What are the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh?

[Federate]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

Examples of maps that should be encouraged

[Federate]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

BTW, we are also part of the Armenian internet community so our voices should be heard as well.

We should categorically reject every map of NK that we see on the Internet that features it as an enclave. I encourage everyone to stop using those kinds of maps themselves and when they see someone using it, to notify them that they are wrong and show them the correct one. Do this with institutions as well, contact them via emails and complain to them that their map is the wrong one. It's disturbing that Armenian sites have not realized this!

If you do not understand which map I am talking about and why, then you can consult this thread which explains with pictures and all.

Examples of maps not to use:

[Federate]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

One of the best developments in the past few weeks has been the recent upsurge of Armenian people demanding we eliminate the usage of fake Stalinian borders of NK. I am very pleased and hope the government will follow suit. I wish I was in Armenia to participate in this.
----------------------------------------------------
Protestors Demand Media Use “Correct” Karabakh Maps

[ 24 December 2008 | 13:35 ] Karabakh, politics |

Early this morning members of Armenia’s internet community, bloggers and members of youth NGO’s gathered in front of the Geodesic and Cartography Institute in Yerevan and staged a protest of sorts regarding the maps of the Karabakh that are still being published by the institute. The protesters started to hand out maps which portray the present borders of the Republic of Karabakh as those of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in Soviet Azerbaijan. That is to say, maps used by the mass media in Armenia still do not represent the RMK as including the liberated territories. This fact, in the view of those who staged the protest, is not only a slap in the face to those who fought and died in the Karabakh war of liberation but also a major public relations error.

The protest was staged in support of the December 9th initiative of the youth in Artsakh regarding the incorrect representation of their republic. “We wish to stand alongside our friends in Artsakh. We also want to pay respect to the memory of those who perished on those territories and to pay respect to those presently living there,” declared Tigran Kocharyan, one of the organizers of the event and Vice-President of the “Yerevan Experts Club” The organizers had sent letters to all media outlets, pointing out their concerns and correct maps and DVD’s were personally handed to the most influential media outlets who still use the old Karabakh maps during their broadcasts, especially during the weather report. These include “Shant” and “H2″ TV stations and those that use “Meteo-TV” maps.

“Hetq” staffers also joined one of the groups handed out the maps and went to the headquarters of “Shant TV” where they met with station management who posed a number of lengthy questions to the young protestors, including what they expected by handing out the new maps and DVD’s. Management finally accepted the items and promised to relay the matter to station directors. Upon exiting, the participants bumped into “Shant TV” anchor Nver Mnatsakanyan who promised to personally get involved in resolving the error.

http://today.hetq.am/en/politics/media-3/

[Federate]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

Disputed territories: Karabakh insists on the country’s current area plus Shahumyan region


Karabakh’s silence in the highlight of the activated discussions on the Karabakh issue settlement is taken by many in Armenia as a sign of agreement with the Armenian authorities. However, Chairman of NKR Parliament Committee Vahram Atanesyan declared at his press conference held in Yerevan that there is an essential difference between Armenia’s approach and that of Karabakh.

Atanesyan stressed that Karabakh has its own approach to the settlement of the conflict, quite different from Armenia’s standpoint on the issue. One of the main differences, as Atanesyan said, is that NKR has only one priority and that is international recognition. The issue of lands and all discussions in this respect Karabakh considers irrelevant at this moment.

Karabakh insists on preserving its current boarders
“Karabakh has one vital task- to achieve recognition of NKR’s independence within borders acceptable to the people of Karabakh, given that the priority of national security system is observed,” said Atanesyan. He emphasized that country borders acceptable for the people of Karabakh are stated in the NKR Constitution, which says that until recovering the territorial integrity of NKR its sovereignty applies to the factual territory of the republic. Recovery of territorial integrity of NKR implies return of the occupied Shahumyan region which, Atanesyan says, is a part of NKR.

In 1991 NKR was declared on the territory of Soviet Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh (ARNK) and Azerbaijan’s Shahumyan region. As a result of the 1991-94 war, the Shahumyan region and a number of lands belonging to the former ARNK passed to Azerbaijan and Armenian forces of Karabakh took 7 regions not included in former ARNK under their control. The NKR Constitution consolidates the current borders of NKR and that its territorial integrity has to be recovered.

