THIRD EUROPEAN ARMENIAN CONVENTION. KARABAKH PRESIDENT IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.
[ Part 2.2: “Attached Text” ]
October 18, 2013
Armenians from all over Europe were gathered in Brussels, Belgium
for the 3rd European Armenian Convention, convened on October 14-15
and organized by the European Armenian Federation for Justice and
Democracy (EAFJD).
[Convention-2013-day-1-opening.jpg]
EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian delivers opening remarks
On October 14, the Convention took place at the Armenian Cultural
Center where EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian delivered the
opening remarks.
[Convention-2013-day-1-audience.jpg]
(L-R) Mountainous Karabakh Republic Foreign Affairs Minister, Karen
Mirzoyan, Head of Permanent Mission to EU, Amb. Avet Adonts, Speaker
of the Armenian Parliament, Hovik Abrahamyan, Mountainous Karabakh
Republic President, Bako Sahakyan, Catholicos of Cilicia, Aram I,
ARF-D Bureau member, Hagop Der Khachadourian, Primate of Armenian
Apostolic Church of France, Archbishop Norvan Zakarian, Mountainous
Karabakh Republic Vice Prime Minister, Artur Aghabekyan
Mountainous Karabakh Republic President, Bako Sahakyan, Armenian
Parliament’s Speaker, Hovik Abrahamyan, ARF-D Bureau member and
Armenian National Committees coordinator, Hagop Der Khachadourian,
Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II representative and Primate of
the Armenian Apostolic Church in France, Archbishop Norvan Zakarian and
Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia, Aram I addressed the Convention.
Following the speeches, an award-presenting ceremony took place.
EAFJD staff members and partners awarded Raffi Arslanian, Kapriel
Chemberji, Punik Foundation, Nerses Ohanian, Souren Ohanian, Braian
Fera, Andre Gumushjian and Alecco Bezikian for their vital financial
contribution to the EAFJD.
The first day the topics of the agenda were discussed in three
panels. The first one concerned the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide
with the Director of the Institute for Diaspora and Genocide Studies
of Bochum’s Ruhr University, Prof. Dr. Mihran Dabag, and the Director
of the ARF-D International Secretariat,
[Convention-2013-day-1-panel-1.jpg]
Day 1, panel 1: (L-R) Giro Manoyan, Arto Tavitian, Mihran Dabag
Giro Manoyan. The panel was moderated by ANC Cyprus member, Arto
Tavitian. The second discussion touched the Turkish-Azeri anti-Armenian
lobbying and the Armenian response to it. The keynote speakers were
the Director of
Day 1, panel 2: Hratch Varjabedian, Bedo Demirjian-Kurkjian, Michael
Kambeck
Day 1, panel 2: Hratch Varjabedian, Bedo Demirjian-Kurkjian, Michael
Kambeck
the ANC Office in France, Hratch Varjabedian and the Secretary General
of the European Friends of Armenia (EuFoA), Michael Kambeck.
In the third panel, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of
Greece, Ara Mangoyan and Chief-editor of “Orer” magazine (Czekh)
Hakob Asatryan presented the Western and the Eastern European Armenian
communities. Both panels were moderated by EAFJD Communication Officer,
Bedo Kurkjian-Demirjian.
The coordinator of Armenian NGOs in Samtskhe-Javakheti (Georgia),
Artak Gabrielyan spoke about the problems that the Armenians of the
region face. The discussion concluded that it would be appropriate to
hold a special conference in the near future, dedicated to this issue.
The President of the Forum of Armenian Associations of Europe
(Slovakia), Ashot Grigoryan presented the Forum’s work within the UN
about Armenian monuments and Van civic organization (Russia) President,
Gagik Melikyan presented his book “Armenian Genocide by Ottoman Turkey,
1915. Testimony of Survivors, collection of documents”.
[Convention-2013-Mangoyan-Bedo-Asatryan1.jpg]
Day 1, panel 3: (L-R) Ara Mangoyan, Bedo Demirjian-Kurkjian, Hakob
Asatryan
At the end of the first day, EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian read
a letter by the Emergency Relief and Recovery Body of Syrian Armenians
addressed to the Convention. The letter concerned the difficulties that
the Syrian Armenian community faces and called the European Armenian
communities to assist financially. Karampetian gave a summary of the
EAFJD work that aimed both at collecting funds and at providing safety
to the Syrian Armenians.
[Convention-2013-day-2-opening-b.jpg]
(L-R) Kaspar Karampetian, Eleni Theocharous, Joseph Daul, Bako
Sahakyan, Aram I, Hovik Abrahamyan, Avet Adonts, Hagop Der
Khachadourian
The second day, the sessions convened in the European Parliament.
