Statement by the Delegation of Armenia on "Conflict and crisis situations in the OSCE area: building security and confidence" delivered at the 2020 Annual Security Review Conference

24 June, 2020

Madam Moderator,

At the outset, let me thank State Secretary Krystyna Marty and Ambassadors Rudolf Michalka and Thomas Mayr-Harting for elaborating their ideas on a number of conflict and crisis situations in the OSCE area.

It is well known that, unfortunately, conflicts and crises in the OSCE are not limited to those outlined in the ASRC programme. Hence, we believe that this session should be much wider and allow for consideration of each and every conflict, crisis or tension in the OSCE area, as these situations undermine security and confidence of participating States. In this regard, we should be more sincere in assessing the overall situation.

On the other hand, the discussion of conflicts and crisis situations in the OSCE area within the framework of the ASRC should focus on security- and confidence-building issues. A fact that is clearly reflected in the title of this session. In our discussions, we should rather strive to identify areas and ways to make our own contribution to peace processes. Our objective here should in no way be to replace or duplicate agreed negotiation formats. It is not only counterproductive, but can also harm the mainstream negotiation process.

The Delegation of Armenia sees the achievement of this goal, first of all, through the implementation of security- and confidence-building measures, creating an enabling environment for peace talks and preparing populations for peace. It is impossible to negotiate, and at the same time threaten to use force.

Building security and confidence in the OSCE area is indeed an important task. Unfortunately, we do not see such willingness today, as some participating States continue to promote one-sided and distorted perceptions on conflicts and its root-causes. Moreover, it has become a custom for the leadership of the same participating States to make belligerent and provocative statements in an attempt to enhance their military posturing. This approach has no future and does not contribute to peace and security in the OSCE area.

Madam Moderator,

It is a well-known fact that there are no golden standards for resolving conflicts and crises. The main issue that should be at the core of every conflict and crisis situation is respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We must all acknowledge the longstanding realities on the ground, including hundreds of thousands of people living in their homeland. Their existence, aspirations and rights can neither be denied nor ignored.

In this context, we would like to emphasize the importance of the right to self-determination, which is a fundamental right of people to determine their own destiny. This right is prominently embodied in Article 1 of the UN Charter. Among other things, it is also recognized as the right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, it is recognized that respect for the right to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural.

The OSCE participating States must recommit themselves to the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter, the UN Covenants on Human Rights, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States and the Helsinki Final Act. There should be no selectivity or artificial hierarchy in adhering to these principles.

The founding fathers of the Helsinki Decalogue definitely thought of the mutually reinforcing nature of the principles, their equality and complementarity, rather than their contradiction. Those delegations, which today subordinate the right to self-determination to the principle of territorial integrity when referring to the Helsinki Final Act, should ask themselves how many states signed the Final Act exactly 45 years ago and how many states are participating in this meeting today?

Madam Moderator,

Now, more specifically, we would like to dwell on some aspects of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and share our views on what needs to be done to advance the peace process.

First, it is a well-known fact that since its establishment, the Republic of Azerbaijan did not have full and effective sovereignty over the territory it claimed. Since 1918, when the first ever Azerbaijani state was established, claims to such sovereignty were at least disputed. The international community, in particular the League of Nations, has never recognized the Republic of Azerbaijan of 1918-1920, arguing that it was impossible to determine the frontiers of the territories within which the Azerbaijani government exercised its power.

Secondly, the internal legislation of the Azerbaijani SSR on Nagorno-Karabakh, in particular on the abolition of the autonomous status of Nagorno-Karabakh without the consent of its people in 1991, was a clear violation of the basic international norms regarding self-determination.

Thirdly, in 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh initiated the process of its independence in full compliance with the existing domestic legislation of the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, two separate states emerged: the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. The establishment of both States derives from the same legal basis. Therefore, the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic through the exercise of the right to self-determination should not and cannot be considered within the scope of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan must recognize the right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination through legally binding free expression of will of the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan’s maximalist position and rhetoric, as well as the dehumanization of the people of Artsakh pose an existential threat to their security. Effective counteraction to this threat is an all-Armenian issue, which turned into a commitment of the Armenian authorities to the people of Artsakh.

It is impossible to achieve progress in the negotiations without the direct and equal participation of Artsakh in the peace talks. Therefore, we emphasize the need for the full and direct participation of the elected representatives of Artsakh in the peace process. Among others this was recognized by the OSCE Senior Council Meeting in Prague in 1995 and I quote “The Chairmanship-in-Office confirms previous OSCE decisions on the status of the parties, i.e. the participating of the two state parties to the conflict and of the other conflicting party Nagorno-Karabakh, in the whole negotiation process”. In the same way, the prospect of peace is grim unless the agreement on preparing populations for peace is taken seriously.

Armenia is committed to continue its engagement in the negotiation process to find a peaceful solution, which will be acceptable for the people of Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.

Thank you.

MFA RA
official website

Dual citizenship

Electronic visa

Visa applications