Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide
The “Happy” phenomenon that has toured the world with over one hundred million views, under the now famous Pharell Williams, also installed in Artsakh to the chagrin of Azerbaijan. A beautiful lesson of optimism 
is nice to see!
“Is it necessary to live in a country recognized to be happy? Absolutely not! In addition, people with unrecognized Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) countries prosper, create and …… are happy there, “it is written in this video.
Azerbaijan is in the throes of another fit: Artsakh was indicated on Google maps as the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
The fact outraged Baku which hurried to call the move as Google’s “another provocation against Azerbaijan.”
The Republic Seismological Service Center under Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS) “raised the alarm” on the fact.
“We are concerned about such provocations against Azerbaijan and its territories by the international search system and the RSSC strongly condemns such provocative changes against our country on the map,” the Center said, according to APA.
APA further noted that this is not the first “provocation” committed b
Azerbaijan very quickly. Movses Hakobyan replied to a question about the Azeri attack occurred May 25 on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border line in which an Armenian officer Gagik Balayan had died. Krikor Amirzayan
May 05, 2014 | 16:51
Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian praised Iran for balanced and moderate stance on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
His comments came during a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in Tehran.
The Armenian foreign minister reiterated that during his talks with Zarif they have discussed achievement of a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, Fars agency reported.
Javad Zarif, in turn, announced Tehran’s preparedness to play a stronger role in the region to establish peace an stability.
“Iran always hopes that our region will become a region of peace and friendship and the Islamic Republic has spared no effort to this end and is ready to play a stronger role in the establishment of peace and stability in the region,” the agency quotes Zarif.
He referred to the current critical situation in Syria and Ukraine, and said, “Settlement of the regional issues is not in need of conflict and dispute.”
Zarif said that the ministers had discussed different issues pertaining to the two countries’ bilateral relations in political, economic, parliamentary and cultural fields, and expressed the hope that Tehran and Yerevan would witness expansion of ties in all these areas.
Nagorno-Karabakh began for the first time soybean. Norafr Stepanian director of the company “Reypsid” said after the first test experimental cultivation on 150 hectares was 
undertaken in 2013 planting soybean fields. “We made these crops Hadrout and other regions where we land, “said Norafr Stepanian. His company wants to produce soybean oil as well as food for livestock and poultry. The company “Reypsid” produced two years of vegetable oil Daghavart village in the region of Mardouni (Nagorno-Karabakh).
Krikor Amirzayan
Interview by Nvard Chalikyan
Panorama.am interview with Dr. William Slomanson, Professor of Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and visiting Professor at Pristina University. Dr. Slomanson argues that Nagorno-Karabakh qualifies as a case of 
remedial secession under the International Law.
– Dr. Slomanson, in one of your articles you argue that the cases of Ossetia, Abkhazia and Kosovo do not qualify as remedial secession, while in your article “Nagorno-Karabakh: An Alternative Legal Approach To Its Quest For Legitimacy” you argue that Nagorno-Karabakh presents such a case. How exactly does Nagorno-Karabakh qualify as a case of remedial secession and according to you what are the strongest points in NK’s argument of remedial secession?
– The internationally accepted sources of International Law include – treaties, state practice and judicial decisions (as embedded in ICJ Statute, Article 38d). There is no treaty on secession, and there never will be, as that would be a political suicide for states. As for state practice, it has characterized three of the last four unilateral secessions as being unique (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo—with no word yet on Crimea). There have otherwise been numerous conflicting state approaches to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The remaining recognized source on secession in the International Law is thus judicial decisions – those issued by national/international courts.
In this regard the undisputed lead case is the Canadian Supreme Court Quebec Secession case, with its three prongs. According to the first prong there must be a “People,” for which Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians within Azerbaijan no doubt qualify. Second, there must be “gross human rights violations” against this people – these violations were in place starting in 1915, when NK emptied out most of its Armenian population because of Turkish regional policies. These policies continued through and including 1989 (the Armenian population declined considerably as a result of gross human rights violations over many decades). In 1989 the US Senate-House passed Resolution 178 that expressed a concern on the ongoing violence in Nagorno-Karabakh – “seeking (2) Soviet re-establishment of economic and supply routes”; (4) “urge[s] … investigation of the violence against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh;” and (5) “express[es] the serious concern of the American people about the ongoing violence … interfer[ing] with international relief efforts.”
