Institution-bulding in Karabakh: The NKR is a de
facto legitimate democratic state
by Major General Hayk Kotanjian
Read more at:
http://en.aravot.am/2014/07/02/165893/
© 1998 - 2014 Aravot – News from Armenia
On July 1-2, 2014, an International Strategic
Policy Forum “The integration of national and regional peacekeeping capacities
into the global system of peace operations based on the principles and
standards of the UN” was held in Yerevan. The organizers of the Forum are:
Institute for National Strategic Studies of the Ministry of Defence of the
Republic of Armenia (INSS, MOD, RA), Secretariat of the Collective Security
Treaty Organization (CSTO), Joint Staff of the CSTO, Academic-Expert Council of
the CSTO, the Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Institute of
International Studies MGIMO (University) – MFA, RF, Russian Political Science
Association (RPSA), Political Science Association of Armenia (PSAA). The RA
President Serzh Sargsyan sent a welcoming address to the participants. The RA
Minister of Defense Seyran Ohanyan and Deputy General Secretary of the CSTO
Valery Semerikov participated and made presentations in the Forum. The
international experts on peacekeeping from the CSTO Secretariat and the CSTO
Academic-Expert Council, the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the UN, the
OCSE, the EU, the SCO, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs,
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also made presentations during
the Forum. The specialists from Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Belgium, Israel, Italy, South Africa, the Netherlands, Sweden, and
China attended the Forum. See below the presentation delivered during the Forum
by Major General Hayk Kotanjian, Doctor of Political Sciences, (RF);
Counterterrorism Fellow (National Defense University, US); Elected Full member
of the Academy of Military Science, RF; Distinguished Visiting Professor, INSS,
NDU, US; Member of the CSTO Academic-Expert Council; Envoy Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary Minister; Chairman of the Political Science Association of
Armenia.
In contemporary international relations the process of
institution-building in conflict and post-conflict regions is an important factor
in ensuring peace and security. In his recent welcoming address to the Moscow
conference on international security, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
among the security priorities emphasized the importance of strengthening state
institutions, including the development of institution-building in the process
of peaceful settlement of disputes and resolution of regional conflicts.[1] As
the UN Secretary General pointed out, institutions can play an important role
in maintaining peace and reducing the risk of recurrence of violence, therefore
the institution-building must be central to peacekeeping efforts.[2]
The main
task of institution-building performed by international organizations is the
capacity building of a state entity to provide it with the opportunity to
exercise control over its own territory, as well as to meet the essential needs
of the population, including the effective functioning of the judicial system
and other governmental and social and public institutions. Ultimately, the
consistency of state sovereignty is reflected in the effectiveness of these
institutions, which gives opportunity to а subject of power to establish
relationships with other actors operating in conflict or post-conflict regions
and to share the responsibility for control over the situation, as well as the
provision of stability, security and lasting peace.
The establishment of
effective and legitimate institutions is challenging even under the most
favorable conditions. This problem becomes even more complicated in the process
of peoples’ self-determination, accompanying the disintegration of
multinational states, characterized by regime change. As you know, the right to
self-determination was recognized following the World War II, first in Article
1 of the UN Charter, which entered into force in 1945, and then in the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
(adopted by the Resolution 1514 of the UN General Assembly’s 15th Session on
December 14, 1960), and in subsequent UN documents. Similar principles are
enshrined in the documents of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe – the Helsinki Final Act of 1975,[3] the Concluding Document of the
Vienna Meeting of 1986,[4] the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference
on the Human Dimension of 1990,[5] and other international legal instruments.
International actors have played and continue to play an important role in the
formation of unrecognized or partially recognized states. The process of
self-determination of peoples in connection with the dissolution of the Soviet
Union is of particular interest to conflict analysis. The interest of political
science to the processes of self-determination on the whole post-Soviet space
stems from the recent political and legal fact of Crimea’s self-determination.
The study of the international organizations’ practice of implementation of the
UN principles and norms relating to equal rights and free self-determination of
peoples in settling and resolving regional conflicts in Abkhazia,
Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, and South Ossetia is of special interest.
