Международная Конференция

[Shenyаtsi]

Mezhdunarodnaya konferenciya kotoroaya proxodila v Ann Arbor, kuda bil priglashe MID Artsakha, Ashot Gulyan, sostoyalas'. Sledite za etoi temoi, v kotoroi ya vistavly vistuplenie Mr. Gulyana, a tak zhe svoi konspekt za polni den' 10/23/04. Nu a esli sovsem korotko, to nashi sosedi pokazali v ocherednoi raz, naskol'ko oni (da, da, da, kak raz taki oni), ne ponimayt vsei problemi vokrug Artsakha. Napadaya na Rossiy s takimi vipadami kak dvoinie standarti i provodya paralleli s Chechnei ( vistuplenie T. Zulfugarova v adres V. Kazimirova). Vistuplenie togo zhe Zufugarova s kritikoi v adres Minskoi Gruppi i EvroSoyza. Vistuplenie Tureckogo Professora s kritikoi v adres toi zhe Evropi (v chastnosti Francii). Vistuplenie D. Shaxnazaryana, s ego "ideyami" i ne pravilnoi politiki obeix resspublik (moe lichnoe mnenie o nem kar'eristski/revanshistski/artisticheski chelovek presleduya tolko personalnie celi....) Obo vsem etom i bolshe podrobno skoro s fotkami...... (ya zhdu elektronnuy versiy vistupleniya Ashota Gulyana, chtobi ne perepechatovat'....).

[Shenyаtsi]

Vistuplenie Ashota Gulyana v Vashingtone:

""Nagorno Karabakh: Realities and Prospects for Development"

Presentation of the NKR Foreign Minister Ashot Goulian

at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Washington, DC

October 19, 2004

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honor for me to address the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an institution known worldwide for its work on issues of global concern and particularly on international security.

When contemplating the state of present-day South Caucasus, the international community, including American policy-makers and policy analysts, frequently express anxiety about stability and security in our region. Establishment of normal civilized relations between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan is, without a doubt, a necessary condition for the long-term stability and security in the South Caucasus. For these reasons, the attention you are granting me and the people of Nagorno Karabakh that I represent is especially worthwhile. That is even as the entire United States and much of the world are preparing to hold their breath over the unnervingly close context in the Presidential elections, just two weeks away.

The South Caucasus today is region of competing geopolitical and geo-economic visions and designs. It would seem that the attention accorded by great power interests would contribute to the region’s stability. However, with the long-running conflicts still unresolved, the region remains a powder keg and any misstep might risk turning it into an area of chaos and instability. Any conflict resolution effort in the South Caucasus, particularly in Nagorno Karabakh, demands careful analysis and consideration of all local interests.

In the past 15 years, a number of delegations, among them American diplomats and members of Congress, as well as regional experts, have visited Nagorno Karabakh, met with its leaders and public in an effort to understand the conflict and its roots. For our part, it was a pleasure to hear that the approach we have adopted - to build a statehood based on democratic institutions and respect for human rights - corresponds to their vision of what our region should look like.

It can be argued that the violation of human rights and the rights of a whole nation were and are precisely the factors at the root of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

I would like to remind you that the Nagorno Karabakh issue first became an international problem in 1918 after the fall of the Russian Empire and as newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan began to demarcate their borders. Karabakh was at the time internationally recognized as a disputed area.

But in the end through a decision of a political party organization of a third state - the Caucasus bureau of the Russian Communist Party - the overwhelmingly Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh was denied its natural territorial and national unity and transferred to Soviet Azerbaijan.

Through the entire period of this forced and unnatural incorporation, the rights of the Karabakh Armenians were systematically violated by the Soviet Azerbaijani government. In spite of this pressure, the local population continued to defend its right to free development and preservation of its unique culture.

