Armenian president says Artsakh can not be excluded from international processes
24.01.2018,
17:00
In a speech at the January Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan said upon accession to the Council of Europe, Armenia also undertook a commitment to pursue efforts to settle the Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) conflict by peaceful means only and to use its influence over Artsakh to foster the solution to the conflict.
YEREVAN, January 24. /ARKA/. In a speech at the January Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan said upon accession to the Council of Europe, Armenia also undertook a commitment to pursue efforts to settle the Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) conflict by peaceful means only and to use its influence over Artsakh to foster the solution to the conflict.
“Although the Council of Europe is not a conflict resolution platform, I believe it is appropriate to briefly touch upon the issue in light of our aforementioned commitment,’ Sargsyan was quoted as saying by his press office.
He said exactly 30 years ago, on the surface, everything could possibly seem calm and peaceful in Artsakh. However, the surface image was deceiving and ‘we had never put up with Stalin’s decision to annex Artsakh to Azerbaijan.’
According to him, throughout all those years, the people of Artsakh were extremely anxious because the Baku authorities did their best to drive Armenians out of their historic cradle. According to the 1926 census, Armenians accounted for over 90 percent of Artsakh’s population; as a consequence of the Baku policies, the percentage had declined to just 77 percent of the population by 1988. I myself was among the people of Artsakh that were worried about these developments.
’In February 1988, the people of Artsakh rose against the Baku policies and tried to exercise the Artsakh people’s right to self-determination in a peaceful way. I was at the forefront of the uprising. The Parliament of Artsakh took the decision, and people went out for peaceful rallies. Azerbaijan’s reaction was not simply a negative one. Azerbaijan’s reaction was the massacre of Armenians living in the town of Sumgait hundreds of kilometers away from Artsakh. It was an act of revenge against Armenians for the decision adopted by Artsakh.
One side of the scale had a parliament’s decision and a peaceful demonstration, and the other had violence and massacres. Everyone who needs to deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution must clearly comprehend this fact.
Hence, all attempts to put the parties of the conflict on the equal footing are inherently futile. Such an equation is nothing but false impartiality. It is an equality sign between the perpetrators of the Sumgait massacre and its victims. On February 27, we shall commemorate the victims of the Sumgait massacre.
The massacres went on to become the state policy, as Azerbaijan unleashed a war aimed at the complete annihilation of the Armenian population of Artsakh. Given the deficit of justice and the threat of extermination, Artsakh had no other choice but to resort to self-defense. Yet again, I was at the forefront, and I have never had the slightest regret about the choice I made then.
The time is ripe for the resolution of this conflict. It requires strict respect for the established ceasefire regime and honoring all the agreements reached in the past. Settlement must be peaceful and overcome the deficit of justice. No matter where I find myself, I will always be at the forefront for this matter as well. The parties shall assume joint responsibility for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and find a compromise solution, a middle ground settlement.
The negotiation process under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs is the only internationally agreed format for the resolution of this conflict. The international community, including Council of Europe, has reiterated its support to this format on numerous occasions. The commitment undertaken by Armenia and Azerbaijan requires a joint and concerted effort of all the parties to the conflict.
However, Azerbaijan is obviously not ready for it. The aggression that Azerbaijan unleashed against Artsakh in April 2016 was characterized by egregious violations of the international humanitarian law against the peaceful civilians and prisoners of war. It struck a heavy blow upon the negotiation process by reawakening dreadful memories of the Sumgait massacres.
Unfortunately, this Assembly has at times allowed developments that turned a blind eye to the aforementioned facts, watering the mill of those who are not interested in peaceful settlement of the conflict. I call upon all the members of this Assembly to apprehend the potential negative consequences of a careless or biased language for the fragile stability in Artsakh.
Facing a permanent threat of war, Artsakh continues to build democracy and to promote respect for human rights. In all of these initiatives, Armenia will continue to provide full support to Artsakh. Armenia will tenaciously defend the rights and interests of Artsakh and help to strengthen Artsakh’s security. As the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has rightly noted, there must be no grey zones in Europe when it comes to the protection of human rights. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, this organization, too, will stand by the side of Artsakh with all of its expertise. A person living in Artsakh deserves it; the people of Artsakh have long earned this right.
The protection of human rights is a priority for the Artsakh government: as to the fundamental documents of the Council of Europe, Artsakh unilaterally subscribed to the European Convention of Human Rights back in 2015 and undertook to implement it fully. Commendably, Nagorno Karabakh has achieved all of this on its own, without tangible support from any international organization. It proves once again that in Artsakh respect for and protection of human rights are not mere words, but a conscious and determined choice.
Artsakh cannot stay out of the international processes simply because Azerbaijan is opposed to it. The authorities of Azerbaijan commit flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms—not least the criminal prosecution of opposition figures and even their abduction from the territory of another country.
