Этот пост доступен на языках: Русский

Armenia has abstained from voting on a UN res­o­lu­tion calling for the return of IDPs to Abkhazia and South Ossetia for the first time since 2008, when the res­o­lu­tion was first intro­duced. Armenia had pre­vi­ous­ly always voted against the res­o­lu­tion in the annual votes at the UN General Assembly.

On 4 June, during the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly, the res­o­lu­tion was adopted with 79 countries voting in favour, 15 against, and 57 absten­tions.

In a statement, the Georgian Foreign Ministry said that ‘the res­o­lu­tion condemns the forced demo­graph­ic changes in the occupied regions, empha­sis­es the right of all inter­nal­ly displaced persons and refugees, regard­less of their ethnicity, to a safe and dignified return to their places of origin, and focuses upon the need to fully respect and protect their property rights. The res­o­lu­tion reit­er­ates the impor­tance of unimpeded human­i­tar­i­an access in the regions of Abkhazia and Tskhin­vali Region.’

This year, the res­o­lu­tion was put forward by Georgia and 44 other countries.

In a speech to the General Assembly, Georgia’s Permanent Rep­re­sen­ta­tive to the UN, Kaha Imnadze, said that the security and human rights situation inside Abkhazia and South Ossetia remained ‘extremely alarming’.

‘People endure kid­nap­pings, arbitrary deten­tions, seizure of property, as well as continued dis­crim­i­na­tion on the grounds of ethnic origin including severe restric­tions on free movement and residence, and access to education in their native language’, said the statement of Georgian Foreign ministry.

According to them, Imnadze also stressed that it was ‘heart­break­ing to see the Secretary-General’s latest report referring to the “tragic loss of life” of the Georgian IDPs while in detention by the occupying power. Such cases happen far too often and far too many: Basharuli, Otkho­zo­ria, Tatu­nashvili, Kvaratskhe­lia’.

Ivane Abra­mashvili, the executive director of Georgian think-tank Caucasian House, told OC Media that Armenia had pre­vi­ous­ly rejected the res­o­lu­tion because embracing it would mean they also supported Azerbaijan’s policy on Nagorno-Karabakh.

He referred to article 8 of the res­o­lu­tion, according to which the General Assembly committed to dis­cussing during the next session the ‘pro­tract­ed conflicts in [Georgia, Ukraine, Azer­bai­jan, and Moldova] and their impli­ca­tions for inter­na­tion­al peace, security, and devel­op­ment’.

He said Armenia’s change of tack could mean two things: that it was seeking to improve Georgian-Armenian relations and taking a step to emphasise a sig­nif­i­cant angle of dialogue with Azer­bai­jan. ‘It has neu­tralised the problem existent in its relations with Georgia and at the same time, gained points in the eyes of the Inter­na­tion­al Community and Azer­bai­jan’, he said.

‘The influence of the “Karabakh clan” has softened in the new gov­ern­ment; the pressure has been basically lifted and this is a concrete step forward in relation to Azer­bai­jan’, said Abra­mashvili, but added that it was too early to predict how the move might influence Armenia’s relations with Russia.

Richard Giragosian, the Founding Director of the Regional Studies Centre, an Armenian think-tank, said that the move could be seen as ‘a more careful and cautious diplo­mat­ic position on the issue’ than the country had pre­vi­ous­ly taken.

‘For Armenia, despite expec­ta­tions and perhaps pressure from Russia, the absten­tion may have been a com­pro­mise, aimed at no longer angering its important neighbour, Georgia, while seeking more flex­i­bil­i­ty from the Moscow line in UN votes’, Giragosian told OC Media.

‘Despite the coming to power of a more open and more demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment in 2018, Armenian diplomacy remains rather neither as inno­v­a­tive nor as strategic as it needs to be’.

‘That defi­cien­cy is most evident in terms of address­ing any diplo­mat­ic question over ter­ri­to­r­i­al integrity or any issue that would have influence or hold prece­dence over the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) conflict.’

Giragosian said that this was not a sign of con­fi­dence or com­pe­tence in diplomacy ‘rather, Armenia’s voting record reflects a dis­turb­ing trend of either being overly fearful and sub­mit­ting to Russian pref­er­ences, or of failing to uphold the moral high ground, when it comes to the Russian seizure of Crimea, the war in eastern Ukraine, or on Syria, where any blind alle­giance to Moscow’s policy pref­er­ences only under­mines and undercuts Armenia’s demo­c­ra­t­ic cre­den­tials and diplo­mat­ic cred­i­bil­i­ty’.

There have been no official nego­ti­a­tions between Armenia and Azer­bai­jan on the set­tle­ment of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict since the Velvet Rev­o­lu­tion in Armenia.

However, Aliyev and Pashinyan met on 29 March in Vienna for the first time under the auspices of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

[Read more about Armenian-Azer­bai­jani relations on OC Media: Armenia hopes for Nagorno-Karabakh’s return to the nego­ti­at­ing table]

According to the OSCE, they exchanged views about several key issues of the set­tle­ment process and ideas of substance.

‘The two leaders under­lined the impor­tance of building up an envi­ron­ment conducive to peace and taking further concrete and tangible steps in the nego­ti­a­tion process to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. Recalling their con­ver­sa­tion in Dushanbe, the leaders recom­mit­ted to strength­en­ing the ceasefire and improving the mechanism for direct com­mu­ni­ca­tion. They also agreed to develop a number of measures in the human­i­tar­i­an field’, said OSCE statement, elab­o­rat­ing that the two leaders also agreed to continue their direct dialogue.