A new stage of the movement for Karabakh’s freedom began at the end of 1987, with massive meetings and demonstrations involving tens of thousands of local people. These actions of the Armenian population were strictly peaceful and constitutional in nature. Unfortunately in response, the Soviet Azerbaijani leaders tried to provoke inter-ethnic clashes. Azerbaijan responded to Karabakh’s democratic demands with pogroms and mass murders of ethnic Armenians throughout Azerbaijan, including in Sumgait, Ganje and Baku, and a complete blockade of Nagorno Karabakh, which remains in effect today. An all out war was unleashed in 1991, which continued until 1994, when in May of that year a cease-fire agreement came into effect and continues to hold to date.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) began to deal with the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in 1992, when the present format of the peace process was established. While giving due credit to the OSCE and its Minsk Group for all of their efforts towards resolution of this long-running conflict, I would nevertheless have to note that in seeking a political settlement of the conflict, the mediators have paid little attention to the legal aspects of the issue. All through the peace process, Nagorno Karabakh leaders repeatedly stressed that the basis for our separation from Soviet Azerbaijan in 1991 was so legally sound that it could provide an important foundation and support to an eventual political settlement of the conflict.

The establishment of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) was declared on September 2, 1991, shortly after Azerbaijan announced its own independence, in full conformity with basic norms and principles of international law. Creation of NKR did not contradict the "Declaration of re-establishment of the state independence of the Azerbaijan republic," since Azerbaijan was re-established in the framework of the 1918-20 republic, which did not include Nagorno Karabakh.

NKR’s independence was supported by a popular referendum, in which the vast majority of Karabakh’s population voted for complete independence from Azerbaijan, whose leaders had in turn proclaimed their independence from the USSR. That referendum was conducted on the basis of the Soviet law "On the procedure of secession of a Soviet Republic from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Article 3 of that law demanded that should a republic, such as Azerbaijan, decide to leave the Soviet Union, autonomous entities and compactly settled national minorities, such the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region and adjacent Armenian-populated districts, have a right to decide their own legal and political future through a referendum.

Negotiations with participation of mediators began just as the major fighting was getting underway. The Nagorno Karabakh leadership participated in these negotiations from the beginning, pursuing two major goals: to stop the bloodshed and to convince the international community that subordinating Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan was impossible. Our principle and position from day one and to date is that there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement of this conflict.

As you know, the current stage of the peace process is not marked by intensive negotiations. Recent meetings between Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as their Foreign Ministers, certainly facilitate the peaceful dialogue. However, as the most recent meetings in Prague and Astana confirmed, not much progress has been made in terms of content of these talks. Moreover, considering the recent unfortunate experience with the Paris and Key West negotiations, when Azerbaijan disowned principles reached at those talks, we are not overly optimistic about Azerbaijan sticking to whatever new approaches we may agree on. A logical question is therefore should the parties agree to another set of principles, would they share the fate of Paris and Key West principles.

Regarding our own participation in negotiations, our position is clear - Nagorno Karabakh cannot remain outside the process of settlement that relates directly to its own fate. Mediators recognize this quite well and they continue to insist on Karabakh’s participation in the process. Only with Karabakh’s participation, can these negotiations become truly effective in the way of achieving the soonest and most viable settlement. I would recall that the May 1994 cease-fire agreement, which marked the most tangible progress towards resolution of the conflict so far, was achieved with direct participation of Nagorno Karabakh as a full party to the talks that undertook and delivered on a set of commitments in terms of establishment and preservation of the cease-fire regime.

We are also convinced that a successful continuation of the peace process depends on stability in our region, which in turn is the sum of stable conditions in all of the regional entities. In the years of independence, we have succeeded in creating a functioning and politically stable state and society, which is perhaps one of the most successful in the Caucasus. We now have an established state institution including a legitimately elected Parliament and President that enjoy popular confidence and command influence throughout Karabakh. The Army of Defense of Nagorno Karabakh, which protected our people from Azerbaijani aggression, today is under civilian control and serves as the main and real guarantor of the security of our statehood and our people.

Additionally, Nagorno Karabakh has embarked on the way of reform aiming to establish a market-based economy. This is in spite of the estimated multi-billion dollar damage the war caused our infrastructure. Due to fighting, and especially due to Azerbaijan’s indiscriminate aerial and artillery shelling, close to half of all of Karabakh residents lost their homes, that is more than 18,000 private houses and apartments; destroyed also were some 200 schools and kindergartens, about 170 healthcare facilities, close to 85 percent of our manufacturing capacity and hundreds of other facilities.

