Arman Melikian

I would like to bring to your attention one of our theses on which we are resolute. 

We say that we favor the international recognition of Mountainous Karabagh as a means for settling the conflict. What does this mean exactly?

According to us, the Mountainous Karabagh Republic is an Armenian-populated state and in that respect we simply don’t have a problem.  The problem lies in the question of international recognition which is a process affecting the basic direction of our state’s foreign policy.  I don’t want to say the most basic direction, but simply the basic direction because I believe that this way we can really chisel our own right to existence on the territory that we now possess. However, at the same time we must face some realities.  Mountainous Karabagh was established on a very specific territory which included the Nagorno Karabagh Republic, Shahumian and Getashen regions.  Often people evade this fact, thinking this way they cast doubt over the outcome of these territories which actually are today under our protection/surveillance.  I want here to state that this is absolutely not true.  It is true that we established our state on very specific territorial demarcations.  Today, that subject was already addressed.  Yet, as a result of Azerbaijan’s rejection of Mountainous Karabagh’s assertions, it started a campaign of military aggression and based on that reality the situation changed dramatically. After all, it is not a secret for anyone that today the region of Kaliningrad is part of Russia’s territory due to one reason: at that time after the end of WWII, various nations decided upon Germany as the aggressor and as a potential threat for world security.  Consequently, as punishment for its aggression and to deter future aggressions, the world settled the issue through territorial repatriation.   

Today many of us talked about those territories which as part of Mountainous Karabagh can be evidently perceived as populated areas of our fellow Azerbaijani-Armenians.  However, I consider equally important the prevention of Azerbaijan’s future aggressions and the punishment for its past aggression.  Therefore, based on the above, we should not have an issue of explaining the exact territories upon which the Mountainous Karabagh Republic was established.  

What is the present and future role of the territories that are today part of the Mountainous Karabagh Republic? Clearly we need to put more effort in this direction and make the public aware of these approaches.  This is the reality.  We cannot cast doubt upon the proof of the establishment of the Mountainous Karabagh Republic, nor can we disregard all the events that took place since that moment till present. Thus, I do not see any contradiction.  I consider that our fellow Azerbaijani-Armenians have the right to decide in which of the two states that were once part of Soviet Azerbaijan, they want to live in; under which authority they would prosper or have their future protected.  Finally, our foreign policy should be geared towards that end and I am an absolute supporter of this approach.

In respect to the negotiation process, I must say that there is one problem.  What are the proposals of the mediators, namely the various international governmental and non-governmental organizations who today try to implement conflict resolution models?  After all,  all models are based on the fact that they must establish inter-ethnic reconciliation.  It is not clear how they came to the conclusion that in Karabagh there were ever various communities.  The communist structure was prevalent in Soviet Azerbaijan, where there was a proper Armenian community within an Azeri majority. The rights of the Armenian community were protected perhaps superficially by the Bolsheviks.  In order to maintain this image, the Bolsheviks, at the time, created autonomy not only for Mountainous Karabagh but also for Nachichevan.  I have mentioned to those interested in this topic as well as to both presidents, that I strongly believe the Soviet solution to have been a dead-end. Honestly, I don’t believe that they are naïve and are unaware of this issue. In that vein, the attempt to peacefully solve Cyprus’s inter-communal conflict was a glaring example of such unfeasible endeavor.  

Today we have heard about the recognition of Karabagh by Armenia.  I would not wish to address this issue so plainly.  We believe that Karabagh is required today to create such conditions and model situations so that not only Armenia but also other international members need to recognize Karabagh.  This is the main direction on which we have to work today.  Of course there are difficulties which are often organizational in nature.  We also have ideological difficulty, and I would have said much more in regard to the clichés that were presented here; however, we must work with a goal. We need the input of new fresh ideas.  We need a refreshing of the old ideas as well.  I am convinced that thanks to our united efforts we can implement that and not only discuss them but act on them, which will bring us success and definite results in respect to the intellectual work.  From that must spring all the remaining operations.  That is, today, we are defending these approaches and we try as much as possible to work in this direction.  

In regard to concrete steps, let me say that the theme of this conference-“Karabagh conflict, refugees, territories, security”-is a study primarily towards the issues of Azerbaijani-Armenians.  Let me say to you that those people whether they live here in Karabagh or elsewhere, ask us a valid question.  After they had lost everything-were expelled from their homes, threatened, murdered, maimed-they question whether our leadership is concerned to find out whatever happened to these people. Can it be that these leaders are unconcerned not only with our nation but also with national cohesiveness?  Under such conditions we were forced to take steps on our own. Inside the envelopes found in your possession here at this conference, there is a form entitled “Application-Questionnaire.” This is a form that has been conceived by the Foreign Ministry of the Mountainous Karabagh Republic, and was distributed to Azerbaijani-Armenians who may appeal to the Mountainous Karabagh Republic and its President to negotiate on their behalf so that they may regain their rights that have been suppressed. These people have not only material and moral problems, but also the issue of the return of their lost homeland, since many of them live not only in Karabagh or Armenia but throughout the Caucasus.  I would like to bring to your attention that we have thousands of such applications.  Each application is the story of an Azerbaijani-Armenian family.  It provides information on their previous residence, citizenship, present situation, the material and moral losses undergone due to their displacement, the violence suffered, the method of expulsion from their homes, etc., etc.  The appeals also provide information on the level of education and specialization of these uprooted people.  

I think that we have obviously lost time.  Here we rightly pointed out that an important section of Azerbaijani-Armenians don’t listen neither to Karabagh, nor to Armenia or the Caucasus, and for that we all share part of the blame.  However, at the same time I find that we can arrive at positive results provided that we stay diligent and with resolve. 

I don’t agree with Mr. Aghaian, who denies the existence of an Azerbaijani-Armenian contingent that can have an impact on our national destiny.  I say that there is such a contingent and we know about it because we already work with these people.  I think the moment will come when these organizational issues will be solved, as they are already in process.  I don’t want to be overly optimistic but we have grounds to be confident.  

[From the audience, it was asked if this is an immigration issue.]  It is not only an immigration issue.  It is also the basic issue of actively defending the rights of these people.  That will be accomplished through resettlement either in Moscow or Krasnodar or Berlin or Paris.  The issue is that wherever these people resettle, Azerbaijan’s aggressive policies must be exposed; these policies have abused and continue to abuse human rights in Azerbaijan.  In other words, all these problems present a need to be addressed and solved as one complex issue.  

These were the main issues I wanted to talk about.  I want to thank the organizers of this conference as well as the contributors, because this has been a good opportunity to address concretely and openly issues that are otherwise discussed in hallways or not discussed at all.