Tweet
Caucaz Europenews
UN resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh : a wasted effort ? [UN - KARABAKH]
By Laurence RITTER in Yerevan
On 20/12/2004
The vote which was asked by Azerbaijan at the UN General Assembly on last
November 23rd, was postponed sine die. Officially, Armenia expressed that it
was satisfied with this report, denouncing the azeri attempt to change the
framework for the negotiations of the Minsk group at UN.
The text submitted by Baku expresses the perpetual Azerbaijani stance : it
reaffirms Azerbaijan's sovereignty over the Karabakh enclave and the serious
worries about the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territories which
border this enclave.
For the Armenians, those territories, called « freed » territories,
constitute before all a security belt around the enclave de facto controlled
by Armenian forces since 1994. For the Azerbaijanis, those territories are «
occupied », and they should be placed back under the azeri authority, as
Karabakh itself.
As of today, Karabakh is at it was after the vote of 1991 which
self-proclaimed its secession from Azerbaijan : a self-proclaimed autonomous
republic. Technically, the enclave is attached to Armenia and directly
supplied by the development aid offered by the Armenian diaspora .For
instance, the last Armenian Phoneton organized by the United Armenian Fund
fund-raised 11 millions dollars, as donation promises for upkeeping the
Karabakh roads.
As regards the International Law, its statute is still difficult to
determine. On the first hand, Baku refuses to recognize the least secession
from its territory, and to give up on Karabakh definitively, what would
definitively confirm its military defeat. On the other hand, Armenia is also
holding the same firm positions.
Thus Armenians denounced the azerbaijani proposal for a UN resolution as a
manipulation. But according to Babken Artarktsian, Chairman of the National
Assembly under Ter Petrossian, this wasted effort from Baku which did not
get any vote from UN might show that you can't see the wood for the trees.
According to declarations he made on December 2nd 2004, Azerbaijan would
have been discreetly reinforced by UN. Indeed UN might be trading the sword
of Damocles of this vote against Armenia for a softening of Armenian
positions.
But there is an issue : ones cannot really see how given the inefficiency
reached by UN, one of its resolutions might change the course of events.
>From the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia to the Irak's matter, the world's great
assembly seems to have widely proven UN's free-fall. Moreover, the Armenian
side affirmed that the Minsk Group had intervened so that the vote does not
take place.
Why would the Minsk Group be blackmailing (threat of the resolution in order
to soften the Armenian stance) if it was so much convinced that it is only
by way of its mediation that the conflict may be solved ? Indeed, it would
mean to admit the failure of this very group of which three protagonists
(France, United States and Russia) have contradictory interests.
France, in the name of Europe is on a knife edge torn between its
pro-Armenian tradition and the upcoming Turkey's entry into Europe. The
United States would have no scruples settling in favor of Azerbaijan since
it strongly needs stability in Caucasus. But Russia is certainly not ready
to concede Europeans, and even less Americans, a single square centimeter of
its Caucasian influence zone.
In fact, Artarktsian's pro-Ter Petrosian position casts an immediate doubt
on his declarations. The former president and his clan have never concealed
- and the recent stealthily comeback of Ter Petrosian shows that his
position is still the same - that they favour a « step by step » solution of
the conflict. That is to say, to evacuate the freed/occupied territories for
a relative autonomy of the enclave.
By denouncing the alleged UN's blackmailing Ter Petrosian would take the
advantage, as he would appear as a generous pacifist/visionary as compared
to Kocharian who promotes the integrity of the enclave inside its current
geographical limits. Finally, this is about convincing Armenians that as
regards Nagorno-Karabakh, they are better off with a bad solution negotiated
by Armenians than with a just as bad solution imposed by third parties.
And yet officially Armenia still holds the same position : the Armenian
minister of Foreign Affairs, Vartan Oskanian, repeatedly affirmed that in
case this resolution was passed by UN, Armenia would step out of the
negotiations process. Azerbaijan would then have to negotiate directly with
the Karabakh authorities.