NKR President Bako Sahakyan suggests that the definition “liberated lands” should be forgotten. In early November at his meeting with the residents of Kashatagh (former Lachin) and Shahumyan (former Kelbajar) regions the president said that the so called liberated territories are nothing more than lands consolidated by the NKR Constitution. Accordingly, an adequate perception of those lands has to be expected on the part of its residents, citizens of NKR.

The Kashatagh region is approximately as big as the former ARNK, and conditions there are deplorable, because whatever has been done during the post war period is not enough to overcome the desolation caused by the war.

“One of the main factors hindering the development of the region is the residents’ uncertainty concerning the region’s status,” President Sahakyan said. Uncertainty generates negative consequences, such as, the fact that the settlers are not in a hurry to acquire permanent addresses. “Don’t believe absurd rumors,” he said. “This is our country. And this is your land. They were liberated lands in early 90s. That’s history now. Our country has entered the stage of modern history. And for as long as Artsakh exists- and I can assure you it always will- this region will exist as well.”

A project for 2009 is under way aimed at the region’s social-economic development. Supposedly 5 billion drams ($165 million) will be allotted to that project (almost twice more than total allocations of all post-war years).

Opinions in Armenia are not unanimous in these terms. Even among radical opposition- the All-Armenian National Congress (ANC) lead by Levon Ter-Petrosyan - there isn’t a common opinion about the issue. As ANC coordinator Levon Zurabyan says, one part thinks that concessions are inevitable, the other that nobody is forcing Armenia to concede.

The most important thing, though, both in Armenia and in Karabakh is the recent speculations that the settlement of the issue is not around the corner, as Ter-Petrosyan and international mediators have been assuring. The opposition leader until now keeps saying that the Karabakh knot will be undone already this December. Mediators repeat the same thing saying that “the current level of mutual respect between the presidents of Armenia and Azebaijan” serves as a ground for hope that the main principles will soon be agreed upon.

Recent speculations in Azerbaijan over the need to amend their constitution are another proof that the parties are reaching an “accord” on settlement principles. As Azerbaijani political analyst Mubariz Akhmedoglu said in his interview to Day.az, “amendments concerning Karabakh” will soon be moved to the constitution. It can be assumed that amendments will be on the status of Karabakh , which, according to the constitution of Azerbaijan, is a part of their republic. On the other hand, the Armenian authorities assure that the issue won’t be settled so soon and that even after agreeing upon principles, a number of documents must be signed, discussed etc.

Most probably, everybody understands the word “outcome” in their own way. Those who are talking about impending settlement think that bringing the principles to an accord already means that the conflict is settled. The rest is mere technicality. To supporters of the “remote” settlement the outcome means signing a treaty of peace. And between those two “outcomes” is where Karabakhis live, understanding that agreeing on principles would mean loss of the security zone together with security itself. It is for that reason that they are wary of the current course of settlement.

http://armenianow.com/?action=viewArticle&AID=3413&CID=3273&IID=1211&lng=eng

[Federate]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

For you, TruAnatolian.
---------------------------------------
Alek Yenikomshian – “We have liberated our historic lands.”
[ 25 November 2008 | 19:14 ] politics |

An interview with Alek Yenikomshian, a friend of Monte Melkonian and a founder of the “Miatsum Initiative”

Alek, today, November 25th, is the birthday of Monte. You, who knew him for almost 30 years and who is familiar with his views better than most, what do you think Monte’s opinion would have been regarding the political settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

Monte answered this question back then, there are statements he made during interviews where he noted that, “the war will only end with our victory.”

This means that any reconciliation will be signed on the basis of our victory. This is something that I have added. Monte made numerous statements that show that he considered the territories as perpetually Armenian. At the liberation of Karvatchar, during an interview he granted with Dadivank as a backdrop, Monte stated that there are Armenian monasteries all over the place, wherever you travel you come across Armenian settlements and that we haven’t stepped a foot over the boundary of our historic lands…Whatever lands we have taken have been our historic lands. These are just recollections of some of Monte’s sayings.

