|
«Azg» (Yerevan), December, 9th, 2005. |
|
|
VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV'S
SPEECH AT CONFERENCE 'ARMENIA-RUSSIA. A
LOOK INTO THE FUTURE. TECHNOLOGIES OF COOPERATION' ( |
|
|
English and Russians versions of Kazimirov's
speech are posted without abridgment
|
|
|
I would like to suggest to pass
from a jungle of geopolitics or speculative political science to things
rather simple but altogether important and sensitive. I represent here the Association of the Russian
Diplomats as the vice-president of its board but I act exclusively on my
behalf. As an ambassador in retirement it is easier for me to express my
thoughts even on such painful theme as Nagorno Karabakh. Not everything I'll
tell is over doubt but I would ask you to pay attention to the given circle
of issues. One of these days I sent an open letter to the
Azerbaijani and Armenian public organizations on the conflict in Karabakh
titled "Second breath to national diplomacy!" Briefly, about its
essence: The regular break (this time because of elective
campaigns in As in 1994 we needed "parties of peace" to
stop the war, (we prepared then the shift of public opinion to the
termination of bloodshed), now we need parties of realism and flexibility and
persistent explanatory even educational work. What's the sense of establishing the fact that the
society is not ready to concessions? It is necessary to prepare it for them.
Even when keeping all contacts of the parties under wraps, there is room for
NGOs - the national diplomacy. Members of the NGOs are devoted, far-sighted
and initiative people. They can help the heads of the parties to prepare
ground for a political maneuver and balanced concessions. Without it the
sides will hardly make progress. Official positions are rigid; contacts are
broken off. Only NGOs can revive dialogue, soften the atmosphere and put
forward "tough" issues. Here are only some possible directions for their
work: 1) Destiny of Nagorno Karabakh - a principal cause
of the conflict and the main controversial problem. There are only three ways
for its decision: two forceful ("at any cost" or by the right of
"winner") and only one reasonable. It's important to categorically
reject both of the forceful approaches, to instill it in consciousness of
both peoples and the international community. The settlement of this issue is
comprehensible only if the will of population of Nagorno Karabakh is
considered! 2) Only participants of "national
diplomacy" can tell now everybody that Azerbaijanis and Armenians will
have to live side by side for centuries and it is better to lead a
good-neighborly coexistence than a hostile. So far nobody is able to
designate the strategic target - the historical reconciliation of the two
people. It is not within the state leaders' grasp yet, and the peoples are
not given normal prospect (in fact, contradictions between the Russians and
Germans, the French and Germans were far more acute!). 3) NGOs should place the priority of reason and
suspension over emotions and cries of pseudo-patriots, to shut up their
radicals. One can object: lot of blood was spilled! But those have even more!
Is it possible to measure the righteousness of a case by the number of victims
and losses of the sides? 4) It is important to overcome the conceit of
winners in some Armenians and thirst for revenge in Azerbaijanis. There are
no winners here but only people who has suffered
from conflicts. Look more widely and more deeply and you will see a tragic
draw: there are no Armenians in Nakhichevan and no Azeris in Nagorno Karabakh. 5) Formerly, both people used to live together.
Exasperation of war has led to delimitation. Ethnic cleansings are
unacceptable during war and especially in peacetime. But what to do now? We
need special discretion not to run into new complications. It's dangerous to
haste with reunification. 6) We especially need adherence to peaceful means in
settling any controversial issue. Each party constantly alludes to a favorite
principle (one to the territorial integrity, the other to the right of
self-determination). But why they forget about two other principles
particularly important in disputed situations: the peaceful settlement of
disputes + abstention of force and threats by force. Those are the very
principles they should stick to! They are to come first! "National diplomacy" - for humanistic,
anti-militant ideas, against any negative phenomena: tension, occupation,
arms race and power atavisms. Initially, It is vicious to count on power in
relations between peoples but nowadays it all is more ill-considered and
dangerous. 7) The world lives in a different century with
absolutely different values: democracy, tolerance, contacts, flexibility,
compromises. National diplomacy promotes these values. 8) All sane people stand for restoration and
fostering of contacts between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Other approaches
simply have no future. In spite of obstacles the most various forms of
dialogue between Azeri and Armenian NGOs are useful. Including meetings
abroad and, certainly, in 9) It is necessary to put it once and for all that
the parties should carry out agreements. On February 6, 1995, one single agreement
was signed under aegis of OSCE about strengthening the cease-fire regime and
about the order of settlement of incidents on the contact line. Incidents
claim lives servicemen and civilians. It is simply unbelievable that the three parties
have not been carrying out this agreement for many years, and the OSCE shows
total indifference to this. Such irresponsibility of the parties and OSCE is
inadmissible. These days I again received acknowledgement, that One of these days the foreign ministers of the OSCE
member states will meet in Besides, one of the sides has more than once broken
arrangements. Pactus sun servando.
One cannot strive for It is only an approximate frame of actions for
national diplomacy on Karabakh. Confidentiality of contacts between By order from above, famous intellectual N. Bahmanov has called my appeal provocative and has
emphasized that NGOs do not play supposedly any role in settlement. Someone
would like they did not play. But there are also other responses from both sides.
Rounding off, I would like to tell that NGOs can and
should play a role, first of all, in prevention of a new war. To show
perniciousness of incidents, aggressive rhetoric, arms race and other
preparations for war. For 2-3 more years direct war will not be a threat
because of balance of forces of the parties. The international community with
assistance of NGOs should make its resumption, even accidental, impossible
for the years to come. It is necessary to encourage in every possible way
contacts between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, to use any public and other
forums and appeal to the UN Security Council, the G8, OSCE, to the Council of
Europe, etc., to overcome planting total negativism. It demands indefatigable
work but preventive is better than treatment. Because of obvious deficiency of direct contacts
with Azerbaijanis, Armenians seem should to go after chances of meetings in Thank you. |
|
|
|
|