Conflict in Karabakh

* The article by Jonathan F. Fanton and Kurt Soderlund (Commentary, Sept. 10) on the conflict between the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan on balance does an excellent job of describing the debilitating effects of the five-yearlong war. Unfortunately, the article is flawed in several areas and requires correction and clarification.

The headline, “Learn From Bosnia, Help Azerbaijan,” suggests an unwise course of action. In fact, the authors did not espouse helping Azerbaijan as a way to resolve the conflict. Rather, the authors rightly called for the establishment of a cease-fire enforced by an international body as the first important step that must be taken. This, in fact, is the position that the government of Armenia has been promoting for several years, which has been evidenced by our active support for and participation in the mediation efforts of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

At the same time, U.S. policy should uphold the principles of human rights and self-determination. The blockades by Azerbaijan of roads, rail lines and pipelines into Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia are severe violations when deciding whether to grant assistance to any foreign country. Armenia, for its part, has demonstrated its strong commitment to democracy and is moving ahead with free market economic reforms, leading the way among all the former Soviet republics. The political stability of Armenia’s democratically elected government has also set it apart as compared to its neighbors in the Caucasus and elsewhere.

It is for these reasons that the United States has correctly chosen to offer assistance to Armenia, both economic and humanitarian, to further promote these positive developments.

The authors of the article made another misstep, in an effort to draw comparisons among conflicts in various parts of the world, by erroneously describing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as “ethnic” in nature. It has never been an ethnic conflict, but rather the dispute has centered on the right of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination.

The authors incorrectly asserted that the Republic of Armenia has provided military material assistance and other support to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh that has contributed to their successes on the battlefield. Armenia is not and has never been involved militarily in the conflict and its aid to Nagorno-Karabakh has been strictly limited to moral, diplomatic, and humanitarian assistance. In fact, were it not for the assistance provided by Armenia, the besieged Armenian population of some 150,000 in Nagorno-Karabakh would have been on the brink of extinction some time ago.

At the same time, the government of Armenia has repeatedly used its good offices to urge the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership to be more actively involved in the process of seeking a peaceful, mediated settlement to the conflict. As such, I could not agree more with the concluding remarks made by the authors, which called on the international community to avoid continued inaction and to mobilize mediation efforts to help bring an end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as soon as possible. Failure to act at this crucial juncture will certainly threaten the peace, stability, and security of Armenia and all the countries in and around the Caucasus region.

ROUBEN SHUGARIAN

Ambassador of Armenia

Washington