November 11, 2008

Heritage Executive Board’s Statement on the Meiendorf Declaration

Yerevan—The Heritage Party finds that the declaration signed on November 2, 2008 at the Meiendorf Castle outside Moscow by the Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev, and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev undermines the mission to maintain peace, bring Karabagh’s decolonization process to fruition, and achieve international recognition for its independence.

1. Heritage believes that the Meiendorf Declaration is only the latest manifestation of the trend toward protecting the interests of the superpowers at the cost of the national interests of Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh. This trend previously was championed by the West, but now enjoys the subscription also of Russia, which has since 2002 linked its national security with Armenia’s within the context of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). This trend became all the more official with the declaration on “Friendship and Strategic Partnership between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation,” which the Azerbaijani and Russian presidents signed in Baku on July 3. This document specifically noted that “Russia and Azerbaijan deem necessary the Mountainous Karabagh conflict’s quick resolution based on the universally recognized norms and precepts of international law and, first and foremost, on the basis of securing and respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, the invariability of boundaries, and also based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and OSCE decisions. The sides will assist in the speedy, voluntary, and safe return of the refugees and people who were displaced as a consequence of the conflict.” It is disturbing that the formulations made in the Baku accord have been transferred, with mere touch-ups, to the Meiendorf Declaration.

2. In actual fact, the signing of the Meiendorf Declaration also extorted official Yerevan’s positive outlook on the Madrid Principles, which formally were presented to the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents on November 29, 2007. The bodies politic of Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh, by contrast, are to date uninformed of their content. The Heritage Party is seriously concerned that the precepts fixed in this document do not guarantee the just resolution of the Karabagh conflict. How could they be, when Armenia’s authorities have signed the agreement without asking for the support of the people of Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh? The proposed succession—“firstly the elimination of the consequences of the conflict and, only after that, the determination of Karabagh’s status”—of the Madrid principles is the best proof that the superpowers which compete in this region have no interest in legitimizing the statehood of Karabagh. On the contrary, the superpowers are primed to continue to wield their influence and play their energy games. This unfortunate turn of events unfolds precisely at the time when the recognition of Karabagh’s status is a priority issue for the Armenian and Karabagh sides. The Madrid Principles, the contents of which we were able to ascertain through non-official channels, are unacceptable to the Heritage Party. No Armenian government should accept them as a foundation for talks. Heritage believes that the unilateral return of territories and refugees, as well as the delay in determining the status of Mountainous Karabagh, are unacceptable. Heritage firmly condemns the acceptance of those principles by the Armenian authorities, and warns of the beginnings of irreversible processes which run counter to the interests of Armenia and the Mountainous Karabagh Republic (MKR).

3. The current Karabagh talks in reality have no connection whatsoever with securing a just settlement, achieving stabilitity and peace in the region, and fostering the much-anticipated reconciliation of the Armenian and Azerbaijani people. Moreover, Mountainous Karabagh’s absence from the talks has become for all the superpowers a currency of “payment” and “repayment” for receiving Azerbaijan’s support for new energy routes. Consequently, the Heritage party can neither approve of the Meiendorf Declaration, nor trust that it will bring about the “normalizing of the situation in South Caucasus and establishing an environment of peace and security in the region” and begetting “conditions for carrying out measures toward consolidating peace.” Heritage does not have faith in the real and immediate intentions of official Moscow—which has become the architect of this declaration—and of official Brussels, Washington, and Paris—which have approved this document. NATO, the United States, and France know all too well that the fragile peace maintained in the region since 1994 is the result of a trilateral agreement which, likewise by Russian mediation, was signed among the official representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Mountainous Karabagh, and that the latter not only is the beneficiary of regional security but also the protector of regional peace. 

4. It is apparent from the Meiendorf Declaration, which enjoys the signature of only one country from the OSCE Minsk Group’s co-chairs, that Russia, the signator, seeks to create parallel platforms for high-level and lower-level “direct talks” between Armenia and Azerbaijan, through which it will gradually redener obsolete the format of the Minsk Group. From its long-standing criticisms of the OSCE to its formal letter sent to the organization last year, Azerbaijan openly shares this objective. And now Turkey, too, has joined Russia and Azerbaijan, which have reached a silent consensus on the basis of this interest. The official, societal, and political circles of Armenia have stated numerous times that the OSCE is the best format for resolving the problem and that the talks again must include Mountainous Karabagh as a full and equal side to the settlement discussions. Heritage deplores the fact that Armenia’s administration continually contributes to the distortion of those formats, and affirms that this is a result of myopic policy—which still is conducted with respect to the Karabagh question—including the refusal to consider Heritage’s draft law formally to recognize the independence of MKR.

5. The Heritage Party calls on the authorities of Armenia to acknowledge the aforesaid perils and to transfer the discussion of and solution to the problem back into the officially authorized format—that is, the Minsk Group and the juridical platform—to secure the real conflicting sides’ participation to the talks, and to decipher the Madrid Principles and offer them for broad public discussion.