Azerbaijan And Nagorno Karabakh Self Determination

The time has come for the people and the leadership of Azerbaijan to have a serious reality check in regard to solving the self-determination issue of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the conflict with Armenia. As the Minsk group mediators are in the capital Yerevan and heading for Baku preparing the upcoming Moscow meeting between the two presidents it may help to review the two principles that both sides hold as arguments for conflict resolution: people's self-determination and territorial integrity.

The conflict between the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan started during the last days of the Soviet Union (in 1988) when the Armenian majority of the then Nagorno Karabakh's Autonomus Region of Azerbaijan exercised it's right of self-determination according to the Soviet law and decided to united itself the Armenia to free persecution and cultural genocide from Azerbaijan. The later, similar to Serbia's attitude to Kosov waged war against the Armenian people of the Nagorno Karabakh. Armenia became involved defending Nagorno Karabakh guaranteeing its security. In 1994 after losing Nagorno Karabakh and seven regions of Azerbaijan, the later agreed to a ceasefire which is holding to this day without any peacekeeping effort. This last part is obviously a positive phenomenon in the history of the conflict.

The only result of the negotiations during the past 15 years has been the fragile peace. Yet, even the fragile peace is better than war.

The position of Azerbaijan, which keeps making statements about the resumption of war if the issue is not solved despite signing the Maindorf Declaration with the president of Armenia about the peaceful resolution of the conflict, is that the principle of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan must be respected. Azerbaijan says the conflict can't be solved with a change of the country's territorial integrity.

Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic hold that the UN Charter on the right of self-determination must be respected and exercised. In 1991 the people of Nagorno Karabakh conducted a national referendum and declared the Autonomous Region an independent Republic. Today it has all the attribute of democratically functioning republic.

The two principes for Nagorno Karabakh Regulation

According to Wikipedia "Self-determination is defined as free choice of one's own acts without compulsion; and especially as the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state. In other words, it is the right of the people of a certain nation to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other country." In 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at then end of World War II placed the right of self-determination (Chapter 1, Article 1) into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

However, there is also the principle of nations' territorial integrity. "Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states," reads Wikipedia. UN Charter's Chapter 1, Article 2 and Paragraph 4 states that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

In proposing a solution the Nagorno Karabakh's conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia I will argue that the Territorial Integrity is a weaker and more challenged argument against the principle of self-determination, which equals to the longing of freedom and which has never been ceased in human being.

In recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement" Territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention collided in the Kosovo War. The recent (post-WWII) strict application of territorial integrity has given rise to a number of problems and, when faced with reality "on the ground", can be seen as too artificial a construct.

Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, speaking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 25 January 2001, argued for a more flexible approach to territorial integrity, in line with historical norms, saying: Let us accept the fact that states have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created them. Hardly any Member State of the United Nations has existed within its present borders for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy.

At the 2005 World Summit, the world's nations agreed on a "Responsibility to Protect" giving a right of humanitarian intervention. It has been argued that this could create a flexible application of concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity, easing the strict adherence and taking into account the de facto status of the territory and other factors present on a case by case basis. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on April 28, 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" However, this responsibility to protect refers only to the ability of external powers to override sovereignty and does not explicitly involve the changing of borders. Currently, the mediators of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict solution USA, Russia and France have this ability as the international community had the same ability to solve the problem in Kosovo.

The principle of nation's Self-determination comes first and before the principle of the territorial integrity in the UN Charter. Also, as we saw above the territorial integrity has been challenged in the past in favor of national self-determination to meet the human desire for freedom.

Respecting the right to self-determination and overriding Serbia's claims of territorial integrity put an end to the Kosovo war and quickly established peace in the Balkans.

Throughout the 19th century Great Britain and Austria resisted the breakup of the Ottoman Empire because they were convinced that the smaller nations emerging from it would undermine international order. U.S. president later entirely rejected this approach, as the United States has done ever since. "In America's view, it was not self-determination which caused wars, but the lack of it..." writes Henry Kissinger in Diplomacy, in the chapter titled The New Face of Diplomacy: Wilson and The Treaty of Versailles, page 222.