To rebuild and, at the same time, reform our economy, we had to rely mostly on our own resources, long-term credits from Armenia and humanitarian aid from our Diaspora. We did not just survive. We have established a legal system that regulates economic relations, which allows us to make a gradual and balanced transformation to a market economy. We have completed privatization of land and small and medium enterprises. Today, Karabakh has become an attractive place to work for foreign investors, thanks both to our natural riches and liberal tax laws, as well as our stability and security of investments.

Just in the past four years, foreign investments in Karabakh have twice exceeded the size of our budget, resulting in the overall economic recovery and development. Today, the private sector makes up for 80 percent of our industrial output, while that figure was only 20 percent in 1999, just five years ago. Major foreign investment programs have focused on mining (which we did not even have in Soviet days), agribusiness, communications, tourism and other services.

Using this opportunity, I would like to again extend our gratitude for the humanitarian assistance from the United States, which since 1998 has helped the victims of war in Nagorno Karabakh. This assistance is allocated through the USAID and its non-government contractors. The first portion of this assistance in the amount of $20 million has already been spent. The second stage of the program, worth $15 million, is currently underway. The funded projects include restoration and construction of pipes for drinking water, healthcare facilities, micro-financing and de-mining. This assistance has eased the lives of thousands and I would like to assure you that every tax-payer dollar allocated by Congress to Karabakh has served its intended purpose.

Confident of the international community’s desire to establish stability and viable peace in our region and interest in the development of the South Caucasus, we have always been ready for dialogue to achieve these goals. We remain committed to this constructive approach today, even though we have yet to see reciprocity from our counterparts in Azerbaijan. Specifically, a set of confidence-building measures (CBMs) in the conflict area, which our leadership proposed in 2001, was rejected by Azerbaijan, even as the U.S. Congress repeatedly offered to fund such measures. These CBMs are designed to establish basic cooperation between Azerbaijanis and us, even before the final settlement of the conflict. One example is water resources sharing that could potentially benefit both sides and require only modest finances. Such CBM’s remain of utmost importance considering the near total absence of mutual trust and recently stepped-up militarist rhetoric in Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijani leadership, while avoiding all contact with Nagorno Karabakh, goes as far as to try to prevent any contact between non-government organizations and even individuals. Azerbaijani peace activists who have visited Nagorno Karabakh have been harassed and assaulted upon their return to Azerbaijan.

Capitalizing on Nagorno Karabakh’s absence from international organizations, Azerbaijan tries to discredit us through baseless accusations and insinuations. There is really no limit to their propagandistic zeal. To believe our opponents, Karabakh is straight out of the Mad Max movies, with chaos reining, nuclear waste buried from around the world, slaves traded, terrorists roaming free and illicit drugs plentiful. Even though it is well-documented that it was Azerbaijan that enlisted the forces of chaos and xenophobic hatred, such as the international terrorist Shamil Basayev and radical Afghan mercenaries that later made up the core of the Taliban, in its war against us in the early 1990s.

We have repeatedly requested that international organizations and governments, including the United States, send monitoring groups to Karabakh to study on location the baseless allegations made by Azerbaijani officials. Not surprisingly, Azerbaijan for its part does all it can to prevent such visits.

The goal of the Azerbaijani government is to maintain a verbal smokescreen over Karabakh so that the international community and Azerbaijan’s own citizens remain ignorant of Karabakh’s realities particularly that Karabakh is well ahead of Azerbaijan in terms of democratic development. At the same time, Azerbaijan also tries to avoid exposure of the baseless nature of its accusations. In this regard, we would like to see a principled position of foreign governments and international organizations, which, we are certain, are interested in objective information out of Karabakh.

The United States, in particular, as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and a country playing a leadership role around the world, certainly realizes the importance of building mutual confidence in the region and are capable of influencing the Azerbaijani leadership so that it backs off its military threats, works towards promotion of tolerance within their country and eventual peace throughout our region.