After a welcoming speech by EAFJD President, Kaspar Karampetian
the floor was given consecutively to Joseph Daul, President of
the European People’s Party (EPP) Group in the European Parliament
which hosted the Convention, Dr. Eleni Theocharous, President of the
EU-Armenia Friendship Group in the European Parliament, Bako Sahakyan,
President of the Mountainous Karabakh Republic spoke for the first
time from the European Parliament’s floor about his country in what
is considered a historical moment, Hovik Abrahamyan, Speaker of the
Armenian Parliament, Hagop Der Khachadourian, ARF-D Bureau member and
Armenian National Committees’ Coordinator and to Aram I, Catholicos of
the Holy See of Cilicia who elaborated on the return of the Armenian
church properties from Turkey.
[Convention-2013-day-2-panel-1.jpg]
Day 2, panel 1: (L-R) Yair Auron, Kirsten Meersschaert Duchens,
Theofanis Malkidis, Frank Engel, Henry Theriault, Vladimir Vardanyan,
Hagop Der Khatchadourian
[Convention-2013-day-2-panel-2-a.jpg]
Day 2, panel 2: (L-R) Bernard Fassier, Knut Fleckenstein, Giro Manoyan,
Andrey Kovatchev, Vahan Hovhannesian
The first panel touched the subject of the Armenian Genocide and
International Law. Professors Yair Auron (Israel), Theofanis Malkidis
(Greece), Vladimir Vardanyan (Armenia), Henry Theriault (USA) as well
as legal expert Kirsten Meersschaert Duchens (Netherlands) expressed
their views on the Armenian Genocide and the issue of reparations.
Moderating this panel were Frank Engel (Luxembourg), MEP and Vice
President of the EU-Armenia Friendship Group in the European Parliament
and Hagop Der Khachadourian.
The next discussion was about the New Perspectives in the South
Caucasus with guest speakers Andrey Kovatchev (MEP, Bulgaria), Vice
Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Knut Fleckenstein (MEP,
Germany), Vice co-Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs, Human
Rights and Democracy of the Euronest PA, Dr. Ioannis Charalambidis
(Cyprus), President of Ledra College, Geoffrey Robertson QC (UK),
member of the United Nations internal Justice Council, Bernard Fassier
(France), ex. co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Vahan Hovhannesyan,
Vice Chair and Bureau member of Euronest PA). Giro Manoyan, ARF-D
International Secretariat Director was the moderator of this panel.
On the same day, at the initiative of EAFJD, the President of the
EU-Armenia Friendship Group in the European Parliament, Dr. Eleni
Theocharous scheduled a meeting between the Mountainous Karabakh
Republic delegation, headed by its President, Bako Sahakyan and
comprised of Vice Prime Minister, Artur Aghabegyan, Foreign Affairs
Minister, Karen Mirzoyan and Press secretary of the President, Davit
Babayan, and MEPs from various political factions and member-countries.
[Convention-2013-day-2-panel-2-c.jpg]
Day 2, panel 2: (L-R) Bernard Fassier, Geoffrey Robertson, Giro
Manoyan, Andrey Kovachev, Vahan Hovhannesyan, Ioannis Charalambides
During these two days MEPs, politicians and experts as well as
representatives of European Armenian communities and organizations
discussed about the various aspects of Armenia’s integration in Europe,
the progress of the Mountainous Karabakh Republic, the problems and
the capacities of the European Armenian communities, the reparations
of the Armenian Genocide and the drawing of a new policy to pursue
the rights of the Armenians.
EAFJD President Kaspar Karampetian stated, “We consider the 3rd
European Armenian Convention to be of historical significance in
the sense that for the first time religious and civic-political
representatives from Armenia, Artsakh (Mountainous Karabakh) and
the Diaspora gathered in Brussels and particularly in the European
Parliament to unanimously voice their determination to work for the
benefit of the development of Armenia, the recognition of Artsakh
and the survival of the Diaspora”.
EAFJD Office
Below is the speech ARF-D Bureau member, Vahan Hovhannesyan delivered
at the third panel’s discussion.
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the real picture of the
Karabakh conflict and the problems Armenia and the Southern Caucasus
face today.
20 years passed political conflict between Karabakh and Azerbaijan
dates back to 1918, when the state named “Azerbaijan” first emerged
on the map.
[Convention-2013-day-2-vahan.jpg] That was the year when the Armenian
nation, almost completely destroyed by the Genocide and war, found
strength and will to restore its homeland from ruins and ashes and
create an independent state. But that independence did not last long.
