DEPENDENT INDEPENDENCE

First, there was "Miatsum!" (derived from the German word Anschluss), which means "reunification" and was used figuratively, with a connotation of "annexation" (Anschluss was declared to be the official foreign policy of Adolph Hitler's Nazi government). This demand gradually turned into "self-determination" and went as far as a claim to full independence.  

"Anschluss" was endorsed by the December 1, 1989 ruling of Armenia's Supreme Council on the "annexing" of the Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh region of Azerbaijan to their country. Only when the world community began to understand that the demand of "self-determination" actually represented an attempt to annex Azerbaijani territories did Armenians "reword" their intentions to read "struggle for independence". But, one way or another, their key goal was to break this land away from Azerbaijan. As a result of these efforts, and with the military and political backing of outside benefactors, Armenia managed, although temporarily, to seize Upper Garabagh and adjacent districts, and independence was subsequently declared. This is an "independence" which has not been recognized by anyone in the world to date. As the years went by, a situation emerged in the South Caucasus which prompted Yerevan to admit that not only Garabagh Armenians, but also Armenia itself, is heavily dependent. Moreover, it is dependent on essentially all other countries in the region. It is evidently for this very reason that Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan is beginning to realize the high cost of self-isolation and of levelling territorial claims against neighbouring states. 

"I am picturing a country which, as a result of the developments that have taken place in the region in the past weeks, has faced a situation incongruent with the 21st century," Sarksyan recently told the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Indeed, the occupation of a neighbouring country's territory and establishing a single, mono-ethnic state in one of the most multi-ethnic regions is unacceptable in this century. Even the textbooks used in Armenian schools are unacceptable in the present-day world, as children are taught from primary school to hate their neighbours. 

Nonetheless, when speaking about the situation his country has ended up in, Sarksyan did not refer to these factors. Occupation and hatred towards his neighbours are normal for Sarksyan, who was personally involved in the ethnic cleaning committed against Azerbaijanis in Garabagh, thus he continues to try to mislead the international community by asserting that Azerbaijan had allegedly unleashed the brutal war in Garabagh. 

"At the time, it was merely an autonomous region, which had neither a regular army, arms or ammunition, nor the desire to capture Azerbaijani territory, not to mention the opportunity to do so," said the Armenian leader. 

Furthermore, in a bid to put "a legal spin" on the matter, he forgets, for some reason, the two "privatized" regiments of Soviet troops in Armenia and the 366th infantry regiment in Upper Garabagh, as well as the $1 billion worth of weaponry which Armenia basically acquired for a song. 

As for Azerbaijan, the only thing it gained from the former USSR was two looted regiments. Thus, statements about Azerbaijan's ongoing militarization have no merit either as, by bolstering its army, Baku is, for the time being, only rectifying the disrupted balance of forces in the region. This makes sense, particularly given that a Russian military base is still stationed in Armenia. 

Meanwhile, Sarksyan continues to mislead the world community by calling Armenian separatists "the people of Garabagh". It is true that, alongside the Armenians, Azerbaijanis and other nations such as Kurds, Russians and Molokans, who fell victim to ethnic cleansing, used to live in Garabagh. But Sarksyan would certainly not admit, while addressing the UN, that Armenia is demanding the establishment of a second Armenian state as, based on this logic, Italians living in Switzerland, for example, could also demand the establishment of "a second Italy". 

On the other hand, it is unclear how much importance the Armenian President is attaching to the UN, given that Yerevan is ignoring that organization's decisions, as it has not yet complied with any of the four UN Security Council resolutions on the withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied Azerbaijani land.

At the same time, if we analyze Sarksyan's recent statements and interview, it is crystal clear that the situation Armenia faces in the new geo-political reality has considerably affected the rhetoric of the country's leaders. For instance, the Armenian leader stated for the first time ever, "We are far from the thought that any bid for self-determination must be resolved by means of secession" and "to ensure that exercising the right to self-determination by means of secession 'produces result' and is 'stable', it has to be agreed by all parties involved in the conflict."

However, he went on to contradict the premise of his own statement by saying that, actually, independence could also be recognized without the consent of one of the conflicting sides. 

"When a given nation asserts this inalienable right, it is unanimously called an exclusive case, although, in fact, this is turning into a pattern."

If this is a pattern, however, a valid question arises: what stands in the way of Armenia's recognition of the independence of Georgia's rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Most likely, such a move is impeded by the fact that having recognized these regions, Yerevan, based on that same logic of President Sarksyan, would further have to recognize Kosovo, which Armenia's "bosses" would not allow to happen. 

Thus it turns out that the very independence of Armenia is heavily dependent. Furthermore, unlike Azerbaijan, whose policy with regard to both Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia is consistent, Armenia has to find "ten differences" between Kosovo and the Georgian rebel regions, which, certainly, would favour the latter. 

Given the situation currently faced by Armenia, its government has no choice but to revisit its policy toward its neighbours. With this in mind, Sarksyan is making overtures towards Turkey and trying to use a more balanced tone in his communication with Azerbaijan. It is not by mere chance that he divulged a report regarding his proposal to President Ilham Aliyev to invest in Garabagh. 

"Perhaps, after that, Garabagh Armenians will be in favour of living within Azerbaijan," he said. 

Although the Armenian presidential press-service later said the report had resulted from a distorted translation, the international mass media which quoted Sarksyan said they had excerpts from his address. This indicates that these utterances were an apparent attempt to test the reaction of the Azerbaijani and Armenian people. But, in reality, Sarksyan knows all too well that even back in the Soviet times, the Upper Garabagh region of Azerbaijan was much more developed than other regions of the republic. It was Azerbaijan, not Armenia, which laid a railway link to Khankandi (then Stepanakert), which separatists call "the capital of the Upper Garabagh republic" today. All the necessary social, economic and housing infrastructure had been created there. Today, Azerbaijan is channelling tremendous investment into the development of its regions and Upper Garabagh is cited in all these programmes. Azerbaijan is capable of directing more investment to Garabagh than the entire Armenian economy could hypothetically absorb. But for these programmes to materialize, Armenia must put an end to its occupation and free Garabagh Armenians from the shackles of its "dependent independence".