Today, we are witnessing the formation of an open society in Nagorno Karabakh. We have the necessary legal framework and political climate for continued democratic development. Since the declaration of independence in 1991, we have conducted several presidential, parliamentary and local elections, which were observed and positively evaluated by independent observers, including monitors from the United States. Most importantly, this is a reflection of the commitment of our people to democratic principles and our will to move forward as an independent state.

Our position on the peace process and foreign policy in general is based on the fact that we are representatives of a democratically elected government of Nagorno Karabakh, whose purpose is to serve and, most basically, provide security to our citizens.

Democratically developing Nagorno Karabakh cannot be subordinated to an Azerbaijani state, with its wholesale violation of the rights of Azerbaijanis themselves and its history of genocidal policies against Armenians. The Azerbaijani government, which has made not even a single positive gesture towards Nagorno Karabakh since this conflict began, makes it abundantly clear that Nagorno Karabakh’s independence from Azerbaijan has no alternative.

Our position is also based on realities of the world today. We believe that the international community can serve as a guarantor of Nagorno Karabakh’s existence and security of its population by recognizing Nagorno Karabakh Republic as a subject of international law. The non-recognition of NKR is frequently explained by reluctance of setting a precedent. But these precedents have already been set. New trends in international relations show that nations that are forcefully incorporated into newly-established states and suffer from pressure from central - in fact, colonial, - undemocratic governments, have a natural right for a separate existence. We have seen this in East Timor and Eritrea. Finally, in Kosovo it took the U.S. leadership to stop ethnic cleansing and attempted Genocide and to establish a de-facto independent entity, something, we as a nation succeeded in doing almost exclusively on our own.

Based on this fundamental right, we will continue to seek international recognition of NKR’s independence. Our demand is legally sound and is grounded on a simple human desire to live freely in peace and dignity. We do not want what is not ours but we can not compromise on our basic right to exist. In this effort we count on the understanding of the international community, which is, without a doubt, interested in the long-term stability and security of the South Caucasus. It is by taking into account the rights and fundamental interests of all nations of our region, including Armenians in Karabakh, that this important goal can be reached.

Thank you for your attention."

[voter]

Шеняци джан Д.Шагназарян давний "оппозиционнер" это у него типишний армянский комплекс "НЕДООЦЕНёННЫЙ ТАЛАНТ"...

[Guest Bingool]

Шеняци джан Д.Шагназарян давний "оппозиционнер" это у него типишний армянский комплекс "НЕДООЦЕНёННЫЙ ТАЛАНТ"...

←

Выражаясь просто типичный самодовольный, самовлюбленный дядька, который "болен" нарцисизмом. Я от этого оппозиционера ничего толкогого пока не слышал. Чешет себе языком на всяких конференциях и всё.

[Rouna]

Хорошая речь. Напрямую все основные вопросы поставил. И, главное, коротко и ясно (я тут когда на эту тему говорю, меньше 15 минут не получается). Ограниченное количество ярких картинок, как раз для здешних.

[Shenyаtsi]

Izvinite za latinicu, no u menya poka po drugomu ne poluchaetsya.....

Shaxnzaryan v svoei rechi podderzhal poetapni process uregulirovaniya Artsakhskoi problemi, drugimi slovami bil zaodno s nashimi sosedyami. No rech' Davida bila napravlena ne o reshenii problemi, a o tom kak nineshnie praviteli obeix Respublik, ne xotyat reshat' etu problemu, a derzhat vse eto na vozduxe t.k. v takoi atmosfere legko derzhat'sya za vlast'... No Shaxnazaryan ne ponimaet, ili dazhe ochen' xorosho ponimaet, prosto pudrit mozgi drugim, chto poetapni variant uregulirovaniya uzhe davno v processe. "Partnerstvo vo imya Mira" s NATO, odin iz takix malenkix shazhkov, kotorie tak uporno reklamiruet Shaxnazaryan. Kak mi vidim, AR sovsem ne gotov k tomu, o chem sam uporno krichit. Budapeshtskaya tragediya, tozhe tomu dok-vo. Poetapni process nichto inoe, kak milni puzir', kotori razduvayt nashi sosedi, i kotori tak NEumelo podderzhivayt takie kak Shxnazaryan. Vipadi s tribuni v adres Zulfugarova, a potom bratskoe rukopazhatie na perekurax s Zulfugarovim, govoryat chetko kakoe nutro u etogo cheloveka. Koroche, Shaxnazaryan, dazhe ne riba, on uzhe mertvi politik. On okazalsya sam v toi yame, kotoruy tak uporno roet drugim.

