Armenia, 2006

Let me congratulate

Ms. Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa on her election to the

presidency and wish her a year relatively free of

conflict crisis and catastrophe — in other words, a year

unlike the one we have just had, during which His

Excellency Jan Eliasson significantly contributed to the

successful navigation of troubled waters with his great

leadership. The “year of turmoil”, as he called it (see

A/60/PV.100), included conflicts and crises, as well as

man-made and natural disasters, all requiring our

collective response. We have responded with great

commitment to maintain peace and stability in the

world.

Of the conflicts that we have faced in this past

year, the one that emerged to be the most tragic was

that of the war in Lebanon. I believe the international

community has lost some credibility and moral

authority in the eyes of the peoples of the world, who

watched the Security Council bicker over minute issues

while bombs were being dropped in Lebanon and

innocent people were being killed. It was a great shame

for the international community not to be able to

deliver and establish an immediate ceasefire. When an

international body loses moral authority, our ability to

effectively tackle problems and issues that require a

collective response is certainly undermined.

In other areas, however, the collective efforts of

the international community have indeed succeeded. I

believe we played a role in the civilized process of

bringing Montenegro to this day and to this body.

Collectively, we created and empowered the

Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights

Council, two bodies that hold great promise for

delivering deeper and more profound commitment on

the part of the world community to building peace and

protecting human rights.

The most threatening challenges in the world

remain those of poverty and hopelessness. When our

leaders gathered in this Hall six years ago, they

decided that the United Nations was the most effective

body in which to address the ills facing our societies.

They collectively recognized their responsibility to

deliver, worldwide, more equitably distributed social

and economic development, at an accelerated pace.

They said to the world that they were willing to

channel international processes and multilateral

resources in order to tackle the needs of the world’s

poor. They will be judged by their adherence to the

principle, promise and commitment of collective

action. Six years have now passed and the world still

earnestly looks on to see whether individual and

regional interests can be overcome and those problems

jointly addressed.

We in Armenia also face similar problems. We are

encouraged and rewarded by the extensive political and

economic reforms that we have conducted over the past

10 years. The results are evident. We are now preparing

to engage in the second generation of political and

economic reforms in order to continue to build on the

past decade of progress. We are moving forward on

legislative and administrative matters; we are today a

more democratic society and a more open and more

liberal economy. We have been registering double-digit

growth over the past six years.

While we are encouraged by this economic

progress and the positive macroeconomic indicators,

we are now turning our attention to the rural areas in

order to eradicate poverty in our society. We are

reminded of the remarkable promise, made in 2000, to

the victims of global poverty to “free our fellow men,

women and children from the abject and dehumanizing

conditions of extreme poverty” (resolution 55/2,

para. 11). To be able to do that in Armenia, we will

leverage the philanthropy of international organizations

and friendly countries with the traditional generosity of

our diaspora, so that we can build and repair

infrastructure and thus create new conditions for

economic development and social change. But we also

understand that infrastructure alone is not enough to

introduce that kind of change that reduces poverty. We

need to invest in people; we need to invest in women

and children; and we need to educate them and train

them for the future.

We will begin that programme in Armenia’s

border villages. Unlike other countries, where border

villages are points of interaction and activity,

Armenia’s eastern and western borders are closed, thus

stifling economic interaction and regional cooperation.

With our neighbour, Turkey, it is not only economic

cooperation that suffers, but also the dialogue between

our two peoples. Turkey’s insistence on keeping the

border closed and not allowing interaction between the

two communities freezes the memories of yesterday,

instead of promoting dialogue and interaction to create

new experiences and new memories for tomorrow. We

still believe and hope that Turkey will eventually

understand that keeping the border closed until there is

harmony and mutual understanding between our two

06-53341 8

peoples is not a policy. On the contrary, it is avoidance

of a responsible policy to forge and promote regional

cooperation and economic development at a time and

in a region that are the object of growing global

attention.

Let me address the issue of Kosovo, as many

have done from this podium. We closely follow the

process of self-determination in Kosovo because we

Armenians, ourselves, are extremely supportive of the

process of self-determination for the people of

Nagorno Karabakh. But we do not draw parallels

between the two conflicts or with any other conflict.

We believe and insist that conflicts are all different,

and each must be decided on its own merits. While we

ourselves do not consider the Kosovo outcome to be a

precedent for other conflicts, we are extremely anxious

about the possibility that it may raise artificial

obstacles for other self-determination movements,

simply because others cite it as a precedent. This is of

extreme concern to us because we believe that there are

movements in the world today that have earned the

right to self-determination. The Kosovo outcome

should not serve as an excuse or reason to put a damper

on those self-determination movements.

Yet, such attempts are already apparent in this

Hall as the principle of self-determination is being

undermined compared to other principles. But this goes

contrary to the lessons of history. There is a reason that

the Helsinki Final Act enshrined the principle of self-

determination as equal among other principles in

international relations. In international interactions,

just as in human relations, there are no absolute values.

There are also responsibilities. A State should gain and

earn the right to govern. States have the responsibility

to protect their own citizens, and the people have the

right to choose the Government that they think should

govern them.

The people of Nagorno Karabakh decided long

ago not to be represented by the Government of

Azerbaijan, because they suffered from State violence.

They tried to protect themselves, and they succeeded

against all odds, only to hear the State cry foul and

claim sovereignty and territorial integrity. But

Azerbaijan has lost every iota of the moral right to talk

about guaranteeing the security of the people of

Nagorno Karabakh, let alone to claim custody over that

people.

Azerbaijan did not act responsibly or morally

towards the people of Nagorno Karabakh, people that it

considered to be its own citizens. It unleashed military

action; it sanctioned pogroms and massacres in urban

areas. It bombed and displaced more than 300,000

Armenians. When it lost the war and accepted a

ceasefire, it began to destroy all traces of Armenians by

eliminating Armenian monuments throughout the

territory. Over the past two years, the remaining 2,000

carved stone crosses, representing Armenian

cemeteries, were desecrated and eliminated. The

territory has now been turned into a shooting range for

the Azerbaijani army. This reflects the fact that

Azerbaijan still does not believe in the peaceful

resolution of this conflict.

Armenians cannot be blamed for thinking that

Azerbaijan is not serious about a peaceful solution.

Having rejected the past two offers of the international

community, Azerbaijan is now concerned about being

accused of rejecting the current peace plan. That is why

it is manoeuvring and manipulating every possible

situation — from State violence to introducing

resolutions in other forums outside the peace process

so that the Armenians are forced to do the rejecting.

But Armenia is clearly on record as stating that it

stands by every single principle included in the

document it submitted. However, in order to give a

chance to that document, one cannot think or even

pretend to think that there is a military option to this

conflict. There is no military option. That option has

been tried and has failed. The only option today is

realism and compromise. The path that the people of

Nagorno Karabakh have chosen over the past two

decades is a path that has become irreversible.

Solidifying and formalizing the process will greatly

contribute to peace and stability in our region.

Karabakh is not a cause. It is an ancient place, a

beautiful garden with people who have earned the right

to live in peace and prosperity. That is what we seek,

and we cannot accept anything less.