Karabagh occupies a very small piece of the earth’s surface, but it represents the sum and substance of Hai Tahd (Armenian Cause) and the political fortunes of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). Some may view this as hyperbole, but Karabagh does represent a defining moment in the history of the ARF. Not only were ARF members part of the Karabagh government that declared its independence from Azerbaijan, but ARF combat units were effective participants in the war for liberation. And it was an ARF unit in a well-coordinated surprise attack on May 8, 1992 that defeated the Azeri forces entrenched in the historic mountain fortress city of Shushi that marked the turning point in the war for liberation.
The 1994 ceasefire agreement “establishing” the de facto independence of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic (NKR) represented a major victory for the Armenian nation and the ARF in particular. However, much needs to be done before Karabagh and the liberated lands of Artsakh are recognized as a free and independent state. Achieving de jure independence would give credence to Hai Tahd, a Dashnaktsutiun manifesto, and would affirm to the Armenian people that the injustices rooted in the genocide, in the Treaty of Sevres, and the Bolshevik’s territorial dismemberment of Armenia can be overcome.
Failure, for whatever reason and from whichever quarter, will have a deleterious effect on the ARF and Hai Tahd. Unfortunately, the present reactive policy of both Yerevan and the ARF will be more likely to guarantee failure than success for Karabagh. If Yerevan feels constrained for obvious or less obvious reasons, then the burden falls more heavily upon the ARF. At stake is Hai Tahd and the creditability of the ARF whose 120 year history identifies it as a force dedicated to the welfare of the Armenian nation. Within this context, success is more vital for the Dashnaktsutiun than it is for Yerevan.
Since the loss of Karabagh (historic Armenian Artsakh), Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has engaged in a repetitious harangue that threatens military action if negotiations (which exclude Karabagh as a participant) fail. As part of this ongoing attempt to undermine the resolve of the Karabagh Armenians and strain relations between Stepanakert and Yerevan, statements are routinely released alluding to agreements and understandings with Armenia or the Minsk Group mediators (France, Russia, and the United States) that have no basis in fact.
As part of this psychological attack, Azerbaijan recently announced that its 2010-11 military procurement budget will be about $3.4 billion. This is over 800 percent greater than the combined military budget for Armenia and Karabagh. Since 2002, Azerbaijan has earmarked approximately $10 billion for its military establishment. Yet, given this unprecedented military expansion, neither NATO nor the Minsk Group seems overly concerned. While ignoring the destabilizing effect this has on the south Caucasus and possibly beyond, the Minsk mediators continue to press Armenia and Karabagh that the first step toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict requires the withdrawal of all Armenian and Karabagh military units from the so-called “occupied” territories. Nothing is said about Azerbaijan withdrawing military units from occupied Shahumian and the eastern margins of Martakert and Martuni.
This is a lose-lose situation for Karabagh and Armenia. This unacceptable demand would leave Karabagh as an exclave, unprotected and indefensible, the Lachin Corridor road notwithstanding. And the Armenians would be no less vulnerable at the negotiation table. This proposal by the Minsk mediators is based solely on the principle of (Azerbaijan’s) territorial inviolability and completely ignores the principles of self-determination and remedial secession compatible with the objectives of the Karabagh Armenians (see “Artsakh and ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo,” The Armenian Weekly, Aug. 21, 2010).
There is an ominous component to this determination by the Azeris to undermine the will of the Karabagh Armenians. During the past several months, six Karabagh Defense Force personnel have been killed along the Line of Contact (LoC). This is the number released to the public by Armenia. The latest killing was the result of sniper fire—an absolutely unprovoked and unwarranted death. It may seem a fine distinction, but it is a significant one. Whereas probing actions may or may not result in deaths, Azeri snipers have orders to shoot to kill any target of opportunity (obviously an Armenian soldier), but it could just as well be an Armenian civilian living near the border. With spotting scope and the proper gauge weapon for the task, it takes one round to kill someone without any danger to the sniper. Their use along the LoC, given the ceasefire agreement, cannot be tolerated.