Commending the efforts of the UN and the OSCE, made with varying success
regarding institutional peace-building in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transnistria, we will focus on the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh’s
self-determination from the standpoint of institution-building’s legality in
the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and democratic development
of its institutional capacity as a factor of competent and sustainable control
over the stable provision of political, economic and social life of society,
democratically guaranteeing law-and-order within the NKR, the protection of
individual and collective human rights. It should be assessed as a political
and legal fact that all of the referenda on self-determination having taken
place in the USSR territory and post-Soviet space, only the referenda in
Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria were held in compliance with the
then-in-force legislation.[6]
The institution-building process in the NKR began
in 1991. In accordance with the requirements of international law and the
then-in-force Soviet legislation, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was proclaimed
on September 2, 1991, which exercised its right to self-determination through a
nation-wide referendum of December 10, 1991. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan – declaring
its withdrawal from the Soviet state jurisdiction by the independence act of
October 18, 1991, before the referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh according to the
USSR Law on the Procedure for Resolving Issues related to the Secession of
Union Republics from the USSR of April 3, 1990 – legislatively rejected the
necessity to coordinate with it the further fate of Nagorno-Karabakh.[7] There
was also no necessity to coordinate the results of the self-determination with
the USSR central authorities due to the Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21,
1991, on the dissolution of the USSR.[8]
At the same time, it is important to
note that according to the documents of the Commission for the Referendum in
Nagorno-Karabakh the Azerbaijani minority, in accordance with the letter of the
UN Charter, was granted equal rights with the Armenian majority to freely
express its will, however, on the orders of Baku authorities the Azerbaijanis
of Nagorno-Karabakh were forced to abandon the right to participate in the
referendum. Thus, the law-governed self-determination and the proclamation of
the NKR’s independence occurred in the light of the collapse of the single
union state and the establishment of new states in its place, including the
very Republic of Azerbaijan.
The process of democratic state-building of the
NKR consistently developed in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches
of power. The state-building in the NKR acquired systemic feature after the
adoption in 2006 by direct democracy – a referendum – of the Fundamental Law.
Thus, on the basis of targeted development of democratic institutions of all
three branches of power, and adherence to checks and balances between them,
since 1991 open democratically competitive presidential and parliamentary
elections have been held in the NKR, and since 1998 – through elections local
authorities have been formed. According to the assessments of international
observers –elections in the NKR are conducted in line with the Electoral Code
of the Republic and the universally recognized norms of international law.[9] A
symptomatic example of consistent actions of the NKR authorities on the way to
reinforce the institution of democratic elections and develop civil society
were the fifth presidential elections of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which
took place in 2012, with the participation of three candidates, including the
opposition ones.[10]
A priority area of institution-building in
Nagorno-Karabakh is the military security building. In response to the military
aggression by the Azerbaijani side in 1992 against the lawfully self-determined
Nagorno-Karabakh, in conformity with Article 51 of the UN Charter,[11] the NKR
launched institution-building in the field of defense, forming an efficient
Defense Army of the NKR, currently corresponding to the contemporary
international standards.[12]As a modern regular military institution of an
unrecognized state, the NKR Defense Army, however, in practice makes a feasible
contribution to the efforts of the international community to maintain a
balance of power, as well as peace, stability and security in the South
Caucasus and the surrounding region.
The recent successful completion of the
monographic thesis Guidelines of National Security Strategy of the Republic of
Nagorno-Karabakh – with the use of the latest methodological achievements of
the US and the RF – evidences the NKR’s systemic steps in the
institution-building of defense security sphere. The most important landmark
achievement of the institutional viability of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
will be the solution of an extremely difficult task, which is already under
development – the interagency elaboration of the NKR National Security Strategy
– in terms of its non-recognized status.
