Azeri pressure group critical of authorities’ handling of Karabakh talks
Ayna, Baku
14 Jul 05
There is no progress in the Azerbaijani-Armenian talks on Nagornyy
Karabakh and the Azerbaijani authorities are to blame for that, the
leader of the Azerbaijani pressure group Karabakh Liberation
Organization has said. Akif Nagi also blamed international
organizations for their inability to solve the conflict and for siding
with Armenia. Trying to use the election situation in Azerbaijan and
ensure the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan major oil pipeline, the
OSCE Minsk Group mediators are in a hurry to sign a peace accord which
will be unfavourable for Azerbaijan. At the same time, Akif Nagi
rejected the idea of holding a referendum in Karabakh to determine the
region’s future as the outcome of the referendum is already clear, he
said. The following is an excerpt from report by Azerbaijani newspaper
Ayna on 14 July headlined “Status of Nagornyy Karabakh should not be a
subject of discussion” and subheaded “The KLO chairman believes that
the Minsk Group is in a hurry to prepare a peace accord which is
unfavourable for Azerbaijan”. Subheadings have been inserted
editorially:
Following a one-month hiatus, the [OSCE] Minsk Group co-chairmen have
paid another visit to the region. The mediators did not disclose
anything regarding the talks they had in Baku. However, they sought to
make people believe that the sides are very close to signing a peace
accord and that there are certain agreements on some issues. Yet there
are people who do not share this optimism of government officials and
mediators. The chairman of the Karabakh Liberation Organization (KLO),
Akif Nagi, is one of them. The KLO chairman explained his position in
an interview with Ayna newspaper.
Minsk Group
[Correspondent] The mediators held another round of talks in
Baku. What is your view?
[Akif Nagi] One of the co-chairmen said that they were in Baku a month
and a half ago and that it is good that they are here now. I would say
that it is not good for Azerbaijan if their visits are so
frequent. Because we do not believe that the Minsk Group will put
forward a plan for settling the conflict and that the plan will
reflect the reality. I mean that the Minsk Group will produce a
document which is in line with its principles.
That document will not reflect the aggression against Azerbaijan. The
document will be detrimental to Azerbaijan. That’s to say, it may be
in favour of Armenia which has invaded our lands.
As for our impressions about the visit, we have repeatedly stated that
the activities of the Minsk Group are directed at strengthening
Armenia’s positions. The Minsk Group is not taking a single step to
recognize Armenia as an aggressor. The group always wants to carry out
a balanced policy as if Armenia and Azerbaijan were equally guilty of
the conflict. However, we will never be able to accept this logic
since one of the sides has been subjected to aggression while the
other is the aggressor. They themselves sometimes acknowledge this.
If this is so, then how can one take a balanced position on the issue?
The foreign minister [Elmar Mammadyarov] recently said that the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly session in Washington has adopted a balanced
position which suits Azerbaijan. This stance is completely
incompatible with Azerbaijan’s foreign policy and goes against
Azerbaijan’s position. We always protested when international bodies
adopted a balanced position. Now we are portraying this position as
our success? The visit of the Minsk Group co-chairman took place along
the same lines. I must say that they are in a serious hurry and seek
to achieve some results.
I believe that this is related to two factors. First, the elections in
Azerbaijan are approaching and both the opposition and authorities are
dependant on international bodies in their attempts to earn their
respect. In such a situation, the Minsk Group believes that neither
the opposition, nor the authorities will protest and go against their
proposals. A favourable situation has developed for them here and they
can impose any document on Azerbaijan.
On the other hand, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be put into
operation at the end of the year and the export of oil will
commence. I believe that major countries do not want even the
slightest threat to the pipeline.
This hurry is connected with these factors. It follows that whatever
the document they will try to pass, it will be based on their previous
activities.
[Passage omitted: details of the Minsk Group’s proposals in 1997]
Authorities are to blame
[Correspondent] The co-chairmen say that it is the leaders of the
countries, not the Minsk Group, who are responsible for the delay in
resolving the conflict.
[Akif Nagi] The authorities are to blame for this in the first
place. An army capable of waging a war has yet to be set up and there
have been no serious achievements on the diplomatic front.
Let me tell you about one fact: one of the topics on the agenda in
1995 concerned Lacin and Susa [towns in the Armenian-controlled
territory, Lacin is outside Nagornyy Karabakh]. Nowadays, the talks
are not discussing the fate of Lacin and Susa at all. This testifies
to a diplomatic setback for Azerbaijan and this is the fault of the
authorities.
Why don’t we differentiate between the views of international
organizations? Sometimes we are criticized for blaming international
organizations, not the Azerbaijani government. Today we see that the
fate of Nagornyy Karabakh depends on international bodies. Let
international organizations know that there is a public opinion and
position in Azerbaijan. Let them know and heed the position of the
public. They ignore the position of the Azerbaijani authorities in any
case.
[Passage omitted: Nagi says there are no apparent reasons for
optimism]
Referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh
[Correspondent] The Armenian bureau of Radio Liberty has reported that
the issue of holding a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh in 10-15 years
is being discussed. Can this proposal be implemented?
[Akif Nagi] In general, it is absurd. Armenia has suggested on several
occasions that a referendum should be held to let the people of
Nagornyy Karabakh determine their fate. Raising such issues as the
referendum and status is part of Armenia’s foreign policy. In doing
so, they are trying to make people forget the real gist of the
issue. They are trying to make everyone forget about the invasion, as
if there has been a violation of the rights of the Nagornyy Karabakh
Armenians, they are trying to expand their rights and so on. It is not
realistic to put forward the issue of holding the referendum at this
moment. Holding any referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh is not in line
with international practice. The latest figures alleged that the
number of Azeris in Nagornyy Karabakh has reached 80,000 and Armenians
are preparing to carry out a census. So far they have been saying that
150,000 Armenians live there, although there were not even 50,000
Armenians there in the past.
They will probably overstate these figures. If the referendum takes
place, the results are already known, and therefore, there is no need
for it. On the other hand, if international organizations insist, then
the Azerbaijani population can be polled.
Only the Azerbaijani population can hold a referendum and take a
decision concerning its territory. In addition, the population of the
Karabakh region is three million people. If this concerns part of
Karabakh, then the population of the entire region has to be
polled. Karabakh was artificially divided into Nagornyy [Mountainous]
Karabakh, Lowland Karabakh and Aran Karabakh. The population of all of
Karabakh can voice its opinion.
No progress in talks
[Correspondent] Some experts say that using the positive changes that
are being observed, it is necessary to take the talks as far as
possible and then link the remaining issues to Azerbaijan’s
development. What is your attitude to this position?
[Akif Nagi] There are no positive changes. Armenia has not made a
concession regarding its three principles: that Nagornyy Karabakh is
no longer part of Azerbaijan, that there must be a ground link between
Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenia, and that the Armenian population must
be given international security guarantees. What progress can we talk
about?
In turn, major countries act in accordance with their own interests.
Azerbaijan continues to develop in these conditions and its budget is
increasing year by year. Armenia senses this, and therefore, it must
be in Armenia’s interests to end the situation. Armenia must
understand this and give up its current stance. If it does not give it
up… [ellipsis as published] If both of us are to be destroyed, then
Armenia will be the first to be destroyed.
[Passage omitted: similar ideas]