THE NEGLECTED VICTIM OF THE CONFLICT
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
08 March 2006
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Recent activity in the talks for the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict was reflected in the activity of the NGOs and political
forces of NKR. Debates and round-table meetings on various questions
concerning the conflict are held more often. On February 27 the
Democratic Party of Artsakh held a debate on NKR as a guarantor of the
Armenians of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. Vahram Atanessian,
Democratic Party of Artsakh, delivered a short speech on the origin
and development of the Karabakh conflict, underlining the importance
of the historical and legal basis of the issue. The speaker emphasized
that in 1918-1920 Nagorno Karabakh was, in fact, independent, which is
to be found not only in Armenian sources, but is also confirmed by the
fact that as a separate unit Karabakh managed to set up relationships
with other countries and their representatives, including the command
of the allied forces in the South Caucasus, British and American
representatives. Briefly presenting the disreputable decisions adopted
in 1921 and 1923 and the `Golgotha’ of Karabakh that lasted for seven
decades, Vahram Atanessian dwelled on the formation of NKR and the
question of legitimacy of NKR. The reality was familiar to everyone
but the formulation was new: though the establishment of the
Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh was against the rights of
Armenian people and the international law (in July 1921, though
formally, but the political party of a third country passed a
resolution on the territorial dispute of two countries), it was a
guarantee of the security of 100 thousand Armenians living in
different parts of Azerbaijan. At that time the Armenians had a
considerable role in Azerbaijan and were, in fact, one of the
nationalities that bore the statehood of that country. The term
`Azerbaijani’ with the sense it has today was coined later in the
mid-1930s. The Armenians living in Azerbaijan became the first victims
of aggression, were repressed by the Azerbaijani government from the
very beginning of the movement and narrowly escaped massacre in that
country. Who is to act as a guarantor of thousands of Armenians who
lost their property and homes? Who could they turn to? These are not
rhetorical questions but real questions concerning the fate of real
people and requiring a rapid solution. History calls for
alertness. The leader of the Communist Party Hrant Melkumian gave an
interesting answer to the question `What is the issue of the day?’
According to him, it is necessary to take steps at presenting to the
international community the reality in Nagorno Karabakh of the past
seventy years and the anti-Armenian policy carried out here by the
Azerbaijani government, rather than paying great attention to the
historical and legal bases of the problem. Moreover, Hrant Melkumian
believes that unofficial, popular propaganda has better chances to
succeed. `Let everyone come to recognize that the Karabakh issue
concerns an entire people, rather than several people. And there is
more certainty that mass protests will succeed,’ said Hrant Melkumian.
Armen Sargissian, Armenian Revolutionary Federation, asserted the
importance of shifting the issue to the historical and legal
plane. Emanating from the past realities and current developments, he
believes that independent from the political order in Azerbaijan this
country will conduct an anti-Armenian policy it has always carried
out. In addition, this danger will threaten Karabakh mainly. Thus, in
1918-1920, besides other Armenian territories, Azerbaijan tried to
dominate Karabakh, using every means. This policy was carried on by
the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan and is currently implemented by
present-day Azerbaijan. Therefore, this fact must be taken into
consideration in taking any step. A. Yessayan, Azat Hayrenik Party,
assured that Azerbaijan does not possess real economic, political or
military leverages to press on Karabakh. At the same time, the economy
of NKR is normalizing, and the standard of living is
improving. According to A. Yessayan, this enables NKR to display
higher activity in propaganda, which requires greater emphasis
nowadays. There is one question and a number of answers. These various
opinions have one thing in common: NKR has the right to act as a
guarantor of the Armenians of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan and
sooner or later should assume this responsibility. Each speaker gave
their interpretation of how this would look like in practice, which is
natural, considering the scope of the issue debated, since it will set
forward elements, such as compensation, language problems,
nationality, etc. Armen Sargissian pointed out the importance of
clearly defining the aggressor to define the status of the victims of
aggression and the problem connected with compensation. The political
scientist Davit Babayan emphasized the role of the Karabakh Armenians
living abroad, proposing to view the issue not only in the framework
of Karabakh-Azerbaijan but in a wider scope. The participants of the
debate think it is of utter importance to prevent a dual policy of the
international organizations in reference to the problem. Any former
Armenian inhabitant of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan feels the
attention of the international community to a certain degree, whereas
the Armenians with the same status and living in NKR get no
attention. Alexander Grigorian, expert on the South Caucasus, proposed
to view the problem in two aspects: what NKR will get and what the
former Armenian inhabitants of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan will
get from this. Ashot Ghulian, Speaker of the National Assembly, said
besides acting as a guarantor NKR should be prepared to fulfill all
the subsequent obligations. Ashot Ghulian said, considering the
importance of the issue, there will be further debates on it in the
future.
NORAYR HOVSEPIAN.
08-03-2006