Drawing parallels between Kosovo and
Nagorno-Karabakh, it can be stated that the steps towards the
institution-building in Kosovo by such authoritative international
organizations as the UN, the OSCE and the EU are also taken in the NKR with no
less efficiency, but with a very important difference – in the NKR the
institutional promotion of democracy is implemented on its own, with the
support of the Republic of Armenia. In particular, with the help of Armenia and
the support of the Armenian Diaspora, the recovery of vitally important objects
of infrastructure and economy of the NKR is implemented.[13] Thus, summing up
the facts of institution-building in Nagorno-Karabakh, it can be concluded that
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is the de facto legitimate and democratic state.
In the context of ensuring international security, the assessment of the
existence of unrecognized states in a certain sense is stereotyped and often
presented as a security threat. However, the example of the unrecognized
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic shows that the systemic institution-building based on
the conformity to law – aimed at the democratic strengthening of the state
sovereignty and its effective defense – can be considered by the international
community as a contributing factor in both national and regional security.
In
concluding my presentation, as the President of the Political Science
Association of Armenia, I consider it my duty to appeal to the Heads of the
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries – Presidents of Russia, the US, and France,
in connection with the distortion of the truth by the head of the neighboring
state in his speech at the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe of June 24, 2014. President Aliyev used the PACE’s floor to once
again, now from the international organization platform, declare territorial
claims against the Republic of Armenia, arguing that the Armenian state was
allegedly established on the historical Azerbaijani lands. Without dwelling on
the indisputable evidences of the fact of falsification by the Azerbaijani side
of the history and appropriation of historical and cultural heritage of the
peoples of the South Caucasus and Iran, carried out under the political and
financial sponsorship of the Azerbaijani authorities, we will focus only on the
inadmissibility of territorial claims to the neighboring sovereign state.[14]
Such an overt threat to the inviolability of borders and integrity of the
Republic of Armenia contradicts not only the UN objectives and principles of
set forth in Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Chapter I of the UN Charter “To
develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace”, but also the status of the presiding
official in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The
argumentation by the President of Azerbaijan that indigenous Armenians of
Karabakh are newcomers – through affiliating the “geographic toponyms” to
Azerbaijani people – is, in fact, false.[15] The Armenian side has archival
documentary evidences that the Armenian toponyms of Karabakh were turkicized as
a result of the resale by Mehdi Quli Khan of the lands of the Armenian Melik of
Varanda during 1806-1822 to Muslim Beks of his tribe Jevanshir that moved to
Karabakh in the 18th century from Khorasan province of Persia.[16]
The
reasoning of the head of the neighboring state, presiding at the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe – about the impossibility of the existence
of the two Armenian states, in the case, when as a result of the collapse of
the Ottoman Empire and the process of decolonization, the Arab people exercised
its right to self-determination in more than 20 states – is beneath criticism.
As a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, besides Azerbaijan, 5 more
kindred Turkic states were self-determined. Moreover, it is well known, that
the slogan “one nation – two states” of the neighboring state’s incumbent
President’s father regarding Turkey and Azerbaijan, according to the official
documents of these countries, continues to be a doctrinal basis for the
existence – as two Turkic states – of Azerbaijan and Turkey.[17] Thus,
following the logic of his father, the head of the neighboring state could talk
about the NKR and the Republic of Armenia as one nation, and two Armenian
states, lawfully self-determined as a result of the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
At present, Nagorno-Karabakh by its pace and the results of the
democratic institutional development exceeds Azerbaijan. The undeniable proof
of this are the reports of such authoritative international organizations as
Freedom House[18] and Reporters without Borders[19]. The reaction of some Azerbaijani
politicians on the recent speech of their President at the PACE may serve a
unique supplement to the comparative analysis of the real democratic features
of institution-building in the NKR and Azerbaijan. The speech of Ilham Aliyev
at the PACE session, presenting Azerbaijan as a democratic state, is assessed
to be truth-distorting also by a number of Azerbaijani opposition members. As
the Head of the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan (PFPA) Ali Kerimli notes “The
fact that in Azerbaijan the corruption is rampant, there are up to 130
political prisoners in the country, and elections are falsified, is known
worldwide. The statements of Aliyev on ensuring freedom of speech and assembly
in the country and the absence of political prisoners are completely false”.[20]
Replacing the existing problems of protection of democratic freedoms and human
rights in his own state by cultivating the image of the enemy represented by
the Armenian people, the emphases made by the President Aliyev in his speech at
the PACE confirm his rejection of democratization in Azerbaijan. The Political
Science Association of Armenia considers the publicly proclaimed armenophobic
and bellicose rhetoric of the head of the neighboring state as another attempt
to refrain from a peaceful constructive dialogue, ignorance of the efforts of
international partners, and reluctance to take political responsibility for the
establishment of lasting peace between the Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples,
and those of the region as a whole.