In 1920 the first Republic of Armenia fell to the double aggression
from Kemalist Turkey and Bolshevik Russia. They occupied and divided
Armenia – in the same way as two decades later Stalinist Russia and
Nazi Germany occupied and divided Poland and the Baltic States.
Part of Armenia was occupied by Turkey and devoid of its Armenian
population; another part was captured by the Bolsheviks. Armenia
resisted fiercely, never being an obedient subject; the first and
successful rebellion against the Bolshevik rule in 1921 made Armenia
independent for a short time, but enemy forces were overwhelming and
independence was lost. Afterwards, came the cruel punishment – what was
remaining of Armenia was dismembered again: Nakhichevan region, as well
as Karabakh, forcibly against the will of their Armenian population,
were passedĀ to Azerbaijan, which joined Soviets voluntarily.
The totalitarian regime used different means to keep national republics
in submission. One of them we conditionally call “the Caucasian model”;
the main feature of it was the intentional deformation and distortion
of the ethnic or administrative borders.
They were carved in such way that no republic or ethnic entity could
break away without a conflict with the neighbours. This was not
the only model. There was also the so-calledĀ “Baltic model”, when
the ethnic composition of the republics became the main target. The
conflicts in the Southern Caucasus particularly emerged as a result
of artificially drawn borders.
Forcibly included in the administrative structure of Azerbaijan,
Karabakh, where 95% of the population was Armenian, was subject to
various forms of ethnic and religious discrimination, and economic
deprivation. Intentional demographic manipulation resulted in
widespread ethnic cleanings.
The long decades of Soviet and Azerbaijani rule did not eliminate the
desire of Armenians for freedom and independence – neither in Armenia,
nor in Karabakh.
The current stage of the struggle for liberation of Mountainous
Karabakh began in 1988, when the inhabitants of that historical
Armenian province, encouraged (or deceived) by perestroika and
glasnost, began to take peaceful steps to break free from Azerbaijani
control. Soviet Azerbaijani authorities answered with brutal acts
of violence and pogroms, directed against the defenseless Armenian
civilians. On February 26, 1988 the international community witnessed
the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait, one of the largest cities and
industrial centers of Azerbaijan. In Karabakh, series of attacks on
Armenian villages were launched. They were committed with full support
of the Soviet authorities and military. For example from January to
May 1991 the inhabitants of 24 Armenian villages in Karabakh were
forcibly driven from their homes. Many were killed or burnt alive
like in Sumgait. The sudden outbreak of the Azerbaijani violence
revealed the real roots and causes of the conflict and made them so
clear and obvious that the European Parliament voted for a resolution,
which in particular included the following expressions:
“Having regard
– to the historic status of the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh
as part of Armenia,
– to the arbitrary inclusion of this area within Azerbaijan in 1923 and
– to the massacre of Armenians in the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait in
February 1988,
whereas the deteriorating political situation, which has led to
anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait and serious acts of violence in
Baku, is in itself a threat to the safety of the Armenians living
in Azerbaijan,
The European Parliament condemns the violence employed against Armenian
demonstrators in Azerbaijan, and supports the demand of the Armenian
minority for reunification with the Socialist Republic of Armenia.”
As a result of severe persecutions, Armenians and the people of
Mountainous Karabakh were left with only three choices: leave their
ancestral homeland, submit and die, or fight for their freedom and
survival. Karabakhi Armenians preferred the third option. In full
accordance with the existing law they announced their independence
from Azerbaijan, created their own statehood, establishing the
Government and electing the Parliament of the Mountainous Karabakh
Republic. Azerbaijan responded with aggression and full scale war,
attacking Armenian villages and bombing and shelling towns and the
capital city – Stepanakert. Then Armenians of Karabakh created an
army and organized total defense of their tiny country.
And they won. Nobody could expected that, but they did. They were
merely 150.000 thousand people against 7.000.000 strong Azerbaijan,
and they won. They liberated all the territories under Azerbaijani
occupation and took under their control several strategically important
positions around their Land, creating a security belt.
After series of military failures in May 1994 Azerbaijan was compelled
to ask for peace and signed a cease-fire agreement with MKR.
Years later the Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda invented an
explanation for their defeat in the war unleashed by that country
against the Mountainous Karabakh Republic, blaming Russia for some
imaginary support of the Armenian side.