Translated by Marie Anderson.
UN resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh : a wasted effort ? [UN - KARABAKH]
By Laurence RITTER in Yerevan
On 20/12/2004
The vote which was asked by Azerbaijan at the UN General Assembly on last
November 23rd, was postponed sine die. Officially, Armenia expressed that it
was satisfied with this report, denouncing the azeri attempt to change the
framework for the negotiations of the Minsk group at UN.
The text submitted by Baku expresses the perpetual Azerbaijani stance : it
reaffirms Azerbaijan's sovereignty over the Karabakh enclave and the serious
worries about the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territories which
border this enclave.
For the Armenians, those territories, called « freed » territories,
constitute before all a security belt around the enclave de facto controlled
by Armenian forces since 1994. For the Azerbaijanis, those territories are «
occupied », and they should be placed back under the azeri authority, as
Karabakh itself.
As of today, Karabakh is at it was after the vote of 1991 which
self-proclaimed its secession from Azerbaijan : a self-proclaimed autonomous
republic. Technically, the enclave is attached to Armenia and directly
supplied by the development aid offered by the Armenian diaspora .For
instance, the last Armenian Phoneton organized by the United Armenian Fund
fund-raised 11 millions dollars, as donation promises for upkeeping the
Karabakh roads.
As regards the International Law, its statute is still difficult to
determine. On the first hand, Baku refuses to recognize the least secession
from its territory, and to give up on Karabakh definitively, what would
definitively confirm its military defeat. On the other hand, Armenia is also
holding the same firm positions.
Thus Armenians denounced the azerbaijani proposal for a UN resolution as a
manipulation. But according to Babken Artarktsian, Chairman of the National
Assembly under Ter Petrossian, this wasted effort from Baku which did not
get any vote from UN might show that you can't see the wood for the trees.
According to declarations he made on December 2nd 2004, Azerbaijan would
have been discreetly reinforced by UN. Indeed UN might be trading the sword
of Damocles of this vote against Armenia for a softening of Armenian
positions.
But there is an issue : ones cannot really see how given the inefficiency
reached by UN, one of its resolutions might change the course of events.
>From the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia to the Irak's matter, the world's great
assembly seems to have widely proven UN's free-fall. Moreover, the Armenian
side affirmed that the Minsk Group had intervened so that the vote does not
take place.
Why would the Minsk Group be blackmailing (threat of the resolution in order
to soften the Armenian stance) if it was so much convinced that it is only
by way of its mediation that the conflict may be solved ? Indeed, it would
mean to admit the failure of this very group of which three protagonists
(France, United States and Russia) have contradictory interests.
France, in the name of Europe is on a knife edge torn between its
pro-Armenian tradition and the upcoming Turkey's entry into Europe. The
United States would have no scruples settling in favor of Azerbaijan since
it strongly needs stability in Caucasus. But Russia is certainly not ready
to concede Europeans, and even less Americans, a single square centimeter of
its Caucasian influence zone.
In fact, Artarktsian's pro-Ter Petrosian position casts an immediate doubt
on his declarations. The former president and his clan have never concealed
- and the recent stealthily comeback of Ter Petrosian shows that his
position is still the same - that they favour a « step by step » solution of
the conflict. That is to say, to evacuate the freed/occupied territories for
a relative autonomy of the enclave.
By denouncing the alleged UN's blackmailing Ter Petrosian would take the
advantage, as he would appear as a generous pacifist/visionary as compared
to Kocharian who promotes the integrity of the enclave inside its current
geographical limits. Finally, this is about convincing Armenians that as
regards Nagorno-Karabakh, they are better off with a bad solution negotiated
by Armenians than with a just as bad solution imposed by third parties.
And yet officially Armenia still holds the same position : the Armenian
minister of Foreign Affairs, Vartan Oskanian, repeatedly affirmed that in
case this resolution was passed by UN, Armenia would step out of the
negotiations process. Azerbaijan would then have to negotiate directly with
the Karabakh authorities.
Translated by Marie Anderson.