First, allow me to
express gratitude to Srgjan Kerim, President of the
General Assembly at its sixty-second session, for his
able leadership. I would also like to congratulate and
wish success to its current President, Mr. Miguel
d’Escoto Brockmann.
I am representing a country that, during the last
several weeks, has found itself in a situation that is
unacceptable for the twenty-first century.
Once again blood was shed in the South Caucasus
and once again innocent people died because we, the
leaders, failed to bring a peaceful resolution to an
existing conflict. The armed conflict, which erupted in
a matter of hours, threatened not only the entire region
but well beyond it.
Recently, the unsettling expression “cold war”
has re-emerged. I hold the view that the main task of
the General Assembly at its sixty-third session should
be to issue a collective rejection of such developments.
Memories of the previous cold war are very fresh and
its consequences linger still.
In that regard, I believe that our main task should
be the establishment of a new, dependable and viable
structure. The challenges facing humankind in recent
decades have been transformed and reshaped in such a
way that they cannot be addressed exclusively with the
structures established after the Second World War. We
continue to respond to today’s horizontal, interwoven
challenges — such as terrorism, international crime,
drug trafficking and others — through institutions that
were designed predominantly to settle disputes among
States. Regional cooperation can be a core means of
addressing those new challenges. Armenia has always
advocated such cooperation and is confident that it is
one of the most effective means of addressing
problems among States. In that regard, open borders,
interconnecting lines of communication and
interrelated economic systems are crucial.
The United Nations was among the first
institutions to respond to the current global problems
resulting from rising food and fuel prices. That
phenomenon represents a real threat to all the countries
of the world. For poor countries, its consequences will
be devastating. Unfortunately, even in such
circumstances we continue to witness unilateral
sanctions and border closings. In the face of global
challenges, countries should work together to prevent
the further deterioration of the situation and to
implement the sustainable development agenda.
Otherwise, we will jeopardize our collective efforts to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
Neighbouring States have always had and will
continue to have problems with each other. However,
those problems cannot be solved if there is no
08-51845 10
dialogue. With that in mind, and taking advantage of a
football game between our national teams, I invited the
President of Turkey to Yerevan. I welcomed the bold
decision of President Gül to accept the invitation,
which made him my co-author in the “football
diplomacy” initiative.
We discussed an array of bilateral and regional
issues. The most important outcome was our decision
not to leave current problems to future generations. I
am confident that the time has come to solve
Armenian-Turkish problems, and on that issue I
observed a similar resolve on the part of President Gül.
I am certain that it is necessary to move fast and
resolutely in that direction.
The events of the past few weeks shocked the
South Caucasus region and made it a focal point of the
international media. I believe that they hold very
serious lessons for us all. I would mention only two.
First, we Member States must adhere strictly to
the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. If
any country rapidly increases its military budget and
brags about it; if arms limitations stipulated under
international agreements are openly violated; and if a
country has signed a ceasefire agreement, which
constitutes an international responsibility, but threatens
to resume military action on any pretext, we must
respond swiftly and firmly. Prevention is preferable to
cure, and a potential military conflict must be averted
at the planning stage. We must confirm unequivocally
that the violation or threat of violation of an existing
ceasefire contains elements of aggression.
Secondly, the time has come to seriously consider
the right of peoples to self-determination. We continue
to witness in our own time how the mere mention of
self-determination may be tantamount to a declaration
of suicidal intent. One of the basic principles of
international law — the right of peoples to self-
determination — has become grounds for exile, ethnic
cleansing or genocide. There is no doubt in my mind
that it need not be that way in the twenty-first century.
We do not insist on the idea that each claim to
self-determination should be resolved through
secession. However, we have seen that outcome
become the solution to conflicts more often than not.
When a nation finally has the opportunity to exercise
its inalienable right, it is immediately categorized as an
exceptional case. That seems to have become a pattern.
There is no doubt that, if it is to be viable, such a solution
must be endorsed by all the parties involved. That is
why we continue to negotiate actively with Azerbaijan
in the framework of the Minsk Group of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) in seeking that country’s recognition of the
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been de
facto independent for almost two decades.
The people of Nagorno-Karabakh, who followed
the legal path in declaring their desire for self-
determination, were subjected to a brutal war. For
years they hovered on the brink of extinction. At that
time, Nagorno-Karabakh was only an autonomous
region with neither a regular army, arms and
ammunition, nor any intention of or ability to occupy
Azeri territory. I think it is at the very least unfair to
label as “occupants” people who fought for their right
to exist; and yet, Azerbaijan has done just that, even
from this high rostrum.
In my country, even schoolchildren are very
familiar with the United Nations. Such children — the
future leaders of my country and of the world — may
not have a profound understanding of the United
Nations Charter, but they know that the Organization
was created to ensure peace and security for
humankind, to promote friendship among nations, to
solve problems jointly, and to protect human rights.
The schoolchildren of my country trust the United
Nations, since in their eyes it is primarily the building
with the “pretzel gun” memorial before it.
Some months ago within this building, resolution
62/243 was adopted with only 39 States out of 146
voting in favour. The resolution was adopted in
response to an episode in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. A fundamental and sensitive problem with
deep roots and painful and bloody developments, and
for which immense efforts have been made to secure a
peaceful settlement, was decided upon by the majority
in support of one of the parties.
The outcome was more than predictable — a new
wave of belligerent statements in Azerbaijan, false
encomiums, political speculation and so on. However,
the voting in Azerbaijan seemed to be little more than
window-dressing. I hope that the real interests of
Azerbaijan lie not in its misrepresentation at the
international level of the different elements of the
conflict, but rather in a peaceful and comprehensive
resolution, which is equally in the interests of the
11 08-51845
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of
Armenia.
The process mediated by the Co-Chairs of the
Minsk Group is aimed at reaching precisely that goal,
and I believe that it was in that understanding that
almost four fifths of the United Nations membership
abstained in the voting or did not vote at all on that
resolution. The voting records of the United States,
France and Russia — the most well-informed third
parties regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
its resolution — are ample demonstration of that fact.
Is it absolutely necessary to shed blood to
understand that frozen conflicts demand an expert and
conscientious approach and cannot be solved through
discussions in various forums? We have worked in
earnest under the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs. Is it not possible to at least abstain from
creating new challenges to the process? Is it not our
mutual goal to erect a pretzel gun monument for the
Armenian and Azeri children of our region? I assure
the General Assembly that those kids deserve one.
This year, we will celebrate two significant
achievements in international law: the sixtieth
anniversaries of the adoptions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. For us Armenians, as for other peoples that
have survived genocide, those anniversaries are more
than important. Armenia has done and will continue to
do everything it can at the United Nations to provide
for the continuous advocacy of the genocide
Convention and its enforcement. Genocide cannot be
the concern of one nation alone; genocide is a crime
against humanity.
As for the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, we fully realize that Armenia, as a young
democracy, has important work ahead in order to
guarantee the full and efficient implementation of the
entire complex of human rights. To that end, we are
trying to learn from countries with extensive
experience and not to repeat others’ mistakes. Those
lessons are not always easy to take, but we are
confident that, for a country like Armenia, they are a
fundamental guarantee of sustainable development. At
the same time we realize that, in a rapidly changing
reality, along with scientific progress and advances in
information technologies, the protection of human
rights and the processes to monitor States’ fulfilment of
that obligation should be seriously reviewed and
reconsidered.