Category: 2022

Political figures and civic activists from Armenia and Artsakh have condemned Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s call to “lower the bar” regarding the status of Artsakh in negotiations on a peace deal with Azerbaijan. 

On April 14, the Artsakh parliament adopted a unanimous joint statement demanding that the authorities of Armenia “abandon the current catastrophic position.” 

Artsakh Republic National Assembly Convened an Extraordinary Sitting, April 14, 2022

“Any negotiation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan within the ‘peace’ agenda, which presupposes the forcible incorporation of Artsakh into Azerbaijan, as well as the signing of a document resulting from it, undermines not only the statehood of Artsakh, but also violates the inalienable right of the Armenians of Artsakh to live in their historical homeland,” the statement reads.

“No government has the right to agree in the negotiation process to lower the bar on status. [This is] unacceptable for Artsakh, as well as on the internationally recognized right to self-determination under the pretext of ‘peace’,” it continues. 

Artsakh President Arayik Harutyunyan also stated that placing Artsakh under Azerbaijan’s control is “impossible” and “inadmissible” during an April 13 meeting with civil society representatives and administrative officials.

He presented three alternative options for the future status of Artsakh, including independence, union with Armenia or “some kind of relationship with Russia in a direct vertical framework.” He also suggested that the Russian peacekeeping forces should remain in Artsakh “indefinitely” as the “guarantors of the security of the Armenians of Artsakh.”  

Pashinyan has come under fire for a speech he delivered at the National Assembly on April 13, during which he said that Armenia faces pressure from the international community to slightly lower its claims to Artsakh.

Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan addresses the National Assembly (RA National Assembly, April 14)

“Today, the international community clearly tells us that to be the only country in the world that on a bilateral level does not recognize the territorial integrity of an ally of Turkey, Azerbaijan, is a great danger not only for Artsakh but also for Armenia. Today, the international community again tells us to lower the bar a bit regarding the question of the status of Artsakh, and you will ensure a great international consolidation around Armenia and Artsakh. Otherwise, the international community says, do not rely on us, not because we do not want to help you, but because we cannot help you,” Pashinyan said.

He went on to say that the Artsakh conflict is “not a matter of territory but rather a matter of rights.”

“Status in the current situation is not a goal, but rather a means to guarantee the security and rights of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh,” Pashinyan said. 

He addressed the National Assembly once again the day after his speech to say that he does not intend to surrender Artsakh to Azerbaijan.

“What I’ve been saying has been all about not surrendering Karabakh. We are saying that the people of Karabakh must not leave Karabakh, the people of Karabakh must live in Karabakh, the people of Karabakh must have rights, freedoms, and a status,” Pashinyan said.

He did not clarify what the status of Artsakh would entail. 

Members of Pashinyan’s party also defended his speech. Civil Contract Party MP and head of the National Assembly foreign relations committee Eduard Aghajanyan said that the members of the Artsakh parliament “likely have not understood the content of the prime minister’s speech.” 

“Any process cannot take place behind the backs of the people of Artsakh,” Aghajanyan said. “Any solution, as a result of which Armenians must leave Artsakh, is not acceptable for the Republic of Armenia.” 

Later that same day, Civil Contract Party MP Vigen Khachatryan said the idea that Artsakh could have no future under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan was “wrong.” 

Pashinyan’s comments also came under criticism from domestic civil society members. A group of 11 civic activists released a joint statement stating that the government is involved in a process that could have “serious and dangerous consequences for the security of the citizens of Armenia and Artsakh and the guarantee of their fundamental human rights and can in itself endanger security and peace.” 

“It is the responsibility of the Armenian leadership and international community to secure vital security guarantees and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians of Artsakh, which is inevitable if Artsakh is placed within Azerbaijan under any status,” the statement reads. 

Nver Kirakosyan, Artur Vanetsyan and Artur Avagyan stage a sit-in at Freedom Square (Artur Vanetsyan, April 18)

Opposition politicians have been calling for Pashinyan’s resignation. Former head of the National Security Service and chair of the Homeland Party Artur Vanetsyan announced on Sunday the start of an indefinite sit-in at Freedom Square to protest Pashinyan’s administration. 

The Homeland Party has announced the start of an indefinite sit-in at Freedom Square (Photo: Artur Vanetsyan)

“The so-called ‘authorities’ have entered the last stage of the destruction of our state and statehood. We have no time to delay,” he wrote on Facebook. “There is a way to stop this destructive cycle: Armenians must wake up and become one fist again.”

