• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
15.12.2011

ON THE ISSUE OF FORMATION TWO EQUAL IN RIGHTS STATES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE FORMER AZERBAIJANI SSR

   

Mikhail Aghajanyan

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict expert

One of the most substantive and at the same time vital issues for the adequate presentation of the essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ways of its long-term setting is the issue of formation of two states – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) and Azerbaijan Republic (AR) on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR.

In the discussions between the Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, which cover rather wide range of political and legal aspects of Karabakh conflict and its setting, this issue have not been analyzed properly, though, in our opinion, it is the experts’ “cross” discussion of this issue that can clarify further discussions round setting of the conflict.

There is a lot said and written about the legal aspects of the issue from the academic and research point of view. The political component of the issue, no matter how strange it may look taking into consideration the postulate that the conflict should be settled by political means, which seems to be established in the understanding of the international mediators, seems to be pretty “unfinished”. At the same time one cannot disregard close interdependence of political and legal issues every time when we try to approach understanding of the objective reality of appearing of two new states on the territory of the Azerbaijani SSR from the researchers’ stances.

In general outlines the Armenian stance on the issue of formation of two states was presented on the level of the Republic of Armenia and from the highest international tribune in summer 2004 during the well-known address of the president of Armenian R. Kocharyan at the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe in Strasburg. R. Kocharyan mentioned that “As a result of the collapse of the USSR on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR two independent states were formed – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Republic. The legal grounds of existence of those states are identical”.

Can the same be said about the political grounds of formation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Republic?

This question cannot be answered without going 20 years back, to 1991, when after the adoption of the legal documents, declaring the formation of the NKR and AR, the large-scale political and military campaigns were unfold by the latter for suppression of the will and right of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh to dispose their own political destiny. Azerbaijan of “autumn-winter 1991” did everything to suppress by political and military means the NKR declared by the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and, which is very important for objective understanding of the issue, to make it before the state independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was declared. Unlike Azerbaijan Republic, which refused from the legal heritage of the Azerbaijani SSR by the fact of stating its independence and considered its forbearer the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic of 1918-1920, on September 2, 1991 the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in its Declaration stated formation of the NKR but not the withdrawal from the legal space of the USSR and even more not the withdrawal from the USSR, which still existed de-jure at that moment1.

The aggressive attitude of the political leadership of Azerbaijan in autumn-winter 1991 proved their unwillingness to settle the conflict with Nagorno-Karabakh by political means. Instead of making efforts after the declaring its own independence on August 30, 1991, which was adequately followed (in political and legal aspects) by the Declaration of Independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic of September 2, 1991, to take the conflict (together with the NKR) to the constructive tideway of political settlement, Azerbaijan set a course for its further escalation. Azerbaijan could have turned to the political means of conflict settlement based on the legal grounds, for example, by holding on its territory referendum on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, but instead, it, by one of its first legal acts, annihilated autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh of the Soviet times (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region) and laid a course for the military and political escalation of the conflict hoping to take advantage of the transition period (transition the Soviet political and legal heritage to new realities in the post-Soviet space) and to settle the issue by military means. It resulted in 1991-1994 war, the outcome of which, together with the reasons of its unleashing, cannot be disregarded while considering the political grounds of formation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Republic.

In general, cause and effect chain of the events in the political dimension of the issue of formation of two new states on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR can be presented in the following way.

In the Azerbaijani SSR the Armenians, being alongside with the Azerbaijanis the states forming nation in the Soviet Azerbaijan, suffered from political and social-economic discrimination. In the period prior to the current stage of the Karabakh conflict, situation was formed when the state-forming Armenian ethnos of the Azerbaijani SSR, which had been more developed as for the its social level, was discriminated in its political possibilities, and that first of all manifested itself in not allowing access to the people of the Armenian nationality to the republican political government institutions. The political rights of the Armenians on the territory of the Azerbaijani SSR were violated. As it is known political rights provide the possibility of the citizens to take part in managing the state and society affairs. Unlike personal rights, political rights are directed to providing a person not the autonomy but his manifestation as an active participant of the intrastate political process. As a rule the political rights are acknowledged after the citizens of the given state, i.e. possession of those rights is connected with the citizenship of given state. It is important that “the political rights are essential condition for realization of all the other rights of the citizens, as they form the ground of the system of democracy and take a role of a means of control over the authorities”2.

The violation of the rights of the Armenian people of the union republic was manifested in political aspect mainly in the tuned system of “ethnic filtration” while taking administrative and partisan positions. Such a system brought to the discrimination of the Armenian ethnos which was derogated from their rights through the restriction of the political rights of separate representatives of the ethnos. Violation of the individual political rights of the Armenians of the Azerbaijani SSR brought to putting forward the collective right of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh on withdrawal from the republic where individual and collective discrimination of, correspondingly, representatives of the ethnos and ethnos in general was taking place3.

