Tweet
OUR RESPONSE TO AZERBAIJAN
"HAYOTS ASHKHARH"
March 18, 2008
Armenia should submit a new Resolution
The Resolution on the "Situation in the Occupied Territories of
Azerbaijan" put to vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations
on March 14 and adopted by a vote of 39 in favor, 7 against and 100
abstention, is currently estimated by both neighboring countries as
the defeat of the opposite side.
Azerbaijan is leans on the fact that the General Assembly has adopted
a Resolution which expresses Baku's stance but has no legal force.
However, the Azerbaijani side believes that it may become a "serious
warning" to Armenia as well as to the countries which are the Co-Chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, i.e. the United States, Russia and France.
Armenia pays attention to the fact that the resolution received
support just by some of the Islamic countries, the GUAM member states
and Serbia, i.e. the Azerbaijani lobby and the countries "sharing
the same fate with Azerbaijan", so to say. Furthermore, the three
pivotal states representing the interested international community
within the frameworks of the Minsk Group (the USA, the European Union
and Russia), voted against the Resolution.
Such attitude by the international community was not absolutely
something new for Azerbaijan.
But despite that the country did its best for holding the successive
"moral victory" and is now trying to materialize it. Baku has gone
so far in terms of its cynicism that in response to the attitude
adopted by the Minsk Group countries on March 14, Deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov threatened that "Azerbaijan will review and make
changes in its relations with the countries which are Co-Chairs in
the frameworks of the Minsk Group."
That's to say, either support Azerbaijan's viewpoints or Azerbaijan
itself will refuse the mediation of the Minsk Group.
These threats too, remain strangely unanswered for the time being,
although it's obvious that such primitive attempts of making pressure
upon the Co-Chairs will produce no result. But the problem here does
not consist in the Azerbaijan's lack of constraint. The problem is
that such lack of constraint was not prevented from the very start,
i.e. during the discussion held in the UN General Assembly. The thing
is that the so-called Western Block of the OSCE Minsk Group countries
could have easily torpedoed the resolution since the majority of the
100 countries which abstained from voting or refused to vote were
either EU member states or countries directly complying with the US
policy of coercion.
Therefore, on April 14 the Western community adopted a strictly
ambiguous decision, i.e. the mediators oppose the resolution in
order to proceed with the talks based on the fundamental principles
introduced in Madrid but at the same time, they push Azerbaijan to
attack Armenia, so as it can hold a "moral victory" with the help of
some Islamic countries.
This is, of course, a form of disguised pressure with the help of which
the Western community is trying to check the responsive reaction of
the Armenian side. The reason is obvious: the time-limits of voting
for the resolution coincided with the culminating point of the Western
community's counteraction with regard to the recent internal political
developments of Armenia. In such conditions it's clear why the European
countries, which do not absolutely have a pro-Azerbaijani attitude
towards the Karabakh issue, adopted strictly passive attitudes.
Is it possible during the coming months to drive the Azerbaijani
diplomacy into a corner with the help of responsive actions,
thus preventing the further political speculations of the March 14
Resolution in the General Assembly? We believe it is necessary to wait
till the coming autumn as Azerbaijan is to hold presidential elections
then; thereafter, the international community will undoubtedly start
the process of driving Baku into a corner, preparing a Resolution
on the "Absence of an Alternative to the Peaceful Settlement of the
Karabakh Conflict" and including it in the agenda of the UN General
Assembly. The Resolution shall include:
a) the key points of the balanced proposals introduced in Madrid by
the OSCE Co-Chairs November 29, 2007. These proposals are based on
the equality of the principles of the states' territorial integrity
and the nations' rights to self-determination.
b) the political assessment of the fact of Azerbaijan's committing
genocidal acts in response to the steps undertaken by the NKAR people
based upon the USSR laws and the idea of the impermissibility of new
ethnic cleansings and the military solution of the conflict after
establishing the ceasefire regime.
c) Applying an international sanction against any party to the conflict
and resorting to military solutions in case the given party refuses
the mediation of the Minks Group. This may also include submitting
the issue to the discussion of the Security Council.
After the adoption of such Resolution Armenia may announce that in
case Azerbaijan refuses the peaceful settlement and resorts to new
ethnic cleansings, it will unanimously recognize the NKR independence,
together with its allies.
"HAYOTS ASHKHARH"
March 18, 2008
Armenia should submit a new Resolution
The Resolution on the "Situation in the Occupied Territories of
Azerbaijan" put to vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations
on March 14 and adopted by a vote of 39 in favor, 7 against and 100
abstention, is currently estimated by both neighboring countries as
the defeat of the opposite side.
Azerbaijan is leans on the fact that the General Assembly has adopted
a Resolution which expresses Baku's stance but has no legal force.
However, the Azerbaijani side believes that it may become a "serious
warning" to Armenia as well as to the countries which are the Co-Chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, i.e. the United States, Russia and France.
Armenia pays attention to the fact that the resolution received
support just by some of the Islamic countries, the GUAM member states
and Serbia, i.e. the Azerbaijani lobby and the countries "sharing
the same fate with Azerbaijan", so to say. Furthermore, the three
pivotal states representing the interested international community
within the frameworks of the Minsk Group (the USA, the European Union
and Russia), voted against the Resolution.
Such attitude by the international community was not absolutely
something new for Azerbaijan.
But despite that the country did its best for holding the successive
"moral victory" and is now trying to materialize it. Baku has gone
so far in terms of its cynicism that in response to the attitude
adopted by the Minsk Group countries on March 14, Deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov threatened that "Azerbaijan will review and make
changes in its relations with the countries which are Co-Chairs in
the frameworks of the Minsk Group."
That's to say, either support Azerbaijan's viewpoints or Azerbaijan
itself will refuse the mediation of the Minsk Group.
These threats too, remain strangely unanswered for the time being,
although it's obvious that such primitive attempts of making pressure
upon the Co-Chairs will produce no result. But the problem here does
not consist in the Azerbaijan's lack of constraint. The problem is
that such lack of constraint was not prevented from the very start,
i.e. during the discussion held in the UN General Assembly. The thing
is that the so-called Western Block of the OSCE Minsk Group countries
could have easily torpedoed the resolution since the majority of the
100 countries which abstained from voting or refused to vote were
either EU member states or countries directly complying with the US
policy of coercion.