Artsakh War veterans Nver Kirakosyan and Artur Avagyan have declared a hunger strike (Nver Kirakosyan, April 20)

Two veterans from the 2020 Artsakh War, Nver Kirakosyan and Artur Avagyan, announced on Monday that they would be joining Vanetsyan’s sit-in and launching a hunger strike.

“The purpose of the hunger strike is to draw the attention of the representatives of our generation to the situation around Artsakh,” Kirakosyan wrote on Facebook. 

Meanwhile, Russia has indicated that it will act independently in mediating the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. 

On April 8, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused France and the US of being “caught up in a Russophobic frenzy” and refusing to collaborate within the format of the OSCE Minsk Group. 

Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan had previously said that the sharp divide between Russia and the West over the former’s invasion of Ukraine has “sharply complicated the work of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs up to the level of joint discussions.” 

France and the United States have not denied that they refuse to cooperate with Russia within the OSCE Minsk Group. 

On April 13, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova announced that Igor Khovaev has been appointed as a special envoy of the Foreign Ministry on fostering the normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

During a press briefing the next day, US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said that the United States is “ready to engage bilaterally with like-minded partners, including through the role as an OSCE Minsk Group co-chair, to help countries find a long-term comprehensive peace.”

In response to a follow-up question regarding whether the United States is “shutting the door to Russia’s mediation efforts,” Price responded that he “can’t speak to the role that Russia might play in this.” 

President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the ongoing conflict at the Ukraine/Russia border, February 15, 2022 (Official White House photo by Cameron Smith/Flickr)

On April 24th last year, President Biden officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. Last year’s announcement constituted an important reversal of decades of US complicity in Turkey’s denial of the Genocide. In the wake of Biden’s statement, commentators highlighted its importance in terms of what it said about the state (read: nadir) of US-Turkish relations and about Biden’s commitment to a moral foreign policy. While such analyses captured central factors behind this long-resisted official acknowledgment, its most important function was to end the US’ own denial of the Armenian Genocide. 

Turkey has long denied both the nature of the Genocide and the role of Ottoman officials in orchestrating and executing the World War I-era atrocities. This involved substantial efforts to enjoin US officials in suppressing references to the organized deportation and massacres of Ottoman Armenian (and other non-Muslim) citizens in the context of the war. In 1923, soon-to-be-Turkish negotiators in Lausanne refused to allow references to the massacres in the peace treaty that was being negotiated. In the mid-1930s, Turkey enlisted the help of the US State Department in successfully preventing the making of a Hollywood film about the resistance and international rescue of an Armenian community during the Genocide. In the 1960s, Turkish officials called on the State Department to stop a California community’s plan to erect a monument to the Genocide.

Starting in the early 1980s, as part of a broad effort by Turkish officials to better articulate and defend Turkey’s official position on the “Armenian question,” US involvement in Turkey’s denial dramatically increased. With the help of US lobbying firms, Turkey enlisted the active support of the State Department, Department of Defense and the White House in successfully opposing a series of Congressional resolutions that would have recognized the Armenian Genocide. 

Since the mid-1970s, such resolutions have been repeatedly proposed in both houses of Congress. Until 2019, no resolution managed to pass both houses of Congress. A key reason is that, when such resolutions were introduced and considered, the US State Department sought to reassure Turkish officials that it opposed their passage, and more surprisingly, it helped fight them. In 2000, President Clinton even personally intervened to prevent the passage of such a resolution. 

Additionally, every year since the mid-1990s, the US President has made a statement commemorating the Genocide on April 24, but until last year, the statements had assiduously avoided using the term that most appropriately and accurately described what they were purporting to commemorate: genocide. President Obama, in an apparent attempt to signal that he viewed the Genocide as such without using the term, deployed the Armenian phrase Medz Yeghern (“Great Catastrophe”). Such rhetorical adaptations mirror Turkey’s own evolving effort to craft a message that resonates with international normative expectations but rejects the label genocide.

While the US’ long-standing “complicity” in Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide was noted in passing by others, its ending deserves to be singled out and highlighted as arguably the most important implication of President Biden’s shift to acknowledging the Genocide as such.