In the active phase of resumption of the Karabakh conflict in 1980s the following components of political character were clearly presented: 1) being initially a state-forming ethnos of the union republic the Armenian people of the Azerbaijani SSR, represented by the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, as bearers of the objective rights of the state-forming nation, came forward as a collective initiator of reconsideration of its staying within the Azerbaijani SSR; 2) as one of the main reasons for such an initiative the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh put forward the fact of violation of their rights as a state-forming nation in the Azerbaijani SSR.

We often mention the Armenian people in Azerbaijani SSR as a state-forming ethnos of that republic within the USSR. In support of this the following argumentation can be brought.

Azerbaijani SSR was established as a soviet socialist republic of the Muslims (Caucasian Tatars) and Armenians, and in substantiation of this the political motives of including Nagorno-Karabakh in the administrative borders of the Azerbaijani SSR according to a well-known decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the RCP(b) of July 5. 1921 can be brought: “on the assumption of the necessity of setting peace between the Muslims and the Armenians”. In 1921 the Caucasian Bureau of the RCP(b) in fact recognized the Armenians and Muslims parties to the conflict round the national and state organization of Azerbaijan, and, correspondingly, source and bearer of that soviet form of statehood. In the Decree of Central Executive Committee of the Azerbaijani SSR “On Formation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region” of July 7, 1923, national and state organization of Azerbaijani SSR is formulated as “joint state union” of Muslims and Armenians. In the Decree setting of brotherhood cooperation between the Armenians and Muslims within “the joint state union” (and the Azerbaijani SSR had to become the one) is stated as the main purpose of the Soviet power.

Non-national character of the Soviet Azerbaijan was conditioned not only by the multi-national character of the Eastern Transcaucasia, not only by the fact that the Caucasian Tatars did not play a key role in that region, especially in industry where all the key positions were in the hands of the Armenians and Russians, or by not only social and historical circumstances, but also by the peculiarities of the ethnic and territorial organization. Azerbaijani SSR included territories which both historically and ethnically were Armenian4.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, established by the Decree of the CEC of the Azerbaijani SSR, was a confirmation of the state-forming status of the Armenians in the Soviet Azerbaijan, who received objectivization of that status by forming their national and state autonomy in Nagorno-Karabakh. In this context Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy can be considered the main form of political and legal immunity of the state-forming status of the Armenians in the Azerbaijani SSR.

Connecting in one problem context the violation of the political rights of the ethnos on the territory of its historical and state-forming settlement with the issue of legitimacy of secession demands of that ethnos, brings the author to stating the exclusions in the international rule “no-rights-for-secession”, regarding the states, which borders are internationally recognized but factually are not preserved. Thus, H. Hannum believes that the first exclusion must be recognizing the right for secession in the places where mass “ethnically focused” violations of human rights, approaching to genocide exist. The second exclusion is connected with deprivation of the political representation in the given state5.

In this regard, it is also interesting to bring the opinion of a well-known British diplomat, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain J, Straw expressed last year on setting the Cyprus conflict which can also be related to the realities of the setting Karabakh conflict either. While discoursing of the Cyprus settlement the former head of the Foreign Office underlined that it was necessary to get rid of the stereotypes: “If a single state cannot provide the equality of the political rights (underlined by us) it is necessary to recognize independence of both states – South and North Cyprus”, - stated he and mentioned that it would contribute to the resolution of the problem6.

In both past and present the only relevant goal for the Azerbaijani leadership in the light of full and final favourable resolution of the Karabakh issue was and still remains full cleaning of Nagorno-Karabakh from the Armenians. And under the availability of such obvious and unveiled goals on behalf of today’s authorities of the Azerbaijani Republic, it is impossible to build political formation of the Armenian and Azerbaijanis within the framework of a single statehood.

Among the Armenian experts there is an opinion that Baku is tending to return to the situation of 1988 and that is why it cherishes plans about the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy. In reality, today’s Baku regime is not even interested in returning to the situation of 1988 in the Karabakh issue, because this issue will never be taken by Baku as the resolved one if even one Armenian stays and works in Nagorno-Karabakh. Wherever the representatives of “Azerbaijani-Turk” nation self-determined, no Armenian was left there or the situation is close to it in the upcoming decades (in the Turkish Republic).

