Azerbaijani View

Peace Depends Upon Armenian Acceptance of a Modern Multi-Ethnic State

By Ambassador Hafiz Mir Jalal Pashayev

In the long development of human history, mankind has struggled to maintain stability and reduce conflict between and among ethnic groups, nations and groups of nations. Often, it has appeared that whenever progress was made, it was quickly overtaken by new conflicts and animosities. One of the most significant advances since World War II has been a gradual acceptance, with the notable exception of the Soviet Empire, of the inviolability of international law with respect to state sovereignty and borders. This universal principle has been acknowledged repeatedly in the United Nations and other international agreements and conferences. Inherent in this principle is acceptance and recognition of multiethnic states, because almost no country is racially or ethnically pure, and any attempt to create such purity would bring nothing but chaos and endless conflict.

Under the Soviets, Russia dominated and ruled its neighbors in the "near abroad" by making them republics of the Soviet Union. In the process of doing so, Soviet rulers changed borders, played one republic and ethnic group against another and generally exercised a policy of divide and rule.

The collapse of the Soviet Empire led to the hope that this kind of division and ethnic fratricide could be replaced by democracy, respect for human rights and acceptance of internationally recognized law, sovereignty and borders. Since World War II, these international principles have pretty well held up throughout Western Europe.

As we know, the end of the Cold War has put these principles to new tests. Unfortunately, my country of Azerbaijan has literally become the battleground upon which adherence to these international norms is being tested. No sooner had the controls of the Soviet Union begun to loosen than Armenian ultra-nationalists began to act upon their decades-old vision of a "Greater Armenia." To achieve this dream required more land.

Since their territorial claims against Turkey and Georgia seemed unattainable, the ultranationalist Armenians turned to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan. This option was attractive because Nagorno-Karabakh had an ethnic Armenian majority, Azerbaijan had an almost nonexistent military, and only a small strip of land separated Armenia from Nagorno-Karabakh. No doubt if Armenians are successful in Azerbaijan, they will then turn to other neighbors in their quest for more territory.

In February 1988 the regional parliament in NagornoKarabakh, dominated by ethnic Armenians, voted to declare its independence from Azerbaijan.

Armenia's parliament voted to recognize such independence and promptly forced the evacuation of 200,000 ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia.

Then began a spiral of violence and retaliation between ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis within NagornoKarabakh. In 1989, Armenia imposed a blockade on Nakhichevan, a non-contiguous region separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenian territory. As a result, Azerbaijan severed economic ties with Armenia.

After a period of military stalemate, the Armenians launched a series of major offensives in 1993 which resulted in the capture and occupation of seven major regions of Azerbaijan, constituting some 25 percent of Azerbaijan's territory. These offensives created about one million refugees one of every seven citizens of Azerbaijan. Scores and scores of villages and towns were looted, burned and destroyed. Thousands of civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting, exposure or malnutrition. Thousands of soldiers have lost their lives or suffered grievous wounds.

Repeatedly, the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the United States, European nations and Russia have urged and even demanded that Armenia withdraw from the occupied territories and respect the internationally recognized sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Armenia, having viewed the inaction of the world community in the face of Serbian aggression and territorial conquest in Bosnia, ignored the appeal of the world community, and proclaimed to the world that it was the true victim.

The courage of the world community prevented Iraq from violating the principle of state sovereignty and secure borders when it invaded Kuwait. But, perhaps because oil was not involved, the world turned a blind eye to Serbian and Armenian aggression.

Finally, at long last, the West and NATO have begun to assert themselves in Bosnia to preserve a portion of the Bosnian state. But not before major portions of that state have been gobbled up by Serbia and its surrogates in Bosnia.

The world community has done very little, however, to halt or reverse the Armenian aggression in Azerbaijan beyond making statements and passing resolutions. Consequently, Armenia refuses to withdraw and demands independence (which would constitute de facto unification with Armenia) for Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenians have ethnically cleansed both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian was surprisingly candid about this ethnic cleansing in an April 12, 1992 interview with the Moscow News. He stated, "The worldwide process of creation of ethnic states is taking place now. It already has happened in Armenia. We have a monoethnic republic. History shows that the federative system of state is the weakest one."

Thus, Armenia is attempting to reverse the historic progress the world community has made toward peace. If successful, the Armenian example will tell the world that internationally recognized sovereignty and borders are mere conventions to be violated at the discretion of individual states. The prevailing principle of inviolability of sovereignty will be replaced by the principle of "might makes right."