when we are not recognized as a sovereign
state to develop our state. The day will come when we are recognized.
Question: Necessity to return Stepanakert to the Azerbaijani-Armenian
negotiations is speculated on, these days. What will its return to
the talks mean?
David Babajan: The negotiations were trilateral until the middle of
the 1990s. They are bilateral now, and they entered a blind alley. It
will take Stepanakert’s involvement to do away with the deadlock.
Unfortunately, Azerbaijan is not ready for it and it is unlikely to
be ready for it in the foreseeable future. Direct negotiations with
Stepanakert will signify recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status
and Baku does not want it. It knows better because there are other
ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan that may get ideas and follow in
Nagorno-Karabakh’s steps. That is why the Azerbaijani leadership views
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a purely territorial conflict and not
as something to be regarded from the standpoint of nations’ right to
self-determination. Hence its thoroughly non-constructive stand. Broad
autonomous rights or actual recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s
independence may encourage other peoples in Azerbaijan.
Question: A joint Azerbaijani-Armenian delegation visited
Nagorno-Karabakh not long ago. Is it correct to treat it as the
beginning of reconciliation and return of fugitives?
David Babajan: We feel no animosity with regard to the Azerbaijani
people. Before coming to the return of fugitives, however, some other
steps should be taken. Psychological and historic reconciliation is
necessary, and that will take permanent contacts at the level of
non-governmental organizations and political structures. There is
a legal nuance here as well. Let’s say the fugitives do come back
but where will they go? To the jurisdiction of what state? Political
issues should be addressed first.
Question: But the threats to conquer Nagorno-Karabakh again and subdue
it by sheer strength of arms made by Baku every now and then do not
exactly improve matters, do they?
David Babajan: They do not, indeed. We are sorry to hear these
threats. Still, impressive economic parameters and fantastic
military budgets do not guarantee victory in war. Another war in
Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of prestige for Baku but for Stepanakert
it is a matter of life and death. This asymmetry of the motives may
play an instrumental part, you know. There are purely military and
geopolitical nuances as well, and they preclude a military solution
to the problem. If the war begins, however, it will be on a scale
larger than the one before. It will mean a new bloodshed and new
victims. Nobody needs it. That’s what our stand comes down to.
Question: Is independence from Armenia possible as well?
David Babajan: Researchers usually view the Yerevan-Stepanakert
connection from the economic standpoint. Stepanakert does depend
on Yerevan from this angle. On the other hand, there is more to the
general idea of sovereignty than this. It cannot be measured.
Nagorno-Karabakh is an important ethnic and political component
for Armenia. The Armenians lost their statehood more than once,
their territories were subjected to ethnic purges on more than one
occasion. The last one took place in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. All
of that developed a complex of victims in the Armenians resulting in
assimilation abroad. After all, it is more preferable for people to
identify themselves with winners, say with the Americans.
Nagorno-Karabakh is different. It offered an alternative.
Nagorno-Karabakh restored our faith in our own strength. Hence its
importance in the pan-Armenian world.
Question: Does Nagorno-Karabakh count on sovereignty or on becoming
a part of Armenia?
David Babajan: We fought for reunification but this movement eventually
evolved into the struggle for complete sovereignty which is more
attractive from the standpoint of economic development. In any case,
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have a lot in common, the degree of
integration is quite high. What counts, however, going back is no
longer an option. There are various options we may choose among, but
not a single one of them stipulates being a part of Azerbaijan. As
for whether Nagorno-Karabakh becomes sovereign or a part of Armenia,
time will show.