Zulfugarov Tofik, nichego novogo tak i ne skazal. Govoril o dvoinix standartax, s kritikoi v adres Kazimirova. Govoril o bezhncax i o kakoi to spec programme ob obespechenii poslednix xoroshim zhil'em i produktami. Govoril o tom kak kazhdi bezhenec mozhet vozvratitsya v svoi doa kak polnocennie xozyaeva i Armeniya etomu pripyatstvuet, eshe provodil paralleli mezhdu Artsakhskoi prblemoi i Chechnei(!)....koroche demagognichal mnogo. Na perekure, ya ego sprosil, kak eto ya smogu vozvratitsya v Baku v svoy kvratiru (v kotoroi kstati zhivut chechenci) kak polnocenni xozyain, i kto mne obespechit garantiy. On nevnyatno i opyat', kak demagog, vnyatno nichego ne otvetil, no skazal, chto verit v to chto mirnoe prozhivanie nashix narodov vozmozhno. Na vopros, kakaya eta programma idet po bezhencam, esli oni prozhivayt v takom plachevnom sostoyanii, tozhe ne poluchil otveta. Mne voobshe kazhetsya, chto specialnaya programma o bezhncax, eto kak raz derzhat' ix v takix usloviyax. Poetomu ona i nazivaetsya specialnoi programmoi, kak eto zayavil Zulfugarov. Razve ploxo, pokazivat' vsem gostyam AR, lydei s 15 letnim yarlikom "bezhenec" i usloviya v kotorom oni zhivut. Edinstvennoe, chto ne ponimayt sosedi, chto eto uzhe igraet protiv nix samix, no nikak v ix polzu... Mnogo sam sebe protevorechil o tom, pri kakix usloviyax Baku soglasitsya sest' za stol peregovorov s Artsakhskimi predstavitelyami.... koroche Zulfugarov i Shaxnazaryan brat'ya....v chem v principe ne stisnyaetsya priznat'sya sam Shaxnazaryan (s tribuni on raz 10 govoril, chto Zulfugarov ego "blizkii drug"... a Zulfugarov tolko odin raz otvetil emu tem zhe, i to potom sekund 5 otkashlivalsya....mi s drugom molcha ulibnulis' eshe togda)....

Mne ponravilos' vistuplenie odnoi zhenshini (imeni ne pomny) kotoraya, zatknula rot turku, kotori kritikoval Franciy, kak odnogo iz igroka v predstavitelya Evropi v Minckoi Gruppe. Ona emu napomnila, chto Evorpa odna druzhnaya sem'ya i Franciya na danni moment, predstavitel' ix Evropeiskoi sem'i. Poetomu kritikovat' Franciy ona ne pozvolit, tak kak ona predstavlyaet interesi vsei Evropi, a ne tol'ko Francii. Turok, xot' i professor, nichego krome tupoi ulibki ne mog vizhit' iz sebya....

Obeshannie fotki skoro budut. Kazhdi den' zhdu sam.... esli kto ix zhdet, poterpite, budut...

[Shenyаtsi]

Баку "пытается создать впечатление, что очень заинтересован в продвижении переговорорного процесса"

2 ноября состоялась пресс-конференция министра иностранных дел Нагорного Карабаха Ашота Гуляна, посвященная его недавнему визиту в Соединенные Штаты Америки.

Как сообщает корреспондент ИА REGNUM в Степанакерте, Ашот Гулян отметил, что это был первый его визит в США в должности министра иностранных дел НКР. Глава внешнеполитического ведомства подчеркнул значение встреч в Конгрессе США, в ходе которых, в частности, были обсуждены вопросы, связанные с американо-карабахскими отношениями, нынешним состоянием процесса карабахского урегулирования.