Here are some more specific quotations from his statements: “We have once again become masters of our homes and lands” (Nor Gyank, USA, July 23, 1993); “We have gone into those areas that have historically been ours. We will be turning the last page of Armenian history if we lose this land” (Artsakh TV interview, October 4, 1992); “This question is an historical one. It is extremely important for our people to reconnect this area (Karvatchar) to Armenia. As you see, wherever you go there are Armenian monasteries, this is Armenian land. Enter any village and you see that this is Armenian land. And it is vitally important to connect these 3,000 square kilometers of land. The liberation of this region will also play a decisive role in the history of Artsakh as well…spiritually, politically, strategically, in all ways. It is very important to gain a victory.” (Interview given on March 29-30, in vicinity of Dadivank, during operations to liberate Karvatchar); “My view is that we must return to the historic borders of Artsakh, by drawing a line from the Araks to the Kur. In this way the defense of our positions will be made much easier because we’ll have natural borders as our defenders, the rivers and mountains. For as long as we have our defensive lines looking like a lace patchwork we will be consumed in defending several fronts simultaneously and will be making the task of the Azeris much easier.” (Les Nouvelles D’Armenie, June-July 1993).

Monte proved that these lands were historic Armenian lands and that we didn’t capture the lands of others. In terms of the defense of security this has been the historic way and it remains so today. The present territories must remain because those same territories insure our security. Otherwise, the borders of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, in terms of insuring defensibility, have much to be desired in any number of ways. In other words, there are principled reasons here to exercise the right to historic justice and also in terms of insuring practical defensibility. In my opinion, this would be Monte’s position.

Today, active negotiations are taking place around the issue of mutual concessions. I know that you are personally opposed to mutual concessions in general. However, don’t you think that something can be conceded in the name of peace and in exchange for the recognition of the independence of Artsakh?

I am not alone in thinking that there can be no talk, and shouldn’t be any talk, of mutual concessions when it comes to the issue of the territories. I have noted principled reasons, i.e., that we have regained our former rights. At a minimum we have been losing land for the past 1,000 years and it has only been in this war that we have liberated our historic lands. This fact has great psychological importance – today or the next day, this great leap forward, the first in over 1,000 years, will be reduced to nothing. I can’t picture what type of psychological state of mind an Armenian will find himself in after such a shameless outrage if those lands are returned. What I want to say is that the Armenian spirit would be broken. Here it’s not only a matter of principle but a question of the future. Beside from a purely military issue of defensibility, from a psychological perspective, it would signify “devastation”. Let me restate, after all this, that there can be no talk of land or territory concessions. There were those 14 years, before the truce of 1994, on the Armenian side who were talking about minimal demands in the context of mutual concessions and for them the border line was the self-government of the region; namely the demand that Azerbaijan accept the right of the people of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to self-determination. And Azerbaijan didn’t accept this. Azerbaijan didn’t even accept this minimal demand when simultaneously the weak Armenian side was ready to give back almost all the territories. But if Azerbaijan hasn’t accepted this minimal demand for 14 years, there is no such mutual concession that is possible to realize. This is a fact. Azerbaijan has shown that it will not accept the minimal demand. If Azerbaijan is confident that it can regain those lands by military means from the hands of the Armenian forces it wouldn’t hesitate doing so for a moment. Thus, if we signed an agreement or not, with or without mutual concessions, Azerbaijan will take that step and will not accept the minimal demand of the Armenian side. Thus, there’s a bit too much importance being given to the concept of mutual concessions. There is no such mutual concession that Azerbaijan will accept and we will not enter into obligations regarding the territories. It is possible to think along other lines.

In your estimation, what issues are the negotiations revolving around? Is there a question about the return of those territories in the negotiations?

From the first days of negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan there was mention made of the territories and that was scandalous. Now they say that the Madrid Principles aren’t known but we all know that in that framework there is mandatory talk about 5, 6 or 7 regions of the territories. No one can say that the first point of the negotiations process isn’t about the return of those territories. I believe this is to be rejected out of hand. Thus, for all this time the negotiations have been revolving around the principle of territorial concessions. Sadly, the official Armenian side has always been ready to go the way of concessions, with the condition that the self-determination of the people of MK (Mountainous Karabakh) be recognized. But aren’t we aware that after the lands are returned Armenians now residing there will leave especially since they won’t feel protected. The same can happen in Zangezour and Syunik and down the line. Any weakness on our part will just lead to larger loses, both territorially and in issues of existence.

Holding on to those territories isn’t an aim in itself. Those lands must be settled by our people and it is just not our just historic right to once again live there. The resettlement of those lands can solve a myriad of other issues. Those territories are some of the best agricultural lands around and we know of the problems faced by our agricultural sector even since Soviet days. These lands could help with managing the size of our agricultural imports. I haven’t yet touched on a very important matter that these territories might solve, the problem of emigration. Where once people moved overseas from our cities, now this trend has reached the villages as well. If there was a serious policy to redirect those people who feel that they can no longer make a living in the villages to these territories in an organized fashion, we could resolve these issues from a demographic viewpoint.