Of course, in publicly recognizing and naming dark parts of other countries’ pasts, Biden invites charges of hypocrisy, given the US’ failure to fully or properly reckon with its own dark pasts, which include slavery, institutionalized racism and the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. But the answer to the charge that other historic wrongs have not been acknowledged should not be the silencing, forgetting and denial of all dark pasts. Rather, Biden’s historic acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide should galvanize much-needed truth-seeking and truth-telling in the US. The final paragraph of Biden’s 2021 statement looked “to the future—toward the world that we wish to build for our children” and closed with the goal of “healing and reconciliation for all the people of the world.” Not long after recognizing the Armenian Genocide, President Biden took a step in this direction by designating Juneteenth a national holiday. Another key opportunity lies in H.R. 40, which proposes the creation of a commission to “study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans.” This proposed bill – a version of which was first introduced in 1989 – was approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary in a historic vote last April, but the House has taken no further action on the bill and the Senate Judiciary Committee has not taken action on a related bill. Given President Biden’s expressed support for the bill and stated commitment to racial justice, perhaps Biden’s long-awaited acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide can serve as a catalyst for greater attention to and more concrete steps toward the acknowledgment of and redress for the US’ own dark pasts.

March dedicated to the 33rd anniversary of Artsakh Revival Day held in Stepanakert, February 20, 2021

With the Armenian political landscape currently dominated with the “normalization” dialogue with Turkey and the “peace” negotiations with Azerbaijan, the lines of communication and representation have become controversial. Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) was legally considered an autonomous oblast (region) within Azerbaijan. The latter abused this relationship with decades of discrimination and economic deprivation. When they were unilaterally attacked in 1991, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh succeeded in securing their freedom from the oppressive Azerbaijani regime. Most Armenians have a vague recollection that, despite their status as an unrecognized republic (some refer to it as a “breakaway” but how can you break away from something that you were never a part of), Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), until the late 1990s, was a direct party in the post-war negotiations with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Beginning in 1998, as the wounds of the war diminished, Azerbaijan hardened its position and refused to recognize NKR as a party in the peace talks. The leadership dynamics also changed in Armenia as Robert Kocharyan, a native of Karabakh and veteran of the liberation war, became the second President of Armenia. He was followed in 2008 by Serzh Sargsyan who was also raised in Karabakh. Starting with Kocharyan, Armenia backed away from the direct participation of NKR in the conflict. This decision was obviously influenced by the birthplace of the president and his close ties to the people of Artsakh. It also began a period of tension between some political leaders from Armenia and the Karabakhtsis. The ugly head of disunity began to emerge. Regardless of the causes, Armenia from this time had assumed full responsibility for the security and representation of NKR in the negotiations process. Many Armenians considered this a political error because the Artsakh situation would be subject to the interests and pressures of Armenia proper. This is particularly evident today as Armenia is no longer led by individuals with strong emotional ties to Artsakh. There have been ominous rumors and public statements from the government about compromise and capitulations. The rhetoric of the government denies this, but fear of surrender is present in the general population.

Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan recently said, “For us, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not a territorial dispute, but a matter of rights.” I would venture to say that a few people would disagree with that statement, including the people in Artsakh whose future he is discussing. It seems clear that these alleged concessions are intended to gain Azerbaijani agreement for some “guarantees of rights and freedom.” This is how a defeated nation acts. We are appealing to the murderers and thieves to respect our rights, and we will forgo with this idea of the last 30 years that this is Armenian land. Based on the public statements of the government, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion. In his recent address to the Parliament, Pashinyan did nothing to dispel this mentality. Apparently, the leaders of Armenia have decided to sacrifice Artsakh in order to “save” Armenia.” In contrast to a time when we fought against overwhelming odds, the vision of the last 30-plus years, at a cost of thousands of lives, will be discarded. I weep for our heroes in Artsakh.

In recent days, there has predictably been an increase in public opposition to this approach. Public rallies and opposition statements from prominent Armenians are speaking up against the predicted capitulation. It raises the question: “Who speaks for the people of Artsakh?” Is it possible that the current environment has created a conflict of interests whereby the interests of the people of Artsakh are not aligned with Armenia? If so, how can the people of Artsakh have their voice heard in this process? Normally one would never question Armenians representing Armenians, but these are very different times. The Pashinyan government is inexperienced. It presided over a disastrous war and now operates as a defeated nation. The animosity between the former presidents from Karabakh and the Pashinyan government remains high. I doubt there can be respect between Pashinyan and Kocharyan after the former’s failed attempt to prosecute the latter. The current government has consolidated its power by controlling the Parliament and the replacement of Armen Sarkissian as President. Yet, instead of working to unite the country at a time of great external peril, we are divided. Armenia has operated for years as the guarantor of Artsakh security. There were never foreign troops on the soil of the Artsakh until late 2020 when the Russian peacekeepers entered the picture. This was a monumental change and reduced Armenia’s position as the security partner to a subordinated position. Border incursions have occurred regularly by the Azerbaijani criminals. Armenia fails to respond, and instead defers to the Russian presence. Azerbaijan violates the tripartite agreement on a daily basis, yet Armenia fails to respond to the needs of our brethren in Artsakh. How can Armenia represent the interests of the Armenians there when they have removed themselves as the security guarantor and are operating as a subordinated player? This summer, many of Armenia’s contract soldiers will be rotating out. Will they be replaced? Will the Artsakh Defense Army be forced to disband with Armenia’s consent?

