Opinion: HRANT MELKUMYAN "I highly appreciate track-two diplomacy; the more people communicate with each other the less they want to take arms".

http://www.commonspace.eu/user_upload/karabakh_interviews_collage_final.jpg

 

Karabakh: The big debate

Commonspace.eu today publishes the 11th in a series of twenty interviews with key personalities from Nagorno-Karabakh. The interviews give a vivid, even if sombre picture, of the attitude of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from Karabakh whose lives have been deeply affected by the conflict, and whose destiny will be at the heart of any future conflict settlement. Those interviewed sometimes use harsh language. Their opinion is almost inevitably controversial, as are sometimes their biographical notes. However it is through listening to these opinions that a path through the labyrinth that is the Karabakh conflict can be found. A full editorial policy of commonspace.eu is available at the About Us section. The next interview in the series will be with Anar Usubov, a board member of the Nagorno-Karabakh Azerbaijani Community since 2003 and currently works as a Political analyst at the Effective Initiatives Center.

 

Interview with Hrant Melkumyan

 

Hrant Melkumyan was born in April 4, 1951. He graduated from the Yerevan Polytechnic Institute in 1974, and the Supreme (Communist) Party School in 1986. Melkumyan then began his career as a politician in Stepanakert, becoming the second and then the first secretary of Communist Party Central Committee in NKR. Currently he serves as the Chief of Staff of the Government of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

Biographical notes are provided by the interviewees themselves.

Can you summarize your overall position on the Karabakh conflict and the conflict resolution process:

There is no such thing as the so called “Karabakh conflict”. In essence, the thing is that at the outset of the 20th century Nagorno-Karabakh was forcefully adjoined to Azerbaijan, which never existed before. Back then there was no such nation as the Azeris. You know, if you dig into the economic history behind Karabakh inclusion into Azerbaijan, you understand the great power politics.
 
For 70 years Karabakh remained under Soviet Azerbaijani rule. At the beginning, when the Communist leaders of Azerbaijan were Armenians, there was much more freedom for all. The nationalistic policies of Soviet Azerbaijan began in the 1930s, when they started to aggressively settle Azeris in Karabakh lands. For instance, in 1923 only 6% of the population in Karabakh were Azeris, with Armenians numbering 94%. Before our Movement (Sharjoum – in Arm.) started, there already lived around 40,000 Azeris amongst a total number of 180,000 citizens. However the strongest nationalism in Azerbaijan began after Heydar Aliyev came to power.
 
Once again, there is no "Karabakh conflict". Armenians in Karabakh decided to use the Gorbachev era "perestroika" and "glasnost" to peacefully and legally achieve their goals of free and sustainable development. What happened after that – you know well. Around 500,000 Armenians were expelled from Azerbaijan. Today in NKR we have around 30,000 Armenian refugees from different cities of Azerbaijan. Of course, we cannot draw parallels between their condition now and in the Soviet Azerbaijan, because then they used to have good houses and expensive property. When the conflict began and Azerbaijan used force against the peaceful Armenian population, they were forced to leave their houses and all their property, as well as large territories – like Getashen, Shahumian, etc, which were Armenian territories with Armenian heritage for centuries.

Today NKR is a well-established, democratic statehood with a sustainable system of governance and elected bodies of representation – more democratic than Azerbaijan, and this is obvious for everyone. If Europe is so positive on democracy and always advocates democracy and human rights – it should appreciate our efforts in this regards, with the opposite happening in Azerbaijan. Where Azerbaijan cracks down on opposition rallies, we openly let everyone chant whatever slogans they want, demanding the government to solve various issues.

I suppose you will have more detailed questions further, so I’ll put a full stop here.

In the long term do you want to see Nagorno-Karabakh (a) as an independent state; (b) as part of Armenia (c) as part of Azerbaijan; (d) none of the above but in as yet undefined status. Comment on your choice:

Firstly, as a natural wish of an Armenian, I want Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) to be an integral part of Armenia, as it used to be for many centuries. However since the great powers have not made their minds up on a way forward, I see this opportunity only in the long-run. Not only for me, the majority here also wishes for a re-unification of Armenia and Artsakh.

I would also appreciate some interim subordinate status for Nagorno-Karabakh to the European Union or the Russian Federation, until the issue receives its final settlement through the agreement of the parties. However, the best guarantee for NKR security is our independence, and re-unification with Armenia in the future. Under all scenarios, I exclude your option (c). That is a no-go.

What is your biggest objection/concern to Nagorno-Karabakh being part of Azerbaijan?

Well, the answer to this issue is well known to everyone. If Nagorno-Karabakh becomes a part of Azerbaijan, no single Armenia will be left here in a 10 year period. No Armenian will stay here; all of them will be expelled again. How can we live with a century-long enemy? This is impossible; this truth doesn’t need another proof.

Take the example of Nakhijevan – what happened there with Armenians and Armenian cultural heritage. There are no Armenians living there now as a result of local policies, and the Armenian khachkars of the 13th century were destroyed in 2006. Video footage is available even on the internet.

Whatever happens, we will never surrender.

Are you satisfied with the policy of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic authorities towards the conflict and its resolution?

I can't say that I am fully satisfied. Since the NKR authorities are not a party to the ongoing negotiations, I can't answer this question “yes or no”. If they were a party, I would be able to observe and point at their behavior and assess the results. But they are not.