Eldar Sabiroglu, the Azeri Defense Ministry spokesperson, proudly stated that Armenia “…does not have a power capable of neutralizing the Azerbaijani snipers.” Given the rigorous technical training and emotional and physical conditioning required of snipers, Sabiroglu’s confidence suggests that Azeri snipers may be trained by the United States and most definitely by Turkey. Armenia has offered to withdraw its snipers from the LoC—in line with the suggestion by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that all snipers should be withdrawn from the LoC. Azerbaijan refuses. One has to assume that these killings will continue as Azerbaijan seeks to undermine the morale of the Defense Force personnel and Karabagh civilians.
The Minsk mediators have taken no substantive action against Azerbaijan nor have they issued any serious condemnation with respect to these LoC violations. For that fact, neither Armenia nor Karabagh seem willing or deem it necessary to mount any measured response. There are numerous strategic objectives that would send a clear message to Azerbaijan, Turkey, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), represented by the Minsk Group, that Armenia and Karabagh are prepared to resist any military action by Azerbaijan. Equally important is the subtext of this message that Karabagh’s independence and the lands governed by Stepanakert will not be negotiated away. If the hard-fought gains in Karabagh cannot be protected, does it seem likely that the other injustices Hai Tahd represents can be successfully served?
Any further deterioration along the LoC could suggest to the Karabagh Armenians and their diasporan supporters that the situation is becoming precarious. Funds from the diaspora (if they continued to flow given this perception) can never override the need for a proactive policy that unequivocally indicates the determination of Yerevan and the ARF in keeping Artsakh (Karabagh and the surrounding territories) independent. Absent such a policy could encourage an out-migration of Armenians from Karabagh, a development that would be welcomed by Azerbaijan.
As it is, the population of Karabagh has shown no significant growth since 1994. The resettlement program envisioned by Stepanakert never materialized due primarily to a shortage of funds. In fact, the inability by Yerevan or the ARF to have a comprehensive resettlement program in place that would encourage the thousands of families necessary to strengthen Armenian claims to historic Artsakh represents a serious weakness. There is no shortage of potential in-migrants. How they view the long-term viability of Artsakh influences their decision to migrate. Any uncertainties or fears that affect the Karabagh Armenians will affect them as well. Such a malaise cannot be allowed to take hold.
Having said that, the question we must ask is what configuration the future independent state will have. Will it be the former Soviet autonomous oblast of Nagorno-Karabagh (the present-day Nagorno Karabagh Republic minus Shahumian) or will it encompass all of the liberated lands (historic Armenian Artsakh) governed by Stepanakert? This begs the question as to the fate of Shahumian and the Azeri-occupied eastern borderlands of Martakert and Martuni. This configuration has yet to be definitively expressed allowing some latitude for minor territorial adjustments. The present nomenclature defining the region offers no help. We have allowed the Minsk moderators (and ourselves) to divide the liberated territories into two distinct parts: the Nagorno Karabagh Republic and the “occupied territories” or “security zone.” The recent Minsk mission referred to the territory surrounding Karabagh as “occupied.” They went so far as to refer to the capital city of Stepanakert by its Azeri name (Khankendi) as well.
Place-names do have geopolitical significance which explains why Georgia has eliminated Javakhk from its maps. Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze recently claimed that he didn’t “…know what Javakhk is” and that “[t]here is no Javakhk on the map.” Obviously not; his government simply eliminated its use. The erasure and replacement of place-names has been the official policy of Turkey and Azerbaijan as well and is usually accompanied by the destruction of evidentiary physical cultural artifacts attesting to its Armenian antecedents. It might do well to refer to all of the liberated territory as Artsakh to indicate the intent of Armenia and Karabagh. This would be a bold move and sure to give Aliyev an apoplectic event.
It should not be difficult to see the connection between success in Karabagh and the beneficial impact it would have on Hai Tahd and the ARF. Maintaining the credibility of the ARF is important because its work is just now beginning with respect to Hai Tahd. This includes issues such as the state-imposed problems facing the Javakhkahayer (Javakhk Armenians) and the forgotten Armenians of the genocide who populate the lands of historic western Armenia. How would the concept of “a united Armenia, free, and independent, for all Armenians” be implemented? And then there are the issues of genocide recognition, restitution, indemnification, and reparations. These are significant issues that may or may not need to be addressed concurrently.