[4] ИТОГОВЫЙ ДОКУМЕНТ ВЕНСКОЙ ВСТРЕЧИ 1986 ГОДА
ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛЕЙ ГОСУДАРСТВ – УЧАСТНИКОВ СОВЕЩАНИЯ ПО БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ И
СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВУ В ЕВРОПЕ. СЕТЕВОЙ ЭТНОКУЛЬТУРНЫЙ ПРОЕКТ ”KRYASHEN.RU”, 2002: http://kryashen.ru/index5.php?link=10&prav=6
[6]See Волкова А. З. Референдумы в контексте
истории становления и развития демократических институтов в Приднестровье
(конец ХХ – начало ХХI вв.). Министерство Иностранных Дел Приднестровской
Молдавской Республики. Дипломатический вестник Приднестровья. Референдумы в
контексте истории становления и развития демократических институтов в
Приднестровье (конец ХХ – начало ХХI вв.):
http://vestnik.mfa-pmr.org/engine/print.php?newsid=106 Акт о результатах
референдума о независимости Нагорно-Карабахской Республики. Министерство
Иностранных Дел Нагорно – Карабахской Республики. 10 декабря 1991г. г.
Степанакерт.http://www.nkr.am/ru/referendum/42/
[7]See Закон СССР “О порядке решения вопросов,
связанных с выходом союзной республики из СССР” No 1410-1 от 3 апреля 1990 г.”
Ведомости Съезда народных депутатов СССР, Верховного Совета СССР”, 1990, No 15;
Закон АзР “об упразднении НКАО АзР”, 26 ноября 1991 года. Ведомости ВС АзР,
1991, No 24;. Акт о результатах референдума о независимости Нагорно-Карабахской
Республики, 10 декабря 1991г. г. Степанакерт, Нагорно-Карабахская Республика,
Министерство Иностранных Дел):http://www.nkr.am/rus/facts/referendum.html
[10]SeeА. Цыганок, Мнение международных
наблюдателей о выборах Президента Нагорно-Карабахской Республики – 19 июля 2012.
28 июля 2012 г.:http://www.tsiganok.ru/vpa/conf/doc/766/
[12] See Գ. Հովհաննիսյան, ՊետութենաշինությանևխաղաղաշինությանմիջազգայինփորձըԿոսովոյիօրինակով: «ՀայկականԲանակ», 2012, հմ. 3, էջ 72-73.
[16]SeeП. А. Чобанян. Проблемы легитимности
Карабахских ханов в контексте политической истории Шуши. “Феномен Шуши.
Историко-политологическое исследование (коллективная монография)”. “Рабочие
тетради”, 2013, N 1-2.
[19] «Do you know who Atlético Madrid’s real
sponsor is?» May 22, 2014: http://en.rsf.org/azerbaidjan-do-you-know-who-atletico-madrid-s-22-05-2014,46334.html;
«2014 World Press Freedom Index»: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
[20]See”Ильхам Алиев публично показал нетерпимость
критике”.contact.az, 2014 Июнь 25: http://www.contact.az/docs/2014/Interview/062500082611ru.htm#.U699G_mSwho
Read more at:
http://en.aravot.am/2014/07/02/165893/
© 1998 - 2014 Aravot – News from Armenia