This brings me back to the work of the European Court of Human Rights: the ECHR has examined applications by Azerbaijani citizens that are also related to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I understand that the ECHR takes up these issues with the purpose of precluding “grey areas” and safeguarding human rights throughout Europe. Nevertheless, political language and assessments in the decisions of the ECHR can have direct negative impact on the negotiation process. Therefore, it is necessary for the ECHR to exercise extreme caution in its assessments and avoid any political language. ‘ -0-
“Although the Council of Europe is not a conflict resolution platform, I believe it is appropriate to briefly touch upon the issue in light of our aforementioned commitment,’ Sargsyan was quoted as saying by his press office.
He said exactly 30 years ago, on the surface, everything could possibly seem calm and peaceful in Artsakh. However, the surface image was deceiving and ‘we had never put up with Stalin’s decision to annex Artsakh to Azerbaijan.’
According to him, throughout all those years, the people of Artsakh were extremely anxious because the Baku authorities did their best to drive Armenians out of their historic cradle. According to the 1926 census, Armenians accounted for over 90 percent of Artsakh’s population; as a consequence of the Baku policies, the percentage had declined to just 77 percent of the population by 1988. I myself was among the people of Artsakh that were worried about these developments.
’In February 1988, the people of Artsakh rose against the Baku policies and tried to exercise the Artsakh people’s right to self-determination in a peaceful way. I was at the forefront of the uprising. The Parliament of Artsakh took the decision, and people went out for peaceful rallies. Azerbaijan’s reaction was not simply a negative one. Azerbaijan’s reaction was the massacre of Armenians living in the town of Sumgait hundreds of kilometers away from Artsakh. It was an act of revenge against Armenians for the decision adopted by Artsakh.
One side of the scale had a parliament’s decision and a peaceful demonstration, and the other had violence and massacres. Everyone who needs to deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution must clearly comprehend this fact.
Hence, all attempts to put the parties of the conflict on the equal footing are inherently futile. Such an equation is nothing but false impartiality. It is an equality sign between the perpetrators of the Sumgait massacre and its victims. On February 27, we shall commemorate the victims of the Sumgait massacre.
The massacres went on to become the state policy, as Azerbaijan unleashed a war aimed at the complete annihilation of the Armenian population of Artsakh. Given the deficit of justice and the threat of extermination, Artsakh had no other choice but to resort to self-defense. Yet again, I was at the forefront, and I have never had the slightest regret about the choice I made then.
The time is ripe for the resolution of this conflict. It requires strict respect for the established ceasefire regime and honoring all the agreements reached in the past. Settlement must be peaceful and overcome the deficit of justice. No matter where I find myself, I will always be at the forefront for this matter as well. The parties shall assume joint responsibility for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and find a compromise solution, a middle ground settlement.
The negotiation process under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs is the only internationally agreed format for the resolution of this conflict. The international community, including Council of Europe, has reiterated its support to this format on numerous occasions. The commitment undertaken by Armenia and Azerbaijan requires a joint and concerted effort of all the parties to the conflict.
However, Azerbaijan is obviously not ready for it. The aggression that Azerbaijan unleashed against Artsakh in April 2016 was characterized by egregious violations of the international humanitarian law against the peaceful civilians and prisoners of war. It struck a heavy blow upon the negotiation process by reawakening dreadful memories of the Sumgait massacres.
Unfortunately, this Assembly has at times allowed developments that turned a blind eye to the aforementioned facts, watering the mill of those who are not interested in peaceful settlement of the conflict. I call upon all the members of this Assembly to apprehend the potential negative consequences of a careless or biased language for the fragile stability in Artsakh.
Facing a permanent threat of war, Artsakh continues to build democracy and to promote respect for human rights. In all of these initiatives, Armenia will continue to provide full support to Artsakh. Armenia will tenaciously defend the rights and interests of Artsakh and help to strengthen Artsakh’s security. As the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has rightly noted, there must be no grey zones in Europe when it comes to the protection of human rights. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, this organization, too, will stand by the side of Artsakh with all of its expertise. A person living in Artsakh deserves it; the people of Artsakh have long earned this right.
The protection of human rights is a priority for the Artsakh government: as to the fundamental documents of the Council of Europe, Artsakh unilaterally subscribed to the European Convention of Human Rights back in 2015 and undertook to implement it fully. Commendably, Nagorno Karabakh has achieved all of this on its own, without tangible support from any international organization. It proves once again that in Artsakh respect for and protection of human rights are not mere words, but a conscious and determined choice.
Artsakh cannot stay out of the international processes simply because Azerbaijan is opposed to it. The authorities of Azerbaijan commit flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms—not least the criminal prosecution of opposition figures and even their abduction from the territory of another country.
This brings me back to the work of the European Court of Human Rights: the ECHR has examined applications by Azerbaijani citizens that are also related to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I understand that the ECHR takes up these issues with the purpose of precluding “grey areas” and safeguarding human rights throughout Europe. Nevertheless, political language and assessments in the decisions of the ECHR can have direct negative impact on the negotiation process. Therefore, it is necessary for the ECHR to exercise extreme caution in its assessments and avoid any political language. ‘ -0-