Autonomy for Nagorno-Karabakh “in Azerbaijani way” is taken by the Azerbaijani politicians and experts not only as a realization of a right on self-determination for the Armenians from Karabakh, but also as an unalienable right of the Azerbaijani minority of the NKAR. Is it possible to reason sustainably such an absurd scenario within the domestic political practice of a separate state when a nation, an ethnic group has already self-determined twice within the framework of that state and would claim self-determination for the third time? The Azerbaijanis self-determined within the framework of the Azerbaijani Republic declaring it the successor of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic of 1918-1920, Azerbaijanis self-determined within the framework of Nakhijevan Autonomous Republic and now they are preparing to self-determine in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijanis has already claimed their pretentions to self-determination in Nagorno-Karabakh, particularly, in form of a letter sent to the UN Secretary General signed by the representative of Azerbaijan to UN T. Musayev. The “press release of June 5, 2009, issued by the Azerbaijani community of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijani Republic”, in which it was mentioned about the “congress of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijani Republic”, was attached. The final thesis of the Azerbaijani letter addressed to the UN Secretary General read: “Conflict can be settled only on the grounds of respect for the territorial integrity and indissolubility of internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan, and peaceful co-existence of the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities fully and equally enjoying democracy and prosperity in the Nagorno-Karabakh region”7,

The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Sh. Kocharyan gave rather terse reply to such a vision of the conflict resolution by the Azerbaijani side, saying in March 2010 that “Baku continues to distort international law, stating about the necessity of self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh within the framework of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In reality the solution of the issue is in preserving territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within the framework of self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and responsibility of Azerbaijan for using power against the self-determined people”8.

Violation of political rights, perpetrating genocidal actions against the Armenians on the territory of Azerbaijani SSR in the areas of their compact settlement in Sumgait, Kirovabad, Baku and other population centers outside the administrative borders of the Armenian autonomy within the Soviet Azerbaijan (NKAR), as well as unleashed military aggression by the Azerbaijan Republic, which declared itself the successor of the 1918-1920 Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh brought to the political separation of two new state formations, which appeared on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR.

Political principles of current existence of the NKR and AR, with the exception of the element of international recognition of both state formations, which, however, is not determinative while assessing the political viability and state consistency of a definite state subject in the international relations, are comparable. The NKR has its own bodies of state power, formed on the democratic basis of elections, has public and political institutions of expression of the opinion of its citizens, Constitution and laws, army and law machinery, state symbols and other attributes of statehood necessary for creation normal conditions for the vital activity of its population.

The argumentation of the Armenian parties contains obvious thesis about the impossibility of existence of the NKR and AR within the framework of a single statehood, in which the political rights of both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis would equally be respected. There are many indirect indicators of the fact that for the external actors such a reality is immutable stating of the factual situation, and it is simply out of considerations of diplomatic character that they do not express it directly, and the subjective nature of it has nothing to do with the objective reality of the state consistency of the NKR, with the right of the people of the NKR to claim political principles of building their statehood on the part of the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR.

1The Declaration of the NKR stipulated that the representatives of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh who accepted that Declaration “are taking as a ground the existing Constitution and Laws of the USSR, which provide the people of the autonomous formations and compactly living national groups with the right for independent decision making on their state and legal status in case of withdrawal of the republic from the USSR”, as well as taking into consideration the fact that on the territory of the NKR before the adoption of Constitution and Laws, the Constitution and the Laws of the USSR and other laws in force, which do not contradict to the goals and principles of the Declaration and peculiarities of the Republic are in force”

2 Лукашева Е.А., Теория права и государства (под ред. Манова Г.Н.), М., «БЕК», 1995, с. 239.

3 Formation of the ruling partisan and economic bureaucracy had preceded over the recent 20 years under the close control of Heydar Aliyev – “sole master” of the party and the state in this part of the USSR. The positions of the secretaries of party committees and heads of the executive committees, ministers and their deputies and etc. were usually sold for bribes, though there were exceptions. Besides the bribes, personal relations and ties played important role. For 30 years Aliyev had managed to place in key positions many of his relatives and fellow-townsmen in both state governing bodies and spheres of economy, culture and education. Ideological factor of loyalty to Communist ideas was not taken into consideration; here the loyalty to Aliyev was crucial. This was the way the backbone of the partisan and economic elite was formed. (Али-заде З., Азербайджанская элита и массы в период распада СССР, http://www.sakharov-center.ru/publications/azrus/az_0055.htm).

4 Манасян А.С., Карабахский конфликт: ключевые понятия и хроника, Ер., «НОФ Нораванк», 2005, с. 25.

5 Hannum, Hurst. The Right of Self-Determination in the Twenty first Century // Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action (Eds. Richard Pierre Claude, Burns H. Weston, Gavin H. Boyles). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2006. pp. 242-249.

6 Jack Straw, No ifs or buts, Turkey must be part of the EU // The Times, November 8, 2010.

7 Persons who pose themselves as the leaders of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh, the number of which, by the way, according to Azerbaijani sources is 75 thousand people, state about the in-between tasks on the way to their final self-determination in Nagorno-Karabakh: “The most important today is to change the current status-quo, i.e. to withdraw Armenian military units from the occupied territories, return displaced persons and set the status of the region within the borders of Azerbaijan” (interview of the leader of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh B. Safarov to the Russian “Novaya gazeta”, 19.09.2011).

8 МИД Армении: Баку продолжает искажать международное право, http://news.am/rus/news/16699.html, 15.03.2010.

“Globus Energy and Regional Security”, Issue 6, 2011

Return
Another materials of author