Why hasn’t the problem of resettling the territories yet been resolved?

I am certain it has two main reasons. There is no political will. Those making decisions have yet to do so regarding the resettlement of these territories. They pass decisions to the contrary because they believe that sooner or later these lands will be returned. The other reason is the lack of adequate policy of socio-economic assistance. In other words, those lands are only being employed to ensure the profits of various clans and not for resettlement of people or to ensure those people with a decent lifestyle. Thousands of hectares of land are under the control of a handful of people, they are the master of the land’s fruits. No assistance is given to the people living there and trying to eke out an existence.

http://today.hetq.am/en/politics/alek-yenikomshyan/

[vasbourakan1]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

and when we say that there are still a lot of territories to be liberated ...

[gmd]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

DEFENSE ARMY OF NAGORNY KARABAKH REPUBLIC OCCUPIES JUST PART OF THE TERRITORY BELONGING TO ARMENIA BEFORE 1920: LOCAL EXPERT

ArmInfo
2008-11-25 17:05:00

ArmInfo. Defense Army of Nagorny Karabakh Republic (NRK) has occupied
only a part of the territory belonging to Armenia before 1920, Ara
Papyan, ex-Ambassador of Armenia to Canada, specialist in Oriental
Studies, historian, told media Tuesday.

'There are real maps drawn up and published by Canadian specialists
that evidently show that the so-called "occupied territories", the
seven regions of the security zone around Nagorny Karabakh, were
part of Armenia before 1920. I'd like to emphasize that they belonged
neither to Azerbaijan nor to Karabakh, but to Armenia', he said. Except
the two regions in the south of the present NKR - Zangelan and Fizouli,
the remaining territory including the upper and the lower Karabakh up
to Artsvashen and Gazakh previously belonged to Armenia', Papyan said.

'One should not forget that the same Artsvashen was not an Armenian
enclave in the territory of Azerbaijan before 1931 inclusive, since
it had a common border to Armenia. All the innovations of Azerbaijani
SSR after Karabakh and Nakhijevan were gifted to it by the decision
of the Caucasian Bureau of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
in 1921 pursued one goal to reduce the territory of Karabakh splitting
it up into several administrative units', Papyan said.

[vasbourakan1]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

your'e right federate concerning these big companies who rule a given country's policy should be the states, canada, germany, japan etc.., same happened with armenicum, and now armenicum guys are opening a hospital in italy, russia is interested as well as china, so one day or another those big pharmaceutical companies who imposed a conspiration of silence towards armenicum to run their 'research' business, will have to deal with it, so goes for everything, just for an example -a random one-, when europeans began to build renaut 5, or fiat 500 or autobianchi's, america continued to produce 8 cyl engine powered big cars and disregarded the trend, now they are doing the same, building cars with low consumption. so the replacement of oil as energy source is coming, soon or late, but it is coming, and these azeris have nothing else to offer, I mean they really have nothing to offer so they will return back to what they were, meaning a simple tseghakhoomp

[Federate]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

fortunately a lot are working on replacement energy sources -refer to my comment in the cars header lighteneing 80 thread, and the sooner the better, so that the above factor will not provide any credit to these azeris

This is barely going to happen in the next 50 years. Did you know the entire world has the potential to live without a single drop of oil and maintain everything we have? But there's too much big business in it so those greedy companies don't allow it. Anyway, Armenia should and is moving towards becoming less dependent on oil and gas with its planned construction of the new NPP which will be double the strength of Metsamor.

This aside, did you know the azerbaboon oil profit is scheduled to reach its climax in 2012? After that, it's all going down for the baboons. Already the other day I read an article from today.az that says the projected military spending will drop 10% next year So much for reaching our entire budget. This is why they are spending so much these days because they know their oil profits are not forever and if/when the war is going to happen, it's going to most likely be before 2012.

[vasbourakan1]

Re: What are the N.K. borders?

quote There are plenty of factors but I will give you the primary reason: the fake republic of "Azerbaijan" has a lot of this that some greedy bastards are hungry for: unquote
fortunately a lot are working on replacement energy sources -refer to my comment in the cars header lighteneing 80 thread, and the sooner the better, so that the above factor will not provide any credit to these azeris