Azerbaijan proposes neighboring states status of autonomy - Ruben Zargaryan

Historian and scholar Ruben Zargarian, Advisor to the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Foreign Minister, recently published an article on Analitika.at.ua website, introducing his comments on Elkhan Shakhinogly's book entitled "Nagorno Karabakh: a status without a status".

Below is the text of the article:

Azerbaijani political analyst Elkhan Shakhinogly presented in Baku the book "Nagorno Karabakh: a status without a status", in which the author describes 10 models of conflicts settlement and of giving the status of autonomy. He writes: "As of the models of the possible status for Nagorno Karabakh, they are international precedents: the Aland Islands, Tatarstan (RF), the status of the Crimea, North Ireland, South Tyrol, Trieste, Catalonia". E. Shakhinogly pretends not to understand the principal difference between the NKR and these precedents. And the difference is that nobody committed genocide towards these autonomies similar to the policy of systematic genocide towards the NKR people conducted by the Azerbaijani authorities. Azerbaijan isn’t Europe. Unlike the administration of Baku, the European governments didn’t even think of committing wide-scale aggression, genocide, and ethnic cleansing towards their autonomies, to undertake bombardments and artillery shelling of their peaceful cities. There is a considerable difference in the levels of political culture of the European states and Azerbaijan.

Suggesting the "status of autonomy" to the NKR, which has existed as an established independent state for a long period, the Azerbaijani politicians thus suggest their groundless territorial claims for Nagorno Karabakh. Being aware of the territorial appetites of the Baku revanchists, one can expect similar proposals by Azerbaijan for other neighboring states to become autonomies within its structure.

As for the Aland Islands, their population again claims for independence from Finland. It was stated by Prime Minister of the Alands Roger Norlund and representative of the Aland Government at the EU Britt Lundberg. The book by Professors Dug Ankar and Barry Bartman "The basic principles of the Alands' independence" is actively distributed. So, the favourite argument of some European diplomats and Azerbaijani political scientists on the Aland model of settlement for the NKR doesn't stand the test of time even in Finland, which cardinally differs from Azerbaijan by its high level of political structure. In 2008, the Alands Parliament Member, Roger Johnson, emphasized that if the majority of the people in the Alands Islands understood that Finland didn’t suit them, they would hold a referendum. "And we are quite sure that after our people adopt a resolution on independence, the Finnish troops will not enter our island”.

Unlike the civilized European respond to a referendum, after a similar referendum in the NKR the actions of the Azerbaijani leadership in the last war in 1991-1994 against Nagorno Karabakh should be assessed as a policy of international state terrorism and genocide expressed by the annihilation of the NKR civilian population, ethnic cleansing and artillery shelling of the peaceful population, taking hostages, destruction of cultural monuments, propaganda of racial hatred in the mass media and educational system.

During the mass shelling, the Azerbaijanis used pellet and needle bombs considered as mass destruction weapons. Within November 1991 and May 1994, over 21.000 'Grad' missiles, 2.700 'Alazan' missiles, over 2.000 artillery shells, 180 pellet bombs, about 100 500-kilogram aerial bombs, including 8 vacuum ones, were launched just against the Karabakh town of Stepanakert. As a sample, only the data for three days (February 19-22, 1992) can be given, when 150 people were killed and wounded, half of them being women and children. 90 dwelling and administration buildings were fully destroyed and burnt. Moscow writer Inessa Burkova, who arrived in the NKR with humanitarian assistance for Nagorno Karabakh, sent a message, on February 23, 1992, from Stepanakert, to the Russian President, which, in particular, read: “For 10 days, the Azerbaijani army has shelled the town with ‘Grad’ missiles. As a result of this, many dwelling blocks, the maternity hospital, the central hospital, and the TV center are destroyed. Fires are blazing everywhere, but it is impossible to put them out”. The message ended with the appeal “to immediately stop the annihilation of Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh”. The Azerbaijani army realized similar shelling and aerial bombardment also against other towns and villages of the NKR.

In the Karabakh village of Maragha, captured by the Azerbaijani armed forces for a few hours on April 10, 1992, 81 people were fiercely killed, 67 people were taken hostages, the fate of the majority of which is unknown. Vice Speaker of the House of Lords of the British Parliament, Baroness Caroline Cox, who visited the village directly after its liberation from the Azerbaijani forces, testified: “The films made those days in Maragha testify to the awful massacre here: beheaded and dismembered bodies, children's remains, the bloody land and fragments of bodies in those places where the Azerbaijanis cut up live people”. In the summer of 1992, 45% of the NKR territory was occupied by the Azerbaijani army, and the people, who were late to evacuate, were killed by the Azerbaijani forces. The Azerbaijani crimes against the humanity obviously demonstrated to the international community the non-alternativeness of the NKR state independence.

E. Shakhinogly, like the leadership of the Baku administration, considers the mechanism of referendum in Nagorno Karabakh unacceptable for Baku. The Azerbaijani political scientists should know that the international practice of the recent period testifies that certain principles of resolving ethno-political conflicts have been established. This is, first of all, holding a referendum on independence. Referendums have already been held or are to be held in Eastern Timor, Eritrea, Quebec, the Faeroe Islands, Gibraltar, Western Sahara, New Caledonia, South Sudan, Greenland, and Montenegro. The second important principle is established by the international community in the following way: a country's loss of its internationally recognized rights to any territory (sometimes without its own consent) in case of governments' inability to implement efficient management, basing on democratic principles, on the respect of human rights, ethnic peace, and regional stability. According to many specialists, these principles have, actually, become the new principles of international law.