Documents from different sources clearly show which side of the
conflict launched by Azerbaijani intolerance benefited from Russian
arms and armament supply more. For instance, having already more than
double superiority in arms left by the Soviets, Azerbaijan between
1992-1994, during the most active phase of the military confrontation,
received from Russia approximately 1,5 times more tanks, 3 times more
armored combat vehicles, 2 times more artillery systems and grenade
launchers than the Armenian side. Against dozens of military airplanes
transferred to Azerbaijan, Armenia received no air force at all.
Twenty years have passed since the day the cease-fire was signed. The
peace talks coordinated by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs have still not
achieved any tangible results because of the unrelenting and aggressive
stubbornness of Azerbaijani leadership.
Unfortunately the international community had never paid enough
attention to the fact that Azerbaijan used all passed years not
for reaching full peace agreement but rather for militarizing
its society and preparing it for a revanchist war. Hate speeches,
militarist statements, threats and bold hostility of the Azerbaijani
authorities aimed at Armenia and Mountainous Karabakh, and Armenians
all over the world, as well as arms race propelled by Azerbaijan must
be considered as a serious threat of war. Azerbaijan and its closest
ally Turkey continue their blockade of the MKR and Armenia, which
began more than 20 years ago, trying to exert pressure on Armenians
in the peaceful settlement process.
But I am not going to relate in details the dark days of war, losses,
destruction or the following years of the futile negotiations.
I will only try by giving you one or two examples to demonstrate what
kind of traps Azerbaijani propaganda set on the road to the peaceful
solution, using not only Turkey’s diplomatic ties and potential,
but also the so-called “caviar diplomacy” based on the oil money.
First of all, I would like to stress that any direct comparisons of
the Karabakh conflict with seemingly similar situations in the world
lack the necessary understanding of its essence. While for Baku a
victory is a matter of pride and ambition, for Armenians in MK it is
a matter of life and death.
>From this point of view, any attempt to describe the conflict as a
confrontation of two principles of international law – the right of
self-determination from one side and the territorial integrity from
the other – is artificial and aimed at hoarding the inextricable
obstacles for the peaceful solution. This artificial confrontation
and the dispute over the priority of one of them is the basic method
of the Azerbaijani propaganda. And this is complete nonsense.
The international legal system is not a hierarchy of principles.
There are no first and second rate international laws. They are
simply meant to be implemented in different areas. The principle of
territorial integrity refers to relations between sovereign states
and is one of the instruments against the policy of occupation and
annexation. But when within a state an ethnic minority living on its
historical land is severely oppressed, deprived ofĀ human rights,
its historical and cultural heritage, prospectives of development,
and forced to leave the land of its ancestors, then for such ethnic
minorities the provision of theĀ international law is clear: the
right of self-determination can and must be implemented. So the
establishment of the Republic of Mountanious Karabakh on the basis
of the right of self-determination should not be considered in the
scope of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Another trick of the Azerbaijani propaganda is more complicated.
During all stages of peace talks Azerbaijani authorities stubbornly
insist on dealing only with the consequences of the conflict, refusing
to address to its causes. That’s understandable; the consequences
are visible, obvious, even striking: human losses, disabled people,
refuges, destroyed villages, towns, roads, bridges, neglected
fields and factories. But healing those wounds would be impossible
without dealing with the causes which led to the bloody conflict. And
that is not an easy task because the true causes are often hidden,
and hidden with a purpose. Apparently, by that Azerbaijan tries to
avoid the responsibility for launching and escalating the military
aggression against its neighbor – Karabakh, which gained independence
andĀ sovereignty on the same legal basis as Azerbaijan, Armenia or
other republics of the former Soviet Union.
I am absolutely sure that only the complex approach to the conflict
and ways of its resolution without artificially separating the causes
from the consequences of it can bring the historical reconciliation
of the whole region. That will be impossible if one of the sides of
the conflict namely Azerbaijan is continuing its policy of seeking
“the ultimate victory” without any concession from its side.
The infamous history with the axe-murderer Ramil Safarov, who killed
his sleeping colleague-officer during the NATO training courses
in Budapest only because that officer was Armenian, and later was
declared and praised as a national hero in Azerbaijan, shows that in
that country Armenians can never feel safe, can never have a future.
How else can Armenians in Karabakh interpret the constant refusal of
the Azerbaijani authorities to withdraw snipers from the contact line
between the armies; the persecution of the Azerbaijani writer who
had courage to express his sympathy to the victims of anti-Armenian
pogroms; constant refusal of Azerbaijani authorities to discuss the
situation with Karabakh directly?
The conclusion is simple – a peaceful solution of the conflict and
subordination of Karabakh to Azerbaijan are incompatible.