Questions that no one answers in Azerbaijan

On one hand Azerbaijan signs the Maindorf Declaration committing itself to the peaceful resolution of the conflict, on the other hand the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev does not miss the opportunity to remind of resuming war if the conflict is not solved. War is not a viable option. Azerbaijan once waged war on the people of Nagorno Karabakh and lost the entire region plus seven surrounding regions of its own that the Nagorno Karabakh army liberated as a security zone. In 2008 Georgia waged war against South Ossetia and we know what happened. If Azerbaijan wages war again it will lose it's main oil revenues because of the instability in the region. During the last war Azerbaijan has completely lost the trust of the Armenian people.

Now the question. No one is asking in Azerbaijan, how are you going to peacefully return the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan's territorial integrity if you keep talking of war? Also no one seems to think, at least out loud, how they are planning to confince the Armenians to leave inside Azerbaijan when they have in the past abused and suppressed the rights of the Armenian majority in Nagorno Karabakh. Or perhaps they are thinking of yet another genocide like the one in 1915 in Turkey or the one in 1988 in Sumgait and the one in 1991 in Baku.

Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh

If Kosovo gained freedom and independence, the same should be quickly provided for Nagorno Karabakh Republic and it should be recognized by major powers after the referendum. People are asking, why Kosovo and not Nagorno Karabakh? Freedom is sweet for everyone and the right to self-determination should be exercised in this case. Quick actions in Kosovo brought peace in Balkans, the same approach should be held in the case of Azerbaijan and Karabakh.

Proposed Solution Respecting Both Principles

If there is sincere desire to make peace Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh's Republic should help the leadership of Azerbaijan to prepare and build a case before its own people. There should not be winners and losers. What is right should win and what is wrong should lose. People are going to leave together and peace is imperative. But how to reconcile the principles of territorial integrity and nation' right to self-determination?

What I propose is a framework and the two presidents and the foreign ministers should work on the details. According to this plan Armenia can recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In return, Azerbaijan recognizes Nagorno Karabakh's right to self determination. This means a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh, which no doubt will vote for independence.

Thus, both countries Armenia and Azerbaijan sign a statement in which they both recognize what the opposite party wants, and thus they both get what they want. At this point both leaders can go back to their people and say we have a construction solution. Mr. Aliyev can tell it's people that Armenia recognizes its territorial integrity, while Mr. Sargsyan can tell its people that Azerbaijan has recognized the self-determination right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. Both nations feel relief and look to new beginning. Within few months to one year a referendum is held in Nagorno Karabakh and if the Armenian majority votes for independence, then so be it.

Thus we will have a solution based on International Law, rights and values. Remember, that the Meternich system in the congress of Vienna (1814-15) was based on values and brought near 100 years of peace (beside the Crimean war) to Europe. The Congress of Vienna settlement, despite later changes, formed the framework for European international politics until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. It held peace for so long in the continental Europe because it was based on values, not on facing down the enemy.

At this point an understanding from Azerbaijan and its leadership is expected that the core of this conflict is the status of Nagorno Karabakh. Attempting to avoid steps leading to the future clear status of Nagorno Karabakh will take the parties to no-where. Azerbaijan should stop having illusions of bringing Nagorno Karabakh back to it's territorial limits. People there, after decades of opression and cultural genocide have decided to leave free and they deserve the recognition of that right. It is time to seriously think that unless you wage another war, it is impossible to convince the people of Nagorno Karabakh to give up their freedom. 15 years has passed since the ceasefire. In Nagorno Karabakh an entire generation has grown knowing nothing about living as part of Azerbaijan. How are you going to convince them without force? And we know that force is not a solution.

http://www.huliq.com/1/83265/op-ed-azerbaijan-and-nagorno-karabakh-self-determination