These two principles have a direct relation to the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement. The purposeful policy of genocide against Armenians, which has been realized since 1918 by any leadership of Azerbaijan, has obviously and convincingly demonstrated the impossibility of Nagorno Karabakh’s being a part of Azerbaijan. The facts of systematic and purposeful genocide towards Armenians in Azerbaijan are so obvious and outrageous that even lacking other legal bases for proclaiming the NKR state independence, this would be enough. The Nagorno Karabakh Republic was created as a result of a national referendum on state independence held in Nagorno Karabakh on December 10, 1991, in full accordance with both international law and the legislation of the then USSR. The resolution of the referendum as the result of the direct expression of the people's will has the supreme legal power. The Nagorno Karabakh Republic became a full-fledged subject of international law, thanks to the fact of its emergence as an independent state. Similar referendums on independence were held in 1905 in Norway, in 1944 - in Iceland, in 1962 - in Western Samoa, in 1974 - in the Comoro Islands, in 1977 - in Djibouti, in 1993 - in Eritrea, in 1999 - in Eastern Timor, and in 2006 - in Montenegro, the results of which served the basic factor of their recognition as sovereign states by the international community. The referendum in the NKR also has irreversible legal consequences.

Quite peculiar is the 1998 resolution of the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec's withdrawal from Canada’s structure, which reads that though the country’s Constitution doesn’t provide the right to unilateral proclamation of independence by Quebec, but in case that the overwhelming majority of Quebec’s population declares for independence, the federal government and other provinces of Canada must start negotiations on Quebec’s withdrawal. The conclusion of the Supreme Court clearly testifies to the legitimacy of proclaiming independence in case of a positive outcome of a regular referendum. The Supreme Court of Canada admitted the possibility of introducing corresponding amendments in the country’s Constitution, providing civilized methods of Quebec’s withdrawal. Recently, certain changes in the moods of Anglo-Canadians have taken place. While they earlier condemned Quebec, now they take the Quebec people’s demands with great comprehension.

On November 8, 2002, a referendum took place in Gibraltar, at which 98,97% of the citizens voted against the draft creation of a model of 'joint sovereignty' of Spain and Great Britain in this self-governing British colony. Great Britain referred to the referendum results as the basis for the final solution to the Gibraltar issue in the negotiation process. Deputy Foreign Minister of Great Britain Denis Mackshane emphasized that the people of Gibraltar unanimously declared against any changes in the status of this territory. According to D. Mackshane, we don’t live in the 17th or 18th century, when diplomats could sign treaties, and people had to obey them. On December 16, 2004, Spain gave its consent for changing the format of the negotiations on Gibraltar. For the first time, Spain recognized Gibraltar as an independent subject of international law and agreed to hold negotiations with it in a trilateral format: Spain, Gibraltar, and Great Britain.

The issue of the Faeroe Islands' independence from Denmark is to be resolved via a referendum among the 44-thousand population of the archipelago. The Faeroe Islands sent a letter to the UN, asking to provide them with corresponding consultations in connection with the issue of their self-determination. On the results of corresponding surveys, 68% of the citizens of proper Denmark agree to grant independence to the Faeroe Islands. All the Danish Parties expressed their comprehension of the Faeroe Islands’ people. The Danish Government stated that it wouldn’t impede the Faeroe Islands’ withdrawal, if they express such a wish.
On November 26, 2008, a referendum was held in Greenland, at which 80% of the population of the greatest island of the planet declared for the autonomy’s extension. Actually, the referendum became the last step on the way to the final independence from Denmark. In proper Denmark, the referendum was taken positively both by the majority of the population and the greatest part of the elite, both the leading and opposition. Head of the Danish Cabinet of Ministers (now the NATO Secretary General) Anders Fog Rasmussen stated, “I’m glad that the inhabitants of Greenland unanimously supported the idea of expanding the independence”. Head of the social-democrats leading the opposition Heller Torning-Schmidt underlined, «It is very important that the Greenlanders will be legally recognized an independent nation and will be able to be masters in their own houses».

The modern era is characterized with two mutually supplementing processes: nations' self-determination and recognition of their independence, as well as international integration. For the last 20 years, 30 states have become members of the UN. Some states are recognized only by part of the world states. Kosovo, Taiwan, Western Sahara, and Palestine are recognized by dozens of states. Recently, mass recognition of Palestine has taken place in Latin America. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by 4 states. North Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. And determinative is not the quantitative aspect, but the qualitative one, i.e. the very fact of the independence recognition. The consequence of this transformation is the fact that in the process of other similar ethno-political conflicts’ settlement it is already unprofessional and unconvincing to speak of the lack of precedents or the uniqueness and peculiarity of any specific case. All this gives certain dynamism to international law, which imperatively dictates the necessity of final recognition of the independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, which has existed as an established and successful state since long ago