Due to the fact that the MKR has not yet been recognized by the
international community, in different instances Armenia represents and
defends its interests, but cannot completely replace it. MK is a main
and independent party to the conflict. Thus only the full inclusion
of it in the ongoing negotiation process can give real opportunities
to make them effective and resulting in the settlement of the conflict.
MKR encompasses all the attributes required by international law for
the creation of an independent state and necessary for international
recognition. That, specifically,Ā requires:
– a permanent population
– a defined territory
– a permanent administration organized under common political
institutions exercising exclusive jurisdiction on the defined territory
and people
– and capacity to enter into relations with other states.
As you can see MKR meets the criteria set by the Montevideo Convention
for international recognition of statehood.
But there is one specific, very distinctive feature that makes Karabakh
deserving the recognition and peaceful life: it is a democratic
country. Unlike the Azerbaijani nouveau-riche elite, where the victory
in presidential elections with 85% of votes is declared even before
the elections are finished, the Artsakh authorities have never used
the pretext of the conflict as an obstacle to democratic reforms.
The gates are open. Welcome to Karabakh, it is not a difficult travel,
and you will see firsthand the evidence that Karabakh is far ahead
of Azerbaijan in the issue of human rights and civil liberties.
The inevitable international recognition of that republic should not
be viewed as an act of hostility towards Azerbaijan. In the long run
it will serve common interests. Azerbaijan and Karabakh can soon
begin to put their tragic past behind and move toward a brighter
future together.
Two words about Armenia.
Here in the European Parliament, I would like to mention that the
frustration with the latest political developments in Armenia from
the side of our colleagues – Members of the European Parliament, is
obvious and maybe even partly understandable. Of course, we would
like our colleagues to remember the day in 2008 when the highest
representatives of the EU, and the USA expressed in their welcome
speeches the strong wish for Turkey to lift the blockade of Armenian
borders. The blockade is still in place, choking my country.
And when I see the latest amendments to the EU report and resolution
on Azerbaijan and Armenia tabled by some of our distinguished European
colleagues, I realize that the lack of understanding of the situation
around Mountainous Karabakh conflict continues to produce more and
more dangerous mistakes.
Take only one example – the proposal to make the future approximation
of both countries to Europe dependent on the progress in the MK
conflict resolution. Sounds good. But it is a trap which can create
an impenetrable obstacle to the conflict resolution. The problem
is that unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan is absolutely not interested in
such approximation. So can this approach be considered as a kind of
punishment. But for what? For our attempt to deal with the reality?
I noticed that in the last years the fiercest attacks of Azerbaijani
forces against the Armenian troops and civil population were happening
not spontaneously. There has been a grim logic un them. If you try
to draw a correlation graph it will immediately become evident that
those violations of the cease-fire established almost 20 years ago have
coincided with the most important key meetings during the long process
of the EU-Armenia negotiations. One does not need a wild imagination
to realize that behind that coincidences a cunningly considered policy
lies: precisely – to scare off, to deter the government and the society
of Armenia from the idea of the approximation and integration with
Europe. I would not speculate on the matter of how and from where such
attacks could be inspired and whose interests they apparently served.
Anybody can compare the dates of the main meetings and events of the
negotiation process with the dates of the sniper or diversionist
assaults of the Azerbaijani troops on the Armenian civilians and
positions on the borderline. I am not going to overburden your
attention with the dates or events. I will simply publish them
very soon.
In spite of all the difficulties whether they were predictable or
emerged unexpectedly, I am absolutely confident that the European
integration has no alternative for Armenia. Today we are compelled to
take into account that some of the vital aspects of our existence:
military security, energy security and economy prevail over our
inspirations. But that will not last forever. In process of time the
political and ideological vectors will straighten our course.
The proposal “that the conclusion of the EU association agreement
with Armenia and Azerbaijan be linked to the progress towards the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict” creates a serious
problem. It puts Armenia in the position of a hostage. Azerbaijani
autorities are absolutely not interested in the peaceful solution based
on the principles of self determination of the peoples, territorial
integrity and non-use of force. They reject any mutual concessions
and openly prepare their country for war. More than that: they do not
even consider the association agreement with the EU as a political
goal of their country, being sure that the “caviar diplomacy” is self
sufficient. All they do is to use the pretext of the “unresolved
conflict” to avoid any real reform aimed on the democratization
of Azerbaijan.
Thus, linking the future association agreement with the resolution
of the MK conflict is exactly what Azerbaijani authorities want,
as it will create new obstacle for Armenia’s ability to maneuver
independently. I hope my point of view will be taken into
consideration.
Thank you for your kind attention.
president-in-the-european-parliament/
http://www.arfd.info/2013/10/18/third-european-armenian-convention-karabakh-