Armenia/Azerbaijan: Presidential elections in Nagorno Karabakh · Global Voices
Ben Paarmann

15.2 km South of Lachin, Kashatagh Region, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2006
Today, presidential elections took place in the breakaway and self-declared Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (a source of constant dispute and armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan). These days, Nagorno-Karabakh is populated almost entirely by ethnic Armenians and functions more or less as a part of Armenia (meaning citizens hold Armenian passports, and the local currency is the Armenian dram).
Discussing the Karabakh issue is a potential minefield, and at international conferences in the UK or the US you can usually witness the amount of resentment between Armenians and Azeris over the disputed territory. Both countries are still at war with each other officially, although a ceasefire has been kept more or less intact since the end of large-scale fighting in 1994.
As with so many things pertaining to Karabakh, it's usually just the Armenian blogosphere that is covering landmark events such as today's poll. Therefore, what follows are several excerpts from Armenian blog posts over the past couple of days.
On the situation in Stepanakert (Karabakh's capital), Raffi of Life in Armenia wrote yesterday:
The town is humming, loads of people around from Yerevan and abroad, hotels packed, friends from Yerevan and the US are around, and locals are busy, making it a bit hard to get things accomplished here on the Janapar. Gamats, gamats as they say.
The voting itself is supposed to happen according to fairly clean and transparent standards (something with which the neighbours of the small republic have more problems with). Furthermore, the authorities are helping journalists as much as they can, reports Onnik Krikorian:
The Karabakh authorities have even established a press room with an internet connection so they can file their reports, something which seems like a great idea and one which should be introduced in Armenia given the high cost even for low-quality dial-up services. The press center even appears to be allowing access to bloggers as well, something that must make the Karabakh election very progressive indeed.
Christian Garbis and Onnik Krikorian have some differences over the Nagorno Karabakh issue and comment on each other's blog posts. Christian, on his Notes from Hareinik, writes:
Quite simply, Armenians need to unite on the Nagorno-Karabagh issue once and for all, and discussions which I would describe as patriotic calling for the refusal of handing over Armenian-controlled lands are healthy. The Armenian position should solidify if there is indeed a building support for maintaining Armenia’s territorial integrity from within, and patriotism should flourish nationwide. The rampant display of the tri-color national flag in a grandiose display of patriotism would be a nice start to rally the masses (it is hardly visible anywhere, even on government buildings) along with bold declarations made by politicians, pro-government and opposition alike. Despite some concerns regarding what the international community might say, Armenia really has nothing to lose.
Onnik finds some rather strong words in the comments:
In my opinion, this is all emotive based on your ARF-D background but using arguments formulated total isolation from the region around you. Still, the same knee jerk nationalist (not patriotic) attitude can be found in Azerbaijan so it's only natural that it's found here.
It's just ironic to consider that almost everyone in Armenia and Azerbaijan who says there should be no concessions by either side are the very same people who would never go to fight in a new war.
They won't fight for nationalism or patriotism, in fact. Others can go and die to do that for them. Still, it's all irrelevant really. Most politicians and analysts here realize the need for a compromise peace deal whereas Azerbaijan is playing a waiting game with Armenia and its continuing isolation.
Christian's stance on Nagorno Karabakh seems to be part of a wider trend. A couple of weeks back, Onnik Krikorian found that Armenian civil society was taking a tougher stance on the Karabakh issue:
Unfortunately, many organizations and even publications in Armenia are now taking a more nationalist line on continuing moves to strike a still elusive peace deal.
As much as Nagorno Karabakh is a the heart of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, one should still understand local people's desire to run things by themselves. A year back, Brendan Hoffman interviewed Karabakh politicians in an article on neweurasia:
“We’ve ignored the threat of war to allow democracy to develop. It’s hard to find other countries in a similar situation.” A peaceful solution is more likely, Petrosian believes, if leaders with slightly more respect for democracy come to power in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Still, Ghulian says, “participation in the talks isn’t an end in itself.” The goal is international recognition of their independence.
Toughening rhetorics in both Azerbaijan and Armenia makes the little breakaway republic's future destiny impossible to foretell. The seven rules of nationalism, a humourous take on the frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union posted by TOL's Steady State, make for a rather grim reading in the Nagorno Karabakh context:
1. If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50, it should belong to us – you are merely an occupier.
2. If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed.
3. If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the Cradle of our Nation.
4. If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right to self-determination.
5. If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression.
6. All of the above rules apply to us but not to you.
7. Our dream of greatness is Historical Necessity, yours is Fascism.