This is the story of a people who exercised their legitimate right to self-determination. A people who have freely expressed will and who has run for nearly a century, the hostility of those who claim his masters. This people is that of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Back to History

Karabakh (Artsakh known for centuries) was part of the Armenian kingdoms. Evidenced by the works of ancient authors (Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Claudius Ptolemy, Plutarch, Dio Cassius) and many cultural and historical testimonies of the Armenian presence (monuments, churches, cemeteries, etc.).

In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan declared their independence. Populated mostly by Armenians – about 95% – Nagorno-Karabakh was then an entity with attributes of the de facto sovereignty (1). By this time, Azerbaijan began to assert claims on this territory and tried to annex by force. From May 1918 to April 1920, several massacres were perpetrated against the Armenian population. For the month of March 1920, there were approximately 20,000 victims while 20 000 Armenians were deported from Shushi, Karabakh capital in that time. The illegality of these abuses has been emphasized by the League of Nations, which has also rejected the accession of Azerbaijan on the grounds that it was impossible to clearly define its borders (2).

With the Sovietization of the Caucasian republics, the Azerbaijani authorities receive the green light to annex Artsakh.

On 5 July 1921, the Caucasian Bureau of the Russian Communist Party, under pressure from Joseph Stalin, decided to award the Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Note that this Office had no authority to decide territorial disputes in a third country, especially as the Soviet Union had not yet been created and Armenia as Azerbaijan independent republics were recognized de jure.

After the end of his tenure program Baku went even further. While the Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party called for the creation of an autonomous region on all of Nagorno-Karabakh, only part of the territory was included in the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKAO). Result: it has become an enclave and has been deprived of common border with Armenia.

In Soviet times, the Azerbaijani authorities have sought to hinder social and economic development of the region by taking a real ethnic cleansing and destroying or appropriating the Armenian monuments and cultural heritage. In one of his interviews (3), Heydar Aliyev, former President of Azerbaijan, confessed to everything possible to change the demography of Nagorno Karabakh for Azerbaijanis. In fact, the Armenians in 1921 constituted 94.4% of the population accounted for no more than 76.9% in 1989.

The people of Artsakh have never accepted the policy of the Azerbaijani authorities to deprive them of their right to choose their own destiny. On several occasions, they went to plead their case before the Soviet central authorities. Several requests and petitions were sent, asking Moscow to reconsider the decision of 1921 and bring them to Armenia.

Perestroika, initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, provided an opportunity to reopen the issue. The Popular Movement for the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia (led by committees “Karabakh” and “Krunk”) takes on a new dimension in 1988. This movement, which campaigns for the end of the Azerbaijani and guardianship the right to self-determination was one of the drivers of this process of liberalization, democratization and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

On 20 February 1988, the Council of Representatives of the people of Karabakh – the local parliament – adopts a resolution asking the Soviet authorities to link the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.

The reaction of Soviet Azerbaijan does not expect. A new wave of ethnic cleansing against Armenians sweeping the territory of Artsakh and in the regions of Azerbaijan populated by Armenians. In February 1988, Sumgait was the scene of a massacre that left dozens dead. Violence is not slow to win Baku, Kirovabad and other towns and villages. In total, hundreds of Armenians are killed in these pogroms, about 400 000 are forced to flee, taking refuge in Armenia, Russia and other Soviet republics.

The legal basis

On 3 April 1990, a new law is passed that allows autonomous entities and ethnic groups to freely determine their legal status in case of separation of a republic of UR SS. Following the declaration of independence of Soviet Azerbaijan, on 30 August 1991, the Nagorno-Karabakh launches into the same legal procedure and adopted its own Declaration of Independence. In the referendum of 10 December 1991, held under the supervision of international observers, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh shall act by an overwhelming majority (over 99% of voters) in favor of independence.

The referendum, which took place at a time when Nagorno-Karabakh was still part of the UR SS was parfaitementconforme to Soviet law. Logically, the day after the disappearance of the SS UR two state formations were created on the territory of the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan: the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

For years, the European Parliament has adopted numerous resolutions supporting the struggle of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination. Thus, in its resolution of 21 June 1999, he said: “The autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh declared its independence following similar declarations by former Soviet Socialist Republics after the collapse of the UR SS in September 1991. »

This right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental right enshrined in the UN Charter and reaffirmed by several other fundamental international documents.

Unable to resist any legal argument to the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, Baku then attempted to reduce the problem to a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The conflict and the peace process

Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas populated by Armenians, ethnic cleansing conducted by the Azerbaijani authorities quickly gave way to large-scale military operations. These have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people and caused widespread destruction. In this war, Azerbaijan has used mercenaries, including Afghan and Chechen, in close liaison with known terrorist organizations.