Within Armenia, the ARF must continue to serve as the catalyst to effect the changes necessary to create a system that will provide social and economic justice and opportunity within a democratic structure for the worker and his family. There is nothing new here. Historically the agenda of the ARF has encompassed many causes simultaneously. Present conditions now suggest a restructuring that will allow for an efficient and effective response by the ARF to the various issues facing the Armenian nation—a nation that it has successfully served for the past 120 years. How effective the ARF will be as it moves into the second decade of this century depends in very large measure on how the Armenian people assess its role in Artsakh, whether or not that assessment is justified.
Michael Mensoian
Latest posts by Michael Mensoian (see all)
- Facing the Reality that is Artsakh - August 6, 2020
- Tourism: An Economic Tide That Can Lift All “Boats” - January 29, 2020
- The Legacy of the Hairenik and the Armenian Weekly - January 7, 2020
A superb article by Michael Mensoian.
A question to Mensoian and anyone who wishes to answer it:
To what extent is Russia dictating Armenia’s policies (military, economic, negotiations, public relations) regarding Artsakh/Karabagh and thus – and in no way do I mean to excuse the failures of Armenia’s and Artaskh’s leaders – to what extent can we lay the article’s criticisms at the feet of Russia?
Russia has its own agenda, and it may well be that Armenians could have addressed some of the problems cited above had not Russia told Armenians “No.”
Once we know the full extent of Russia’s control, we can answer the above.
Is there even an Armenian policy, or is it a Russian policy?
it is not so difficult to multiply the population of artsakh, if each family had 8-10 children, with the state assisting in providing each family with a plot of land, zero credit loans to built their modest homes initially, and then add-on and improve as living conditions change, organize and manage agricultural cooperatives, to feed the people, provide free education and health care…
where are the thousands of armenian refugees from azerbaijan, why aren’t they being encouraged to return to artsakh to be compensated for the lands they lost in azerbaijan, and become artsakh citizens???
it is not as diffucult as it seems,
we are an intelligent people with resources and friends throughout the world, technology and scientific advancements, a highly educated battalion of worker bees in armenia,
so what’s holding the powers that be to move forward and start implementing the revitalization of U.S.A. united states of armenia…could it be an internal power struggle??? if so, what a shame (HAZAR AMOTH)…if not, what a tragic delay and lost opportunity to build greatness???
if we cannot support an artsakh with a population of at least a million armenians, then we really don’t have the right to exist, or be proud of self
It takes courage for Mensoian (and the Weekly) to state that the prestige of the ARF is at stake.
The ARF’s one-foot-in/one-foot-out dance with the Armenian government lacks a certain credibility, to put it mildly.
Another point: The three OSCE chairs (US, Russia, and France) have a long history of betraying Armenia and Armenians to death, especially in the period just after WW I. France especially was just flat-out treacherous in its lies and its support of Ataturk. It broke virtually every promise made to Armenians. I guess we’re now supposed to love the French because they eat brie?
Why does Armenia not mention any of this betrayal? Armenia just sits there and lets 3 betraying countries “help” determine the fate of Artsakh? Are Armenia’s leaders so lacking in their knowledge of history? And why doesn’t Oskanian and his “Civilitas” lambaste these counrtries instead of asking for them to fund his organization?
Some will say that Armenia must accept that the major powers have a say in Artsakh and that, say, it is unrealistic to expect that lesser countries could mediate a peace settlement.
That may be true, but does Armenia have to just sit there and say nothing about how utterly deadly these OSCE countries have been for Armenians? Armenians need to put not just Azerbaijan but also the Three OSCE Stooges on the defensive. Maybe the ARF will do this. But probably not.
david,
did you notice that you and i are the only 2 armenians who commented on this very important issue…
do you remember how many people responded passionately to the holly cross renovation ordeal,
do you see where our priorities are as a people???
you made valid remarks about the high-rollers, if you cannot throw your weight around, you have to use your brain, which by the way has proven to produce positive results throughout history
brawns win big battles…brains win at the end
Sireli Hayrenaser,
I agree with you. This article deserves more comment than it has gotten. There are a lot of subtleties to the Artsakh issue that are rarely discussed in public but should be.
Armenians need to move the issue from one of being perceived as “frozen” to one where Armenian rights are put front and center. Many have said this over the years, but for various reasons we have seen little success in the area of public perceptions. Some of this is due to the hostility of the major powers, including Russia, to Armenian rights.
Some of it is simply our own failure to put forth our best arguments.
