Return of Territory linked to Karabagh’s Status?
While many nationalists in the Diaspora seem concerned only with the territories surrounding Karabagh, the priority for the Armenian government is very definitely the status of the disputed territory. This difference appears to have been confirmed by the Armenian Foreign Minister, Vartan Oskanian. As reported by PanArmenian.net, Oskanian directly links the possibility of returning seven territories to Azerbaijan with an agreement on Karabagh’s status.
In related news, at a conference held today, the first Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia, Raffi Hovannisian, was elected President of the Heritage political party. According to Hovannisian and as reported by A1 Plus, resolution of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan must be based on Karabagh’s final status as well as the return of Azeris to their homes in Karabagh and Armenians to Shahumian and Getashen.
In what is probably also a reference to the territory outside of Karabagh proper, Hovannisian said that “we must respect the right of refugees to return to their houses.”
Nevertheless, a land border with Armenia is considered necessary for securing Karabagh’s future as an independent state but I am increasingly beginning to wonder if that doesn’t mean just part of Lachin rather than the whole region. This seems to have been alluded to by comments made by the Azeri Foreign Minister after the recent summit between Kocharian and Aliyev in Warsaw.
Personally, I think that what the international mediators hope will happen is that Aliyev will agree to a new referendum in Karabagh that will determine its independence, two or three territories outside of Karabagh will be released by Armenia, communication and trade links with a possible opening of the Turkish border will accompany the return of other territory to make a total of five territories returned and the status of Lachin and Kelbajar will be the final and most difficult issue to resolve.
This is the only reasonable solution to this conflict. There just doesn’t seem like there is any other way out. Part of Lachin goes to Armenia, Artsakh gets a right to hold a referendum, and the other territories are released. This is how the conflict will be settled, it just depends on when Azerbaijan is ready to accept it. It will either be tomorrow or the day after that because nothing else will be offered.
Comment by Roders Shagvaladyan — 5/31/2005 @ 4:50 am
I totally agree with the above person. Armenia won the war, its totally inconcievable for things to go back the way they were before the war (as in NK being an oblast which was supposed to have a degree of autonomy). How can they expect to lose a war they started and yet come out on top in the resolution? NK is already has de facto independence, how does Azerbaijan ever expect to get administrative control over it? They act as if that’s something negotiable, especially when NK isn’t even allowed to be a player in the negotiations? Without that, they will never let Azeribaijan administrators come in to Stepanakert and take back control, its just absurd. We are controlling other territories as bargaining chips, they should go back to Azeribaijan but only when they understand why we have them, and that is to assure a reasonable solution that is in NK’s interests.
Comment by Paul — 5/31/2005 @ 5:02 am
Firstly, I’d say that wars can’t be really considered over until a final peace settlement is signed. For now, we have a ceasefire. However, I think it is now generally accepted that Azerbaijan agreed to recognizing Karabagh’s independence during the Key West talks held between Kocharian and Heydar Aliyev in 2001.
Armenia and Karabagh would be linked by territory passing through the town of Lachin, Azeri refugees would have the right of return to Shushi, the territory outside of Karabagh under Armenian control would be released and Azerbaijan would have an internationally guaranteed customs-free transit route into Nakhichevan through Meghri.
Of course, we know what happened then. Aliyev the elder returned to Baku, had cold feet and the Azeris deny that any of this was discussed, especially now the presidency has been passed to Aliyev jnr. Of course, the seemingly tougher line taken by Ilham might all be for show with parliamentary elections looming on the horizon.
I suppose it’s possible that in the current round of negotiations that the talk of a referendum to determine Karabagh’s status is designed to delay a domestic backlash in Azerbaijan until trade and confidence building measures are in place. The international mediators are apparently visiting Armenia again in June and then will visit all three republics in July.
Probably, everything will be a lot clearer by then.
Comment by Onnik — 5/31/2005 @ 7:14 am
I believe Oskanian’s moves are quite well though-out. But lets us see how they will be realized.
Onnik, while we possibly do not disagree on this issue, I feel uneasy when I read in your post how “many nationalists in the Diaspora seem concerned only with the territories surrounding Karabagh”. Could you be more specific please? That would contribute to a more balanced discussion of the different point of views.
