NOVRUZ MAMMADOV INTERNATIONAL LAW DOES NOT ALLOW FORCEFUL SELF-DETERMINATION
AssA-Irada
November 4, 2008 Tuesday
Azerbaijan
The signing of a declaration by the Azerbaijani, Armenian and Russian
presidents in conclusion of the recent round of Moscow-brokered talks
on the Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict, the first document signed by
Baku and Yerevan since peace talks began in 1994, has sparked heated
debate in the world community. AssA-Irada has approached Novruz
Mammadov, head of the Azerbaijan Presidents Office international
relations department, for comments on the gist of the document and
details of ongoing discussions. Q. First of all, how do you assess the
declaration? A. The joint declaration signed in Moscow on Sunday is a
start of a new stage in the complicated and challenging negotiating
process that has been under way for 14 years. The document covers
a wide range of important issues and specifies the tasks facing the
conflicting sides.
We therefore highly assess this declaration and believe it is a step
forward taken toward a settlement to the conflict. At the same time,
I deem the activeness of Russia as commendable. Q. As you pointed
out, the declaration covers a number of issues. How would you assess
them from Azerbaijans standpoint? A. Attitude toward these issues
has been expressed on the level of both the heads of state and the
Foreign Ministries. I would only like to say that every single issue
laid out in the document has profound content. These issues will be
further looked into and views expressed separately in the future. The
document says that the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper Garabagh conflict
is a problem that has to be resolved between the two countries. The
declaration envisions contacts between Azerbaijani and Armenian
leaders, and, at the same time, under the presidents orders, the
work of foreign ministers is to be coordinated with that of the
OSCE Minsk Group (MG), and efforts should be made to move the peace
process forward. The document reiterates that the conflict must be
settled based on the principles and norms of international law, which
indicates that a solution should be sought by political means. Q. There
is an interesting tendency. When referring to international law,
inviolability of borders and territorial integrity are laid out as
primary conditions. But the opposing side Armenia claims that the
principle of self-determination lies at the core of international
law. What detail [issue] envisioned by international law is to be
taken as a basis in peace talks? A. Settling the conflict based on the
principles and norms of international law means that a given countrys
territory cannot be forcefully separated from it, and territorial
integrity cannot be violated. Committing aggression against a given
countrys independence and sovereignty is unacceptable. International
legal norms do not imply that a certain ethnic group within a given
country has the right to resolve its fate by force. Q. Does this
document preclude Azerbaijans choice to launch war? As you know,
speculations on this issue have been circulating of late. A. First of
all, I would like to say that Azerbaijan is committed to peace talks
and is interested in continuing negotiations. Azerbaijan aspires to a
peaceful solution to the problem and restoration of stability and peace
in the region. This fully meets the interests of the country itself
and those of regional states. If the norms of international law are
enforced, there will be no grounds for the war option. However, if
peace talks yield no fruit, Azerbaijan reserves the right to regain
its land through military action. Q. Some, and opposition circles
in particular, are trying to present the declaration as a document
representing no importance A. When stating an opinion about a certain
issue, one should think how to back up his assertions.
First, everyone should be unequivocally aware that the Moscow
declaration is the first document adopted and signed by the presidents
since the Minsk Group was established. There is no other document
that we can talk about and state our views upon. If the signing of
such a document is achieved, it should be only commended. Q. One
of the details that stood out during the Moscow talks was the open
support given to the Minsk Group, notwithstanding the fact that
prior to this meeting, wide discussions were under way, although not
on official level, about changing the format of mediators. A. So
far, the OSCE Minsk Group has been mediating the peace process,
and will continue to do so. At the same time, the group should
intensify its efforts. Azerbaijans position has always been like
this, and remains the same. In other words, we are not talking about
turning down the Minsk Groups mediation or altering the format, but
merely about the need for increasing the efficiency of the groups
activity. Q. Azerbaijan was heading to this meeting advocating for
a stage-by-stage package of conflict resolution. There has been no
change in this view after the Moscow talks, correct? A. No, there
is no change at all, and why should there be any? The conflict must
be settled in stages, as this very option is the most appropriate
one for reaching a solution. Moreover, there should be international
legal guarantees during each stage. The first step is the return of
Azerbaijani displaced persons home. Afterwards, substantial steps
should be taken to create confidence and trust between the conflicting
sides. In doing so, it is possible to move step by step toward a
conflict settlement. Furthermore, regional cooperation should be
established and relations developed between countries. Azerbaijan sees
no problems in this respect. We have always been interested in regional
cooperation, and today, the country is its driving force. But for this
to happen, a settlement to the Upper Garabagh conflict is the primary
condition. Forging any ties with Armenia is out of the question prior
to reaching a solution to the conflict. This collaboration is needed
not only by Azerbaijan, but also by Armenia and its citizens. By the
way, I want to point out it is very reassuring that Armenian leaders
have realized after lengthy contemplation that a political settlement
to the conflict is an option that has no alternatives. Q. The issue of
stationing peacekeepers in Upper Garabagh has also been a focal point
in discussions. What would you say to that end? A. Issues regarding the
stationing of peacekeepers and their purpose were not reflected in the
mentioned declaration and this issue is presently not topical. There is
actually no need to talk at length about a non-existent issue. However,
I would like to state my views in this regard. Azerbaijan has managed
to maintain peace between the conflicting sides for 14 years without
the aid of any peacekeeping force. I am confident that furthermore,
and after the positive completion of peace talks, we will be able to
defuse tension and preserve peace. Q. How about the Upper Garabagh
status issue? A. The issues of the withdrawal [of Armenian armed
forces] from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the return
of Azerbaijani displaced persons to their native land are in focus
of discussions. After that, fostering trust between the sides,
establishing ties and other issues will come to the fore, i.e. the
previously-mentioned matters have to be resolved to lay groundwork
for addressing other issues. The status of Upper Garabagh is currently
not a topic of discussion. But President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly
stated that Azerbaijan is ready to grant Upper Garabagh the highest
status within its borders and territorial integrity.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