The Quebec decision’s third prong is “no alternative but secession”. Given the fact that the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was altered for a number of times – in 1919 (when the United Kingdom forced NK authorities to conclude an interim agreement with Azerbaijan), in 1921 (when Moscow annexed NK to the Azerbaijan SSR), in 1988 (by war) and in 1991 (by the declaration of independence) as well as taking into account the 2004 Minsk Group statement that NK independence is not possible under the USSR statute of 03 April 1990 (all of which are addressed in my 2012 article) I do not see how one could logically suggest that there is an alternative to secession.
– If Nagorno-Karabakh presents a strong case for remedial secession what implications can this have, given that the right to remedial secession is not a hard law?
– Given the non-existence of a secession treaty, multiple changes in sovereign status of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as national/international concerns (such as those expressed in the above US Congressional position), the above-mentioned recognized sources of International Law leave only one logical source for supporting Nagorno-Karabakh’s bid for legitimacy – a national (Canadian) Supreme Court decision on a matter of International Law. While not a primary source, such as State practice, it is a recognized source of International Law. If by “soft” law you mean enforceability, the arguable lack thereof is a discrete political point, while the Quebec elements are widely acclaimed and thus are more akin to hard law than soft law.
– Azerbaijan has officially adopted a stance that unless the conflict is resolved by peaceful means Azerbaijan has the “right” to take back Nagorno-Karabakh by force, appealing to the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and referring to alleged “occupation” of its territory. Is this stance of Azerbaijan compatible with international law or not (considering its international obligations and the 1994 ceasefire agreement)?
– Citing the UN Charter Article 51 self-defense by Azerbaijan is illogical, given the comparative size of both the Azeri land mass and military strength. NK, for example, does not have the Israeli drones that the Azeris use for patrolling the border. As 2006 Russian-American Dartmouth Conference report indicates, no single document (i.e., the 1994 ceasefire agreement) will supplant the need for all necessary parties to come to the table to hammer out a peace accord. One result of that not happening is the Azeri threat to use its military force to shoot down any plane/helicopter attempting to make the trip between the Yerevan and NK airports. So it would be NK, not Azerbaijan, that would end up with a decent Art 51 defense argument in this context.
Interview by Nvard Chalikyan
Source: Panorama.am
BY HRANT APOVIAN
“Crimea has returned home.”
“It is a sovereign and independent state.”
—Russian President Vladimir Putin
Nagorno-Karabakh will return home as well. It is already a sovereign and independent state. Its people – after decades of pogroms and servitude under Azeri rule – have exercised their right for self determination and have voted to be masters of their own fate. Historically, Crimea has been part of Russia, while Nagorno-Karabakh has been part of Armenia. While Nikita Khrushchev donated Crimea to the Ukraine, it was Joseph Stalin that arbitrarily made the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan.
The inalienable right of a people for self-determination is reinforced by the United Nations Charter. It has become the weapon of choice for all disenfranchised people around the world in the twenty first century. Simmering conflicts are surfacing and one after the other like dominoes, necessary and inevitable changes are taking place. Oppressive regimes are unleashing movements that will engender secessions.
Unfortunately, these unresolved conflicts face the specter of territorial integrity. The use of territorial integrity as an obstacle is often arbitrary and may or may not be brought up for geopolitical reasons. However, it can no longer be used to stifle the oppressed as the will for self-determination has superseded territorial boundaries. A joint statement by the Motherland, Democracy and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, along with the Artsakhatun deputy group, said that last week’s referendum in Crimea “has become another precedent of realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, once again proving that territorial integrity of states does not prevail over people’s free expression of will in international law.” The Nagorno-Karabakh Parliament urged that post-referendum matters be resolved peacefully and based on mutual respect.
Interestingly, James Warlick, the American mediator for the Karabakh conflict, stated that “despite the fact that the United States cannot accept Russian operations in Ukraine, there are other areas where we can work together. Like for instance establishing peace in Nagorno-Karabakh. We should try to understand, what we can learn from the Ukraine crisis, for the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.” This approach from the US mediator towards resolving conflicts peacefully is reassuring and no doubt welcome.
However, conflicts regarding self-determination are not always resolved peacefully. Some are recognized by the West, some by Russia, but rarely by the state that loses what it considers to be part of its territory. Each unresolved conflict is unique and is brought about by different circumstances such as history, geography, level of violence and legitimacy.