These serious violations of international law have not escaped the attention of the international community. In 1988-1991, the US Congress has condemned repeatedly, aggression of Azerbaijan against Armenian civilians. And adopted in 1992, Section 907 of the Act to support freedom, which limits US aid to Azerbaijan because of its aggressive policy and blockade against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh .

In 1993, the Security Council adopted four resolutions calling for the cessation of hostilities, the opening lines of communication and the resumption of peace talks with all concerned parties, including Nagorno-Karabakh. In response, Azerbaijan has merely intensified its military offensive. But on the ground, the balance of power turned to his disadvantage, and soon he had no other choice but to seek a cease-fire in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In May 1994, a cease-fire was signed between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan, which Armenia has also joined. A new trilateral agreement on the consolidation of the cease-fire was reached in February 1995. Both agreements are constantly violated by Azerbaijan.

Since the mid-1990s, the peace talks are led by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, composed of France, Russia and the United States. During the first phase, the peace negotiations involving the three parties – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. But in the late 1990s, Azerbaijan has broken the dialogue with Nagorno-Karabakh. In order to preserve the peace process, Armenia continued negotiations, considering that, in time, Nagorno-Karabakh would necessarily be involved. It will, in fact, impossible to achieve a lasting settlement without his participation; this approach is fully shared by the co-chairs.

The co-chairs of the Minsk Group have worked so hard, organizing regular talks at a high level and multiplying shuttles between Baku, Stepanakert and Yerevan. Wasted: all peace efforts were sabotaged by Azerbaijan. In 2001, the parties met in Paris, rose close to a settlement. Unfortunately, Heydar Aliyev, the Azerbaijani president at the time and father of the current president, returned to the agreements developed in the French capital.

The basic principles

In November 2007, at the OSCE Ministerial Council in Madrid, the co-chairs presented the basic principles of conflict settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh, better known as the “Madrid Principles”.

Azerbaijan, first publicly refused to accept the existence of the Madrid proposals. Then, Baku has sought to falsify the essence of the document and distort the content of the peace process.

The co-chair countries have therefore been taken to disclose the outline of the Madrid document, which is based on three fundamental principles of international law: the non-use of force or threat of force; the right to self-determination of peoples; and territorial integrity.

The main elements of the proposals were also unveiled: the determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of the will of its people; an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh to the organization of free expression of the will; Multi-level security guarantees, including a peacekeeping operation to peace around Nagorno-Karabakh; the return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh; a corridor linking Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia; the right of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their former places of residence.

Azerbaijan has rejected each of these points. He not only tried to change the essence of the negotiation process, but also tried to falsify the nature of conflict in various international fora, not hesitating to mislead the international community by presenting the consequences of the conflict as its causes.

At the OSCE summit held in Astana in 2010, the co-chairs of the Minsk Group warned: “These proposed elements have been conceived as an integrated whole, and any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to reach a solution. »

Between 2008 and 2011, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was heavily involved in the peace process. He organized many trilateral meetings between the Presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, during which the parties have adopted four reports (4).

Support the efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement, the presidents of the three co-chair countries have adopted five statements (5). Statements on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement were also adopted in the framework of the summit and the OSCE Ministerial Conferences (6).

Armenia welcomed all these statements and expressed its willingness to resolve the conflict on the basis of the proposals expressed.

For its part, Azerbaijan has not only refused to endorse those statements, but rejected all versions of the Basic Principles of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh proposed by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group, including latest presented to the heights of St. Petersburg (June 2010), Astrakhan (October 2010), Sochi (March 2011) and Kazan (June 2011).

We participated in the Kazan meeting, organized at the initiative of President Medvedev with the support of Obama and Sarkozy, in a positive spirit, with the feeling that an agreement on the Basic Principles was at hand. The US and French presidents had put their weight behind. In a speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, just before the meeting, the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, said that if Azerbaijan did not propose new amendments, it was s expect positive results. But, again, the Kazan summit did not record any breakthrough, despite the hopes he had raised. At the last moment, Azerbaijan has turned around, with ten amendments to the text that was, in fact, already approved. The previous meetings scenario was repeated again.

After the summit in Kazan

After the summit in Kazan, the peace process has seen nearly two years of stagnation. By its negative attitude, Azerbaijan has not only torpedoed the negotiations; He also helped to destabilize the situation on the ground. During this period, the violations of the cease-fire committed by Azerbaijan and provocations along the line of contact between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan, as well as the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan , have multiplied.

The co-chairs received an international mandate to facilitate the peace process and to contribute to the preservation and strengthening of the existing cease-fire. They identified a number of confidence and security measures (CSBMs): consolidation of the cease-fire; withdrawal of snipers on the contact line; creation of a mechanism to investigate violations of the cease-fire. These proposals were approved by large international organizations as well as by the UN Secretary General. They have also been recognized by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. But all were rejected by Baku.

