AZERBAIJAN DISAVOWS RUSSIA, THE USA AND FRANCE WITHIN THE OSCE MINSK GROUP

Panorama.am
18:33 20/03/2008

The press-centre of the Ministry of Defense of the RA interviewed
the Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the
MoD, Doctor of Political Sciences, Major-General Hayk S. Kotanjian
requesting to evaluate the situation evolving after the adoption of
the UN GA Resolution on the Karabakh Problem.

What are the objectives pursued in the statement by the Deputy
Minister of the Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan claiming that "the
status of Nagorno Karabakh is not a target of the OSCE Minsk Group
and a topic of discussion with Armenia"?

The Baku authorities undertook to address a task which is quite
obviously beyond their sole competence. By their actions the
Azerbaijani authorities are trying to persuade the international
community that the application of common principle of respect towards
the Armenians of Karabakh based on the human rights and freedoms
registered in the UN Charter as a universal norm is purely their
own internal business. They aim at disavowing the OSCE Minsk Group
and removing Russia, the US and France from the group in connection
with their systemic approaches to the application of the norms and
principles of International law on the Karabakh Problem resolution.

What is underlying suchlike position of Azerbaijan?

The essence is that the Baku politicians are trying to impose their
own opportunistic-local interpretation of the International law
concerning the settlement and resolution of the Karabakh Problem. And
they are doing it with presumption of "lawmakers and indisputable
interpreters" of international law not only domestically but also
before the international auditoria. The head of the neighboring
state, as well as the Foreign Affairs Ministry officials in their
statements on the Baku authorities’ commitments to the conflict
resolution underline the "strict conformity with the international
law", persistently paralleling this very conformity with only one
of the common norms of the International lawthe principle
of territorial integrity and ignoring the other norms applied when
dealing with the problems like that of Karabakh. In this context the
ignorance of the principle of peoples’ equality and their right to
self-determination is of strictly manipulative nature.

This unilateral approach by Baku to the norms of International law
cannot be of serious influence upon the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs’
expert position.

Let’s go back to the legal aspect of the problem. What are the
commitments of the states, by example of Azerbaijan, in compliance
with the norms and standards of the International law in the system
of the national law?

Azerbaijani official establishment announces that "the Karabakh
status problem can be resolved only on the basis of the internal
legislation of Azerbaijan" and the activities of the Minsk Group,
in consultations with the conflict sides on the status, are allegedly
an intrusion into the domestic affairs of Azerbaijan.

A symptomatic illustration appears to be the incompatibility of the
Republic of Azerbaijan’s Constitution with the essence of international
legal norm on the principle and right of peoples to master their fate
independently by means of free expression of popular will in conditions
of complete freedom, stipulated by the UN Charter and International
Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. As it is known, these documents
in the international relations system are treaties consolidating the
states’ commitment to adhere to and respect universally recognized
fundamental principles and norms of the International law, first and
foremost – human rights and freedoms.

It concerns those principles of the International law, which comprise
its most stable kernel and are a universal criterion to evaluate
legitimacy of states’ conduct.

Applying the legitimacy criteria accepted in the international
community, how would you evaluate the conformity of Azerbaijan’s
conduct with its international commitments concerning the Karabakh
settlement?

The norm of the Azerbaijan’s Constitution "on change of territory by
holding a referendum among all the Azerbaijani population" contradicts
the other norm of the same document, defined in the article "The
ultimate goal of the state". In accordance with the given definition
"human and citizen rights and freedoms, enumerated in the present
Constitution are employed in conformity with the international
treaties, which are supported by the Republic of Azerbaijan". In this
case the above mentioned international treaties should be touched upon.

Thus the assertions of the Azerbaijani authorities on their adherence
to the international law in the Karabakh conflict resolution
don’t correspond to reality. The conduct of Azerbaijan in terms of
consistent reflection of universally accepted principles and norms of
the International law in the Constitution, as well as in the Karabakh
conflict settlement practice, doesn’t correspond to the international
legitimacy criterion.

What is your take on the position of the Minsk Group which voted
against the UN Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh proposed by Azerbaijan?

Judging from the official statements made by Russia, the USA and France
before and afterwards of the General Assembly, they voted against the
resolution, because the Azerbaijan’s project contradicted, firstly,
the common fundamental principles and norms of the International law,
as well as the criterion of the international legitimacy of their
application.

Secondly, the conduct of Azerbaijan does not coincide with the
balanced approach of the Minsk Group which endorses the solution of the
Karabakh conflict within the system of the International relations. 100
abstained members of the UN virtually demonstrated their understanding
of the balanced position of Russia, the USA and France.

Being obsessed with the independence of Kosovo and exploiting the
internal situation in Armenia, the authorities in Baku attempted to
entrap the international community into an act that would put under
doubt the legality of the future status of Nagorno Karabakh. But
that was a flop. And just yesterday the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
re-confirmed that ‘the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter
of negotiations between the parties’.

How would you explain the driving force of those 39 members of the UN,
which voted for the resolution?

The mentioned states, mainly representing the Organization of Islamic
Conference and the GUAM, backed the Azerbaijan’s initiative from the
position, which was more characteristic to the period of the Cold War,
i.e. on the principle of bloc solidarity.

Unfortunately, some of the countries that supported Azerbaijan’s
unilateral initiative are just the hotbed of international terrorism.

Due to the results of the voting, Azerbaijan threatens to review her
policy on Russia, the USA and France.

How to elaborate the disrespectful position of Azerbaijan to the
contribution of the Minsk Group in the process of the peaceful solution
and the ferociousness of Baku vis-a-vis Russia, France and the USA?

Azerbaijan perceives the designated to her role in the European Energy
policy as a "historical" mission of geo-economic and geo-strategic
importance to compete with Russia. Playing on the strategic interests
of the EU, the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Central Asia, Baku is
trying to at most bid for highest stakes in this way to use this
resource for illegal forcing through its interests in the Karabakh
settlement. In pursuit of these purposes Azerbaijan will now allow
itself to blackmail Russia, the USA, France and the Minsk Group on
the whole. According to many international observers Azerbaijan is
losing the sense of reality.