This question of advocating for Artsakh is not a legal matter. We have managed to box ourselves into a corner. Artsakh remains an unrecognized republic and as such has no formal diplomatic relations with other countries. So, it is easy to dismiss them as a party in the negotiations. It became far more difficult for the Armenians of Artsakh when even Armenia, the protector for 30 years, failed to recognize the Republic of Artsakh. Even in the darkest days of Azeri oppression, Armenia balked for fear that it would ignite war with Azerbaijan. Apparently, it didn’t prevent the 2016 attacks and the barbaric 2020 war, including the thousands of border violations. The overly cautious approach by Armenia, behaving like a vassal state of Russia and fearful of being perceived as an aggressor, has cost the Armenians dearly. In contrast to the “nice guy” approach, the Azeris have ignored all agreements, continued aggressive policies of intimidation and violated international law countless times. So much for following the rules and seeking fair play. This is a matter of conscience among Armenians. When Armenia assumed the responsibility for Artsakh’s security, that obligation carried with it to work in their best interests. Many of us have met the people of Artsakh. They are strong, courageous and committed to their rights. Capitulating is not something in their vocabulary. Those of us in the western diaspora have witnessed, read or seen hundreds of examples of their valor and determination during the endless border disputes and incursions. Have we ever heard comments about giving up on their dreams or relinquishing their freedom? After the devastating war in late 2020, during which the refugee situation was catastrophic, thousands returned within a few months. As a result of Azeri barbarism, many returned to nothing except the beloved land they are eternally committed to. Can there be any clearer _expression_ of their desire to live free in Artsakh? Yet, here we are talking about “lowering the bar” and abandoning their future. There seems to be a large gap in the desire of the people of Artsakh and those representing their interests at the negotiating table.

The Armenian government has diluted its position with wording shifting towards “security and rights” verses “freedom and sovereignty.” A question that Armenia must consider during this process is what type of future will the Armenians in Artsakh have under any type of Azerbaijani administration? Undoubtedly, it is a death sentence that will be filled with discrimination, population dilution and cultural genocide. In 20 years, the Armenians of Artsakh will have gone the way of our people in Nakhichevan through no fault of their own. There is no evidence or history to suggest anything but another calamity. Knowing this, why would the Armenian government advocate for a deadly compromise? It is unconscionable. We have heard that resisting would be a disaster. The only thing worse than these difficult odds is agreeing to the humiliation of a plan that will ensure your eventual destruction. A great deal has been written speculating that Pashinyan may already have agreed to a “peace” agreement or that the pressure to surrender Artsakh is too great. What if he refused to sacrifice Artsakh? In practical terms, what would happen? Would Russia shut off the gas supply or would Azerbaijan sabotage the lines? The Armenians have been there and would not be intimidated. What if Aliyev decided to attack? That would be interesting given the border presence of Russian troops and their commitment for a five-year presence. What would the European reaction be given the Council of Europe mediation and the OSCE Minsk Group? They haven’t been very helpful, but this could push their buttons. It is not our right to speak for the people of Artsakh given the options available, but they would rather resist than accept a slow death under Azerbaijan. A Russian protectorate status is reminiscent of the “autonomous oblast” past unless it is absorbed into the Russian Federation. History would repeat itself. In 1920, Armenia became a Soviet entity to prevent a further slaughter by the Turks and virtual extinction. Is this an option that Pashinyan will represent? Will Russia be able to convince the criminal Aliyev to accept this compromise?

The future is unclear, but Artsakh must have an advocate to prevent its demise. The Armenians have too many examples in our history of areas subjected to forced expulsion, massacre and economic discrimination. The list is long with Western Armenia, Cilicia, Nakhichevan and the current atrocities in occupied sections of Artsakh. We don’t need another territory lost that becomes an additional demand of territorial return. The price has been too high already. It would be a stain to abandon those heroic people and an insult to the memory of those sacrificed. I realize that words such as “abandon,” “insult” or “responsibility” have little value in the vicious world of geopolitical conflict, but Pashinyan has one last chance to stand with the people of Artsakh and demand a viable future for our brethren.