Apart from the polemics of that wording, it also reminds me of the term “nationalist Armenian diaspora” always referred to by Turkish officials and their supporters.
Comment by Boghos — 5/31/2005 @ 8:56 am
Okay, point taken. The reason I put that as a preamble was because as soon as we talk of negotiations over Karabagh there are a handful of people who instantly react by saying that none of the territories should be returned and that Armenia can continue in this situation where the conflict is frozen. My point is that for the government, the most pressing issue is to get international recognition of Karabagh as an independent republic.
Only then can we talk about the territories and I think this is what Serzh Sarkisyan and Samuel Babayan were alluding to when they said recently that it was imperative that Karabagh be recognized internationally and that returning the territories will be key to Armenia achieving this. However, they also specified that how many territories are returned depends on Armenia’s position in negotiations.
In this respect, I think they are referring to the status of Lachin and Kelbajar which is why I think these two regions will be left to the end and will probably be amost as difficult to reach agreement on as the status of Karabagh itself.
Basically, however, whenever we blog about resolution of the Karabagh conflict there are a handful of people out there who say nothing should be returned but who are also not prepared to put their lives on the line if the war breaks out again as a result. I certainly wasn’t implying that the Diaspora is full of nationalists unwilling to compromise.
In fact, I think the Diaspora is mainly made up of a silent majority.
Comment by Onnik — 5/31/2005 @ 9:45 am
This last Wednesday I attended a lecture in Glendale by Armen Aivazian, a Senior Researcher at the Matenadaran, who was visiting the U.S. from Armenia and he addressed the Karabagh issue in a new light that seemed to make some sense (on a practical level for the Armenian side). He was saying that Armenia could not relinquish the occupied territories because they include militarily advantageous positions that would be priceless in the case of a future war with Azerbaijan (as high Azeri officials have threatened). I understand that without concessions a mutual agreement is almost impossible in the near future, but if these threats are to be taken seriously, can Armenia really afford to give up the positions? I don’t think all of his points have a realistic application, but it’s perhaps a new perspective on this issue.
Any thoughts in light of this?
BTW: I tried to find a site with more about Aivazian’s research, but I guess the best I could come across was this, which talks about/promotes the published findings of his research.
Comment by Ara — 5/31/2005 @ 10:12 am
I missed Onnik’s last comment while I was drafting mine, and as a Diasporan Armenian, I guess I should also say that I’m not a hard liner thinking no concessions should be made. As long as they can live in peace with each other, I see no reason to prevent refugees (from either side) from returning to their homes. Also, I think most people would agree that NK is the primary issue of concern. I hadn’t considered maintaining control of the occupied territories to be crucial until I heard Aivazian’s views about their strategic importance (which, honestly, I have not further researched myself).
Comment by Ara — 5/31/2005 @ 10:17 am
We have to understand also that historically Armenians and Muslims do not generally live well with each other. After all, besides Turkish desire to acquire the wealth and land ownership of Armenians living in then Western Armenia, religion had a major role to play in the Genocide as well as past atrocities inflicted upon the Armenians, the natures of which have been obscured by the passage of time.
So the return of refugees to Shushi and other regions–should Azeris for example decide to return to a totally ruined and inhabitable Aghdam–would be a good short-term solution would and demonstrate the willingness to compromise. But the children and subsequent generations of those former refugees would start to resent what happened in the past and conflict would ensue again, meaning a restart of a possible war in 20 years time or maybe sooner.
Also, as Onnik and I have discussed privately, in my opinion there should be no negotiating over the regions of Kelbajar and Lachin. Control over these regions strengthens Armenia’s geo-strategic positioning in the South Caucasus. I cannot say for sure as I do not have a map of the First Republic with me but I believe those territories were part of then Armenia anyway. Also, there should be no questioning of Karabagh’s integrity as an independent republic–if they decide to hold a referendum later on as to whether it become a part of Armenia as well as Kelbajar and Lachin then that would be ideal.
Comment by Garo — 5/31/2005 @ 11:11 am
Actually I found a map in Russian that shows I am mistaken about Kelbajar and Lachin. This map is from 1920 and shows the borders of the proposed Treaty of Sevres.
