Armenia, 2008

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.