Говоря о встрече с сопредседателем Минской группы ОБСЕ Стивеном Манном, Ашот Гулян отметил важность обсуждения с американским посредником вопросов, связанных с перспективами урегулирования карабахского конфликта в контексте последних развитий.

Среди встреч с представителями армянской общины США министр выделил беседу с известной благотворительницей, председателем центрального офиса Армянского Общего Благотворительного Союза (АОБС) Луиз-Симон Манукян.

"Потенциал сотрудничества с АОБС велик, и в результате сотрудничества мы сумеем реализовать в Нагорном Карабахе значительные программы", - сказал Ашот Гулян. Значение посещения офисов Армянского Национального Комитета Америки и Армянской Ассамблеи Америки (ААА) Ашот Гулян связал с необходимостью углубления сотрудничества между властями НКР и армянскими организациями США. Говоря об организованной Мичиганским университетом конференции в городе Анн Арбор, глава внешнеполитического ведомства с сожалением констатировал, что заместитель министра иностранных дел АР Араз Азимов всячески старался воспрепятствовать его участию в конференции, однако встретив решительный отпор со стороны организаторов, сам вынужден был отказаться от участия в мероприятии.

Подобный шаг, отметил Ашот Гулян, не может способствовать активизации переговорного процесса в целом, налаживанию отношений с карабахской стороной. Отвечая на вопрос о желании Турции играть более заметную роль в переговорном процессе по карабахскому урегулированию, Ашот Гулян сказал: "Вовлеченность Турции в переговорный процесс не воспринимается однозначно. Может быть, на этот вопрос мы смотрели бы иначе, если бы со стороны Турции осуществлялась другая политика. Сегодня, к сожалению, позиция Турции в вопросе карабахского урегулирования ничем не отличается от позиции Азербайджана".

Глава внешнеполитического ведомства НКР отметил важность потенциала обществ, вовлеченных в конфликт, который, по его словам, не используется ввиду деструктивной позиции азербайджанской стороны. "Новые власти Азербайджана не прекращают попытки полностью ликвидировать отношения с Нагорным Карабахом на всех уровнях. В условиях же отсутствия двустороннего диалога стороны становятся все более недоверчивыми друг к другу", - сказал Ашот Гулян.

Говоря об инициировании Азербайджаном обсуждения в ООН вопроса занятых в ходе вооруженного противостояния территорий, Ашот Гулян отметил, что "эта акция полностью отвечает пропагандисткой политике Баку по отвлечению внимания международного сообщества от сути карабахского конфликта". "В Азербайджане прекрасно понимают, что указанные территории находятся под контролем Нагорного Карабаха, и Армения не имеет какого-либо отношения к этому", - сказал министр, подчеркнув при этом, что "значительная часть территории Нагорного Карабаха, в том числе весь Шаумянский район, находятся под оккупацией Азербайджана".

"На протяжении последних нескольких лет Азербайджан предъявляет Нагорному Карабаху многочисленные надуманные обвинения, цель которых - бросить тень на все растущий имидж НКР. Мы не раз заявляли о том, что готовы обсуждать любой вопрос, в том числе, вопрос территорий, но Азербайджан пытается подменить решение всего пакета вопросов решением тех проблем, которые отвечают исключительно его интересам. При этом Баку пытается создать впечатление, что очень заинтересован в продвижении переговорорного процесса", - отметил глава внешнеполитического ведомства НКР.

Министр подчеркнул, что самым коротким путем окончательного решения карабахской проблемы является возобновление переговорного процесса в полноценном формате - с участием Нагорного Карабаха как полноправной стороны переговоров.

Ашот Гулян опроверг распространенную агентством "Интерфакс" информацию о намеченной на конец месяца "командно-штабной тренировке военных ведомств непризнанных республик", в том числе Нагорного Карабаха. Он отметил, что каких-либо договоренностей на сей счет нет.

"Кроме обеспечения безопасности народа и неприкосновенности границ, армия Нагорного Карабаха не имеет каких-либо других важных задач, тем более вне пределов НКР", - сказал министр иностранных дел Нагорного Карабаха.