The case of Scotland: it will have a referendum this year to secede from the United Kingdom, and is unique in that it seems to be on track to be peaceful, unlike the violence that was unleashed on Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenians in Baku by Azerbaijan. There are conflicting predictions as to the outcome.
The case of Kosovo: its secession from Yugoslavia happened swiftly after massive turmoil and was recognized overnight by the United States and Europe, but not by Russia.
The case of South Sudan: officially the Republic of South Sudan, a landlocked country in Northeastern Africa, gained its independence from Sudan in 2011 as an outcome of a 2005 peace deal that ended Africa’s longest running civil war. An overwhelming majority of South Sudanese voted in a January 2011 referendum to secede.
The case of Eritrea: in 1952, the United Nations resolved to establish it as an autonomous entity federated with Ethiopia as a compromise between Ethiopian claims for sovereignty and Eritrean aspirations for independence. However, ten years later, the Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie, decided to annex it. A subsequent 32 year armed struggle culminated in a referendum that created an independent Eritrea in 1993.
The case of Transnistria: it declared independence after a military conflict with Moldova and is currently an independent presidential republic, under the effective authority of Russia. However, it is not recognized by any United Nations member state. A cease fire agreement was signed on July 21, 1992. Since then, Moldova has exercised no effective control or influence on Transnistrian authorities.
The case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is uncertain. A short lived Russian military intervention created a safe zone. Georgia was unable to regain control of the two breakaway regions. They are yet to be recognized.
The case of Nagorno-Karabakh is unique. It is a viable democratic state, with democratic institutions, with a free press and a strong army. Its inhabitants are a resilient people that have vowed to survive as a free independent state, never to go back in time and to live peacefully as a nation state.
Unlike Crimea, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, there is no Russian military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia are post-Soviet “frozen conflict” zones. These four unrecognized states maintain friendly relations with each other and form the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations.
***
In an Op–Ed article in the Los Angeles Times Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of International Law, examines land grabs by countries that are ignored and some that are not accepted. As examples, Kontorovich gives the cases of Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus, Morocco’s invasion of Western Sahara, North Vietnam’s wiping out of South Vietnam, Indonesia’s seizure of East Timor, and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. We can now add to the list, Turkey’s attack by fundamentalist proxies and seizure of Kasab in Syria.
Unfortunately, Kontorovich presents the case of Nagorno-Karabakh as a conquest of parts of Azerbaijan by Armenia. He considers the conquests of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea a form of territorial control by Russia and not as attempts for self-determination.
Mr. Kontorovich describes failed attempts to conquer territories because of “resistance from the target state”, such as Argentina’s bid for the Falklands, Libya’s attempt to conquer parts of Chad, and Iraq’s attack on Iran and Kuwait.
Mr. Kontorovich is correct in his analysis that the world conveniently chooses to ignore conquests that are committed by friendly nations, yet challenges others. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, he concedes correctly that the move seems unlikely to be reversed.
***
The Nagorno-Karabakh foreign ministry statement regarding Crimea was to the point, praising “yet another manifestation of realization of the right of people to self–determination.” The foreign ministry’s announcement was followed one day later by recognition of Crimea’s secession by the Parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
In a telephone conversation with President Putin, Armenian President Sarkisian said that the Crimean referendum was “yet another realization of people’s right to self-determination.” John Heffern, the United States ambassador to Armenia, voiced Washington’s disappointment with the Armenian government’s decision to effectively recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
According to Richard Giragosian, Director of Yerevan Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity based Regional Studies Center, President Putin’s blatant disregard and disdain for the costs of his actions foretell a shift in Russian policy to one with little or no restraint. Within that context, such a more assertive Russian posture directed toward its neighbors may also result in a sudden shift in Moscow’s policy toward Nagorno-Karabakh. More specifically, he cites three factors that suggest a new “Putin Paradigm” for Nagorno-Karabakh and by extension, for the broader South Caucasus region.
Giragosian predicts that “[f]irst, in the wake of the erosion of restraint and the eradication of limits, [President] Putin may now seek to only garner greater leverage in the South Caucasus, with Nagorno-Karabakh offering an attractive avenue toward a deeper consolidation of Russian power and influence.” Second, Giragosian notes that in the context of the peace process with its partners the United States and France, Russia might choose to collude and not cooperate. Third, Giragosian believes Russia “may seek greater but riskier dividends from transforming the “frozen” Nagorno-Karabakh conflict into a hot war, thereby attaining even greater leverage and latitude.”