The scenario is a far cry from WW1 days. Today’s big boys can stretch realpolitik just so far. Settlement will come when the oil wells run dry. Without doubt the adversary arsenal has a galloping maintenance bill and can go obsolete.
NO HAS SO FAR HAS DWELT ON THE ERRONEOUS ACT/premise OF SIGNING A “CEASEFIRE” IN n.k> I DO NOW!!!!
IT IS EXACTLY FOR THAT ERROR that Artsakh ,NK Republic is not being dejure confirmed as such. Ordinarily when one side is victorious it imposes conditions . At the very least unconditional SURRRENDER,which would imply that the winning side ccan still dictate!!!
Alas this was not the case to be . FAct is LTP, then should have phoned Aliev Sr. making him understand that either the above mode “signing’ or Armenian forces would push on…That is one overlooking of his that persons such as self will not forget adn forgive.
Another.Now don’t get overenthusiasmed ,since I am non partisan…He should have had the grace of a learned man that he still advocates he is, NOT TO DEPORT HRIAR MARUKHIAN FROM ARMENIAN Soil.Every Armenian has claim to it!!!! He could have banished him to a far flung Armenian Provincial town or village<BUT NOT OUT OF ARMENIA!!!
Now then up above someone kept bombarding that ARF jogads did this that. I don’t a[pprove of such bipartisanship.Whether a marxist Maoist Armenian or Nzhdehagan Tseghagron or any other ,even Presbyterian Armenian,note not ideological, who fought there is ours…period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hama Haigagani SIRO
Please forgive my fast typing missing first word’s beginning.it should read. No one has..
Now ADDENDUM to above.Indeed like David Boyajian writes “it has subtleties…the NK resolution issue, i.e.
Few think or wish to think that NK so called conflict can only be SOLVED when Turkey feels secure that Armenians NO MORE pursue Genocide Recognition by great Turkey especially. They fear ,once the Turco Azeri’s loose on NK and it becomes dejure independent , next will be the turn of Kars Ardahan, Van etc., etc., etc.
I have always insisted that whether in Diaspora or Homeland these two must always be considered as ONE, hence mentioned so and pursued so. Otherwise, without actually officially stating so R.of Turkey will support Azerbaijan to the end. We must wake up and say NAY, not only NK, is an issue that we pursue but also NAKHIJEVAN, Kars , ardahan etc.,
Dear Mr. Mensoian,
I read,rather prefer to read short posts.I just read part of yours above,re Javakhk..
state/imposed.Though you do not mention by what state,it is clear by Georgia.You see, I participate in many a Havak/gathering when in Yerevan.Summer 2009 I did at one at Congress Hotel organized jointly by French Embassy, AGBU. US something, whatever, 6 Georgians were having their go on the mikes blasting their protests as to Russians having invaded S.Ossetia and Abkhazia….etc.,
I waited until they had near exhausted theirs GAVE IT TO THEM!!!!
By teh by language was only english and russian with simultaneous Translation///
And I said” How about you putting so much pressure on our brothren and sisters in javakhk, also changing names of our churches in Tbilisi… ” when he started to chew the words and after a whole 5 minutes trying to justify himself , near admitted saying” it is being attended to”. My foot,I read later this year in a Book in Armenian ,given to me at “Armenian Center for Nat’l and Int’l Studies” |Raffi Hovanissian’s Esstablishment..entitled “Hayastan, the imperative for a New Strategy”…etc., in it I read the Georgian attitude/stance towards javakhk has not undergone any significant change
You see, I like what you , they and others write and advocate. BUT MINE IS DIFFERENT!!! it encompasses the Re/organization of the Armen Diaspora to become a Powerful Structure with a Supreme Council with 5 depts.A/ Legal /political in Strasbourgn next To RA delegation,not sitting with them but in same town.B. Executive in NY next to RA delegate to U.N.,C. Economic in Geneva,CH with 16 offices of our ‘professional colelagues Asso.c’ ,D. In mOscow the social Services and Future Repatriation organizing Dept. E. spiritual st.Etchmiadzin/Antillias,only one we have.
Then strive through the PCA’s a 1000000 strong establish our national investment Trust Fund, nucleus by our 5/6 magnates, down to millioniares down to One thousand dollar invdestors..You calculate what an Investment Fund it will grow into…then we can talk.\
Hamahaigagani sIRO,
gaytzag palandjian