See http://www.hayastan.com/armenia/history/armenia/files/sevres_agreement1.jpg
Comment by Garo — 5/31/2005 @ 11:21 am
Can anyone read what that map says about the yellow area of NK? When it comes to NK independence, what happens next? Does it go to Armenia? Many Turkish critics have criticized NK because then the Armenians would have two states, and that no nationality needs two states (hypocrtically ignoring the fact Turkey has their own other same-nationality state of Northern Cyp.) I must admit while it would be advantageous geopolitically to have two states, for such a small area to be its own country is rather redundant. If they ever agree on a NK referrendum, do you think joining with Armenia will be on there, or if not will it ever?
Comment by Paul — 5/31/2005 @ 4:36 pm
Yellow part translates:
“Territory of Nagorno Garabagh, governed by an Armenian National Council, joined with Republic of Armenia in the spring of 1920″
Yellow line is noted as “the borders of Nagorno Garabagh”.
Comment by Tim — 5/31/2005 @ 5:04 pm
Sevres was later revised and replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne but for sure, Kelbajar and Lachin along with most of the other regions are not included. Looks like there are two corridors connecting Armenia with Karabagh while Kubatli and some of Zangelan is part of the former. Interesting.
Comment by Onnik — 5/31/2005 @ 10:27 pm
What’s the pink area?
Comment by Nazarian — 6/1/2005 @ 12:06 am
Turkey
Comment by Katy — 6/1/2005 @ 12:18 am
Actually I’m pretty sure the pink area represents the Western Armenian lands to have been incorporated into an Armenian state. Armenia was to have access to the Black Sea as well as have Lake Van, Kars, etc. under its control.
Comment by Garo — 6/1/2005 @ 12:14 pm
Sevres also talked of the creation of an independent Kurdish state below Lake Van, I think. However, as we know, the Treaty of Sevres was made null and void by the Treaty of Lausanne and there is no ressurecting it, one guesses. Interesting to note, however, that while this discussion started on the subject of independence for Karabagh, it soon shifted to territorial claims on Turkey.
Comment by Onnik — 6/1/2005 @ 12:51 pm
Look, forget about Western Armenia. Treaties are signed and torn up all the time. Should the Turks go to the UN and ask for the return of Arabia? We should not forget yesterday but we cannot afford to live there. We have an independant Armenia and that is more an accident than anything from our will (that is the case with all CIS countries). So we need to use the opportunities as they become avialible. Regarding Karabagh, at least there is an Armenian population there and we can have a semi legitimate claim to the land. For as sure as night follows day, a semi autonimous Karabagh will be returned to Azerbaijan by stealth. Whether Karabagh gains independance or not is an international political question. What if we were to swap territorial recognition for Turkey and some concession on Genocide recognition for Karabagh. A couple of dead issues for a couple of live ones (please pardon my language). Afterall Genocide recognition will not secure us in the region. What is more important than our past is our future. I would welcome all comments.
Comment by Alan Haroutunian — 6/3/2005 @ 3:34 am
The above ideas don’t make much sense, because why would we make concessions to Turkey in exchange for part of Azerbaijan? Sure Turkey has sway over Azerbaijan, but what is it to Azerbaijan if Armenia says a genocide never happened and recognizes Turkey’s modern borders? That’d be a huge boost to Turkey, but Azerbaijan would only stand to lose from such a deal and there’s nothing in it for them. Besides, I’m fairly convinced that the wall of silence regarding the genocide is finally breaking, and that wider recognition is on its way. Giving up on such an issue is a betrayal of our past and world history itself, not to mention our ancestors.
Comment by Paul — 6/3/2005 @ 7:10 pm
Armenia recognizes the border with Turkey. However, there is apparently a statement attached to the constitution that says that Genocide recognition is part of the policy of the ROA.
However, I think that even the ARF-D when they talk of recognition and reparations now talk in terms of financial compensation rather than territory. Probably, territory can only be gained by force and not voluntarily.
Let’s face it anyway. Unless Armenia plans to commit ethnic cleansing in North Eastern Turkey, the Republic of Armenia would become a predominently Moslem country overnight with Turks and Kurds outnumbering Armenians.
According to RFE/RL, the ARF-D are expected to come out with a statement regarding its policy on recognition soon. Will be interesting to see if territory is mentioned or not.
You can read that news here.
Comment by Onnik Krikorian — 6/3/2005 @ 11:49 pm