MP: Positions on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution fixed at OSCE summit
Azerbaijan, Baku, Dec. 5/ Trend E.Tariverdiyeva /
Trend interviewed Azerbaijani MP, Political scientist Rasim Musabeyov.
Trend: The OSCE Astana summit adopted a declaration, which gave rise to controversial comments in the media. What is your view on this issue?
Musabeyov: I would note that this is an important document in the 3 +2 format (the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries and the conflicting parties). The document affirms the statements of the presidents of Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia made on Nov.2, 2008 in Moscow and Oct.27, 2010 in Astrakhan, which reflects the humanitarian component of the conflict, and need for exchange of POWs and return of the bodies of the deceased.
I would like to note that the first paragraph of the Statement reads that a peaceful negotiated settlement will bring stability and security and that this is the only way to bring real reconciliation between the peoples of the region. The second paragraph outlines the obligations of Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia to continue to seek a final settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of norms and principles of the international law. The paragraph also notes that a settlement must be based on the UN Charter, which implies a whole set of documents adopted by the UN and, above all, the resolutions of the UN security Council. I recall that the UN Charter also contains the Article 51, which clearly establishes the inalienable right of a Member State for individual self-defense.
Q.: Armenia thrusts out a principle of self-determination and treats it as fundamental. How much does this correspond to reality?
A.: The Helsinki Final Act, which defines and assigns the interrelation between the principles of "territorial integrity" and "self-determination" reads:
"Article IV. Territorial integrity of States
Member States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the Member States.
In accordance with this, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any Member State, and, in particular, from any action constituting a use of force or threat of force .
Member States will likewise refrain from turning each other's territory into the object of a military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in violation of international law or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or threat of them. No occupation or acquisition of this kind will not be recognized as legitimate."
Thus, Armenia's activities throw an open challenge to this provision. The article, to which the Armenians readily appeal, also does not justify their annexationist claims, as it clearly prescribes that it must not contradict to territorial integrity. Here it is:
"Article VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples
Member States will respect the equal right of peoples and right of self-determination, acting at all times in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of states. "
The document shows that Armenians' aspiration for "self-determination" through the secession contradicts to international law. In addition this desire damages the legal and moral norms, as they try to achieve "self-determination" without taking into account the will of the Nagorno-Karabakh's Azerbaijani community expelled from their places of historic residence.
As for the principle of non-force (Article 2 of the Helsinki Final Act), then , in accordance with this paragraph, Armenia is a violator, as it has already used force and occupied part of Azerbaijan's territory, and more - conducts ethnic cleansing here.
Q.: What would you like to note in the Astana statement on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
A.: It is important that the Astana statement confirmed not only the statements of the presidents of the U.S., Russia and France made in L'Aquila (Italy) on July 10, 2009 and Muskoka (Canada), on July 26, 2010, which identifies six basic principles for resolving the conflict, but also that it has been done already with participation of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Consequently, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan thereby agreed to withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories, return of all IDPs and refugees to their homes and even holding of voting, denying the Armenian side's all allegations of the "referendum" held de facto and the final decision of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh".
One should admit that, Azerbaijan, in turn, is ready to provide temporary status and ensure the security of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, the statements of the three presidents made in L'Aquila and Muskoka do not reflect any word about the possibility of Nagorno Karabakh's independence or secession from Azerbaijan.
The revision of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was reflected in the Article 3 of the Constitution and must be submitted to peoples' referendum, even if such a scenario is predicted. We already have experience in conducting such a vote when the Constitution of the Nakhichivan Autonomous Republic was discussed and accepted by the population of this territory.
In fact, the three co-chairs' plan involve a gradual settlement of the conflict, creating predictability in the region.
Finally, in the last paragraph , the three co-chairs committed to assist the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in achieving lasting peace in the region. We have witnessed a special activation of the Russian Federation in the sole capacity in 2010. The statement also clearly states on the trilateral format, that is, it is hoped that the updated Madrid principles presented at Athens in the framework of the OSCE foreign ministers' council will return to the negotiating table and the parties will continue to work on this basis to achieve a long-awaited breakthrough in the settlement. The alternative to this would be the so-called "coercion to peace".
Although the OSCE Astana summit has not recorded a breakthrough in the negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it was possible to fix the positions, on which the conflicting parties and the mediating countries previously agreed.