ABSTAINER CAN BE WORSE THAN ‘YES’ VOTE
by A. Harutyunyan
Azg
March 18 2008
Armenia
Azerbaijan’s resolution in the UN – a way to `say goodbye’ to the
Minsk Group?
The majority of the UN member states, i.e. 150 countries, voted
against or abstained from Azerbaijani-initiated resolution "On the
situation in the occupied [Azerbaijani] territories", by which it
wanted to have backing for its territorial integrity. Thirty nine
countries supported the resolution, which are either GUAM member
states or members of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Russia,
the USA and France – the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs – voted against
the resolution. No EU member state supported the resolution either.
Armenian foreign minister negative about UN resolution
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan interpreted the adoption of
this resolution as Azerbaijan’s self-deception, especially taking into
consideration that the Azerbaijani resolution does not have a legal
force and cannot have any consequences. On the same day, Oskanyan met
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in Vienna to discuss the cease-fire
violations on the contact line and the opportunity of a meeting between
the [Armenian] president-elect Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev in early April for the Karabakh solution.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov also met the Minsk
Group co-chairs on 16 March in Paris, when discussions are under way
at various levels in Azerbaijan after such a low-level adoption about
stopping missions of the mediator states of the Minsk Group co-chairs.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan trumpets about the resolution adopted in
an indifferent environment in the UN as "a brilliant diplomatic
victory". They see the importance of the [OSCE] Minsk Group only in the
context of maintaining the role of European countries in our region,
having an approach that [the OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairs do not want
to see the [Nagornyy Karabakh] issue settled.
The OSCE Minsk Group made numerous statements that shifting the process
of settlement of Nagornyy Karabakh conflict to other organization
is not only undesirable, but can also harm the negotiations
process. Moreover, the Minsk Group, in the person of the US co-chair
Matthew Bryza even said that it is against such initiatives like the
Azerbaijani resolution in the UN.
At the same time, the official Azerbaijan, on the one hand says
it favours continuation of the negotiations, on the other hand,
implements such initiatives, and sometimes adds bellicose self-praising
statements. The Minsk Group, by the way, always responded to such
statements silently.
Paper questions Armenian Foreign Ministry’s attitude
What does Armenia do, what is the logic and sequence of our actions,
if anything is planned or carried out. Whether or not one should agree
to Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan’s statement about the Azerbaijani
resolution adopted in the UN is a self-deception?
One can accept that this resolution, which does not have legal
force, can have no consequences both for the negotiations process
of Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and for Armenian-Azerbaijani ties
as a whole. However, if adoption of a resolution at the UN level
is self-deception, then one can say calmly that all UN resolutions
are meaningless.
If Azerbaijan should draw conclusions, taking into consideration
the positions of the countries that voted against the resolution
or abstained from voting, then Armenia, in its turn, should draw
corresponding conclusions regarding positions on Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict of the countries, which supported the resolution and those
countries, which ensured its adoption under the pretext of abstention.
Moreover, the Azerbaijani initiative, irrespective of its legal
force, shows that our diplomacy has long ago been in need of becoming
pro-active, and by the way, the first bold steps is not necessary in
the legal sphere. Just as well one can think that the Azerbaijani
initiative during the vote in the UN contributes to spreading
Azerbaijani views regarding the Karabakh issue and naturally not the
Armenian views.
Thus, be it a diplomatic victory or failure, the resolution is already
a reality, which we will discuss in details in the future. We should
say that a war of propaganda is both dangerous and important as
a military means, and the liberation of Artsakh needs very much a
diplomatic consolidation.