Azerbaijan has even refused to endorse the establishment of the investigation mechanism although it had been accepted by President Aliyev (statements of Sochi on March 5, 2011 and January 23, 2012). He also threatened to veto the vote of the OSCE budget for 2012 if funds were not allocated to the creation of such an investigation process.

Armenia, it has always supported these confidence and security-building measures (CSBMs). We believe they will create favorable conditions for negotiations. Azerbaijan supports the opposite point of view and considering the implementation of these measures only after progress has been made in the settlement process. This makes little sense, since it is obvious that if we were to a solution, these CBMs would be less necessary. It is equally clear that without trust between the parties, no solution is possible.

Armenophobia in Azerbaijan

Baku openly encourages xenophobia and fuels hatred against Armenians. President Aliyev went so far as to Armenians around the world as the “enemy number one” of Azerbaijan.

This anti-Armenian sentiment culminated with the Safarov case. In 2004, the Azerbaijani young soldier who was participating in a NATO training in Hungary attack in his sleep and another soldier kills an ax simply because it is Armenian. Convicted in Hungary, where he is serving his sentence, he was finally extradited in 2012. As soon returned home, instead of being incarcerated, he was pardoned and covered with honors. The Azerbaijani leadership made him a symbol of national pride and an example for the younger generations, thus incurring the disapproval of the world. The Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe has been very clear: “To glorify and reward such a person goes against all accepted standards for the protection of human rights and the rule of law. “President of the European Parliament and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have also expressed their concern. As for the High Commissioner for UN Human Rights, he said that “hate crimes of this gravity, ethnically motivated to be denounced and punished, not publicly glorified.” Despite these caveats, the Baku authorities continued to claim that they had “very good and fair” and lambasted back the attitude of the international community.

When in Vienna in November 2013, through the efforts of co-chairs the high-level meeting between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan resumed after the famous Safarov case, it was believed that negotiations could go forward. Again, these expectations were disappointed, Azerbaijan contriving to destabilize the situation in the conflict zone.

The Azerbaijani side has conducted several raids that have caused many casualties, greatly increasing the tension on the ground. Armenian villagers who had strayed by mistake into Azerbaijani territory has been arrested, humiliated in front of the television cameras – a tactic beloved of terrorist organizations – before being executed the following day.

In Azerbaijan, journalists, civil society activists, representatives of the intellectual elite are persecuted as “Armenian spies” or “enemies of the nation” for the sole reason that they call for peace and reconciliation. The writer Akram Aylisli has been targeted because he had published a novel (7) in which he was referring to anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku and Sumgait. His books were burned in the public square and himself had to leave the country to escape death threats.

The armenophobia has become a constant of political discourse. The bravest who stand against the official line quickly disappear from the scene. The manipulation of history and propaganda reached the point that Armenia and even Yerevan city yet several thousand years, is presented as an ancient Azerbaijani territory.

At a time when the protection and promotion of human rights are considered fundamental principles, intolerance towards the values ​​of foreign civilizations, damage of cultural and religious heritage and even its systematic destruction must be condemned with same firmness and determination that violence against peoples.

The systematic destruction of the masterpieces of Armenian architecture and sacred sites, including the rampage between 1998 and 2005 in Nakhichevan (8) stone cross of thousands delicately carved by Armenian masters between the ninth and sixteenth century are clearly under this category of crimes.

Thousands of these giant medieval sculptures were bulldozed under the watchful eyes of the Azerbaijani authorities before the area is transformed into a military ground. An act of vandalism severely condemned by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) at its 16th General Assembly: “This heritage, which was among the treasures of the world heritage can no longer be transmitted today to future generations. »

Many international organizations have alerted the public about these manifestations of racism and intolerance, violations of human rights committed in Azerbaijan and politics of hatred directed against Armenians. In its report on Azerbaijan, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) noted with deep concern “the consistently negative rhetoric from the authorities and vis-à-vis media in the Republic of Armenia “and recommended that the Azerbaijani authorities to” respond appropriately to all discrimination and hate speech against Armenians. ” In response, Baku has merely alleged to organize conferences on tolerance and freedom in the hope to impose on others his very personal conception of human rights …

Azerbaijan, threat to regional security

With a rich experience on corruption internally, Azerbaijan seeks to transfer this know-how in the sphere of interstate relations. In foreign capitals and within international organizations, lobbying teams are working hard to justify the aggressive policy of Baku.