An ominous partnership was revealed at a meeting between Georgian President Giorgi Margvelashvili and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev, who agreed to support each other on issues of “territorial integrity.” Their agreement was in reference to Nagorno-Karabakh and the breakaway regions of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
So far, Azerbaijan is very cautious. Its continued silence is understandable: if it opposes the referendum in Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh may decide to join Armenia; if it goes against the referendum, it will alienate Russia. If it stays neutral, President Putin will make it clear that neutrality is not an option.
The case of Nagorno-Karabakh is unique, unlike other cases. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, its people decided to declare their freedom from an illegal occupation. A brutal attack with indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets in Nagorno-Karabakh and pogroms in Baku followed. The war ended with the people of Nagorno-Karabakh overcoming the Azeri military incursions and winning the war. A ceasefire was established.
The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is a full fledged democratic entity. It will survive and will be recognized as such in time. The cases of Kosovo and Crimea will reinforce and not hinder its march toward independence.
JACKSON, Miss.—The Mississippi State Senate failed to vote on a pro-Azerbaijan resolution, when the legislative session ended late last week, effectively rejecting a motion, 
which called on the US President and Congress to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
The resolution, authored by Senator John Horhn, insists that Azerbaijan is an effective economic partner of the U.S., and the state of Mississippi in particular. The author considers it necessary to support the strategic partnership between the states, as well as to take up steps for reaching “a speedy and fair settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”
This is the fifth in a series of defeats to Azerbaijan’s adopted strategy of attempting to spread their state policy of anti-Armenian revisionism and lies. The Azerbaijani diplomatic missions are actively pursuing such state-level bills, especially in states where there are not high number of Armenian constituents.
Azerbaijan’s efforts have thus far failed in the states Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota and Tennessee.
PanARMENIAN.Net – The Nagorno Karabakh defense army reported an Azeri subversion attempt in the south-eastern direction of the line of contact in the region of Marjanlu on Monday, April 7, 10.30 pm.
Having noticed the rival’s movement, Artsakh armed units took preventive measures and threw back the Azeri saboteurs. During their retreat, the subversive group was blown up by a mine, with 3 left dead and 6 injured.
No losses were reported on Karabakh side.
After the incident, the NKR army continued with their military duty taking necessary measures to control the situation at the front line.
As Azeri media reported earlier, 3 servicemen of the Azerbaijani armed forces died, 6 were wounded as a result of the mine explosion on Fuzuli front April 7.
Azeri Defense Minister, Colonel General Zakir Hasanov travelled to the site on April, with the investigation initiated.
On the morning of March 24, Garnik Torosyan, 22, was shot dead while on duty at the contact line between Karabakh and Azeri armed forces.
Nagorno Karabakh army soldier Arman Ghukasyan, 20, died from gunshot wounds while on duty on March 19; another serviceman, Varazdat Zakaryan was injured.
In late January, a Nagorno Karabakh army soldier, Karen Galstyan, aged 20, sustained a deadly injury in a sniper attack at the northern direction of the line of contact with the Azerbaijani armed forces.
Simultaneous attempts of penetration by the Azerbaijani subversive groups were recorded on January 19-20 in the north-eastern (Jraberd) and south-eastern (Korgan) directions of the line of contact . The front units of the armed forces of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic noticed the actions of the Azerbaijani subversive groups and started an organized defense in both directions. The rival was thrown back suffering palpable human and material losses. Junior Sergeant Armen Hovhannisyan died from the wounds he received during the exchange of fire in the north-eastern direction.
Also, as a result of the continuous firing from the Azerbaijani side, a 16-year-old girl was wounded in her leg on Jan 23 night in Aygepar village of Armenia’s Tavush province. Intensive fire was registered in the direction of Armenian border villages of Nerkin Karmraghbyur, Aygepar, Chinari and Movses, RA Defense Ministry spokesman Artsrun Hovhannisyan told PanARMENIAN.Net
The Prime Minister of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, Ara Harutyunyan informed that his salary is paid in March in favor of aid to the Armenians Kessab (Syria). This is Ardak Beglarian his communications officer stated 
that on Facebook. He writes “the Prime Minister’s salary transfers in March to benefit the account in favor of Armenians Kessab and calls on all people to help Armenians Kessab the extent of their capabilities.”
Krikor Amirzayan