Regarding Armenia, I don’t feel I have the right to criticize a foreign state's policies. However, no matter how many documents the president of Armenia signs, if there is no signature from NKR, it doesn’t have any value to me.

Were you  directly involved in armed hostilities between 1989-94?

I was not engaged in the armed hostilities directly, as I was into politics then, handling different issues of importance. 
 
How do you evaluate the work of the OSCE Minsk Process?

I do recognize that they are diplomats themselves in the Minsk Group. They are doing their job. However a victim should be differentiated from the hangman (regarding the equal treatment of the parties by the Group). 

I am also critical towards the too often replacement of diplomats in the co-Chairmanship. You know, as soon as a diplomat gets the real picture of the issue and starts realizing the possible ways of moving forward, he gets replaced. I therefore have mixed feelings towards this Minsk Group.

Do you have a publicly expressed a position on the Madrid Principles?

I don’t like these Madrid Principles. You know, this is like trying to fool a baby in kindergarten. Don’t those co-Chairs know how the Azerbaijani constitution draws frameworks for a referendum? Is it possible to do so in our case? Can you imagine a Turk voting in favor of NKR independence, if the referendum is conducted also in the territory of Azerbaijan, as Aliyev the Younger argues? I am sure they would not.

Also, I do not object if some Azeris want to live here in NKR. Let them fill corresponding documents, saying that they recognize the domestic legislation and the constitution of NKR, and then they are most welcome to seek their happiness here.

All in all, this Madrid Document is not a workable one.

Do you think it is important/appropriate that the de facto authorities of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic be part of the peace process facilitated by the Minsk Group? If yes should they be there instead of the Armenian Government?

Armenia is the security guarantor of all the Armenians living in the world, including those in NKR. Armenia presently is a member to the UN, the CoE (Council of Europe) as well as other organizations, and shall use those international bodies to seek international recognition of NKR. We are, you know, even a bit late for this campaign. I would also suggest that Diaspora Armenians form their relevant organizations, be that an Assembly, Council or Government in exile (if we consider they are former citizens of Western Armenia) to support NKR in our bid for international recognition of our independence. All this will contribute and ease the process of international recognition for NKR.

Sometimes the possibility is mentioned that the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh under Armenian control since 1994 should be returned to Azerbaijan as part of an interim peace arrangement, leaving the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh to a later date. Do you have an opinion on this issue?

Not a single inch to the enemy. These lands are now inhabited by the people that were expelled from Azerbaijan in 1988-90 as a result of ethnic cleansing policies against the Armenian population. If this issue of territories arises at the negotiations table, we perhaps may open up the issue of return, or consider the compensation of 250,000 houses and apartments of Armenians in Baku, and more in other cities.

It is noteworthy however, albeit still sad, that during the war the only Azerbaijanis killed in NKR were those who had guns in their hands and were actively fighting against the NKR government and killing innocent people. Even in Khojaly – the Defense Army of Karabakh opened up a humanitarian corridor to let the population peacefully leave the area of hostilities, but as they left the area with the Armenian army, the soldiers of the Azerbaijani army - at the direct call of higher commanders from Baku - killed those innocent citizens, and now argue it was Armenians which broke their promises.

What is your opinion with regards to the role of Turkey, Russia, Iran, the United States, the European Union or any other country or international organisation, or the international community in general, with regards to the Karabakh conflict and its settlement: 

Even considering my mixed feelings towards the Minsk Group, it is the only effective format to seek a peaceful solution. Even if they don’t work sustainably, they do the most important thing – they keep the peace here. All other international organizations, the United Nations or whatever – they don’t have any role here to play.

Regarding Turkey, once we witnessed the role of Turkey in this particular conflict (let alone the Genocide against Armenians in the early 20thcentury), Turkey cannot have any more roles to play here.

I oppose even the PACE sub-commission on Karabakh, which was established under a direct ruling of the ethnically Turkish parliament member Mr. Mevlut Cavusoglu.

How do you evaluate the role of informal, NGO-level contributions to the peace process?  Do you believe that informal contacts have a useful role to play prior to or after a formal agreement?

I highly appreciate track-two diplomacy. This is very much important. You know, the more people communicate with each other the less they want to take arms.

Do you have a position on the desirability or not of free movement of Armenians and Azeris between their two countries before a final peace agreement?

Armenians and Turks will sooner or later recognize that we have been living in the same neighbourhood for a couple of centuries and we have no alternative but to continue living together. Let them come here to Stepanakert and go to Yerevan, and we can travel to Baku as tourists – that’s OK. However we don’t necessarily need to live together under a single roof.

Do you think that Armenian and Azerbaijanis will ever be able to live together peacefully in Karabakh again in the future?

No, not in Karabakh, but we can live peacefully as neighbors in two different countries – NKR and Azerbaijan.

What is your opinion on the issue of return of refugees/IDPs to Nagorno-Karabakh

I am OK with this, they are most welcome. Just let them recognize and respect the Constitution and domestic legislation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. When they become our citizens, we will protect them from any threat, no problem.

 

(c) commonspace.eu

 

Read previous interviews in this series:

Artur Tovmasyan

Bayram Safarov

Masis Mayilian

Rovshan Rzayev

Vahram Atanesyan

Havva Mammadova

Gegham Baghdasaryan

Kerim Kerimli

Sergey Ghazaryan

Arif Aliyev

Hrant Melkumyan

Sevda Ibrahimova

Armen Sargsyan       

Anar Usubov             

Hayk Khanumyan

Vagif Jahangirov

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)