The co-chairs of the Minsk Group – Russian President in Sochi (in August 2014), the American Secretary of State in Newport (September 2014) and the French President in Paris (October 2014) – organized meetings summit with the participation of Heads of State of Armenia and Azerbaijan to reduce tension and prevent further escalation. Azerbaijan has again refused the proposals made by François Hollande on confidence-building measures at the summit in Paris.

Immediately after these meetings the anti-Armenian rhetoric of the Azerbaijani authorities is up a notch. The defense minister has again said his country would solve the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh by military means, and boasted of the 27% increase in the defense budget! Celuici will reach $ 4.8 billion in 2015, thirty times more than in 2003 – the year Ilham Aliyev succeeded his father as head of state.

Last challenge to date: in November 2014, a helicopter of the Defense Army of Nagorno-Karabakh was killed by Azerbaijani forces during a training flight. Result: three young soldiers killed. Azerbaijanis have maintained the crash under intensive fire for about ten days, preventing rescue teams and representatives of international organizations – OSCE, Red Cross – to approach the site. The application of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group to open a humanitarian corridor to evacuate the bodies of the crew members was also rejected. Faced with this serious violation of international humanitarian law, it is ultimately the Defense Army of Nagorno-Karabakh which had to mount a special operation to go and retrieve the bodies.

Baku continues to oppose the Minsk Group and the international community. He not only ignores calls to implement confidence-building measures, but it pours oil on the fire, and taking full responsibility for the escalation.

For twenty years, Azerbaijan has done everything to undermine the regime of cease-fire. Military operations along the Line of Contact and the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan resulted in massive loss of human lives and have greatly increased the tension on the ground. All statements and Baku executive decisions prove it: Azerbaijan has become a threat to security and stability in the South Caucasus. The country loses the sense of reality and tries by all means to derail the peace talks. This is why, despite intensive efforts by the three co-chair countries over the past six years (nearly two peaks, dozens of ministerial meetings, tours of the three co-chairs to the region) it was not possible to record a breakthrough in negotiations.

The Azerbaijani party conduct a relentless smear campaign against the co-chairs of the Minsk Group. It also takes the personal representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office (which nevertheless employs his team to prevent the situation from degenerating). Azerbaijani officials are trying to move the settlement process in formats other than the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

In fact, the masters of Baku are only interested in obtaining unilateral advantages. This explains why they have deliberately caused the failure of the last summit (Saint Petersburg in June 2010, Astrakhan in October 2010, Sochi in March 2011, Kazan in June 2011). Armenia regrets. It considers – and the co-chairs with it – any maneuver to slow down the process of negotiations to reach a balanced agreement on the basic principles of a comprehensive peace is unacceptable.

Is a settlement possible?

We are convinced that the principles and elements set out in successive statements of heads of state co-chair countries, over the past six years, can be the basis for a just and lasting settlement of the conflict.

We share the approach that people should be prepared for peace, not for war. Unfortunately, the Azerbaijani leadership are, so far, just the opposite. Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia, in response to the call of the presidents of co-chair countries, has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of international law.

We fully agree with the Co-Chair countries to assert that the use of force will not resolve the conflict and that only a negotiated settlement can lead to stability, peace, and open new opportunities for cooperation and regional development. The sooner the Azerbaijani leadership understand this reality, the higher the resolution of the conflict will be close.

The day Azerbaijan will be stripped of its illusions, the day he will realize that it is not engulfing the oil money in a military strategy of tension endless it will get a favorable settlement with its interests This day, I repeat, we hope to visible progress in the peace process. Armenia, for its part, will continue in that direction. An exclusively peaceful means.

(1) In 1918-1920, the power was exercised by the Assembly of Armenians of Karabakh. July 22, 1918, the Assembly declared Nagorno-Karabakh independent political entity and elected a National Council (parliament) and a democratic government.
(2) Decision of the 5th Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations, December 1, 1920.
(3) Zerkalo, Azerbaijan, July 23, 2002.
(4) Mayendorf (2 November 2008), Astrakhan (27 October 2010) and Sochi (5 March 2011 and 23 January 2012).
(5) L’Aquila (2009), Muskoka (2010), Deauville (2011), Los Cabos (2012) and Eniskilen (2013).
(6) Helsinki (2008), Athens (2009), Almaty (2010), Vilnius (2011), Dublin (2012)
Kiev (2013), Basel (2014) and at the OSCE summit in Astana (2010).
(7) “Stone Dreams” Druzhba Narodov, 2012.
(8) – Stephen Castle, “Azerbaijan ‘flattened’ sacred Armenian site,” The Independent, 30 May 2006;

– Sarah Pickman, “Tragedy on the Araxes” archaeology.org, 30 June 2006;

– “US Envoy barred from Armenian cemetery in Azerbaijan,” RFE / RL, 22 April 2011.
Sunday, February 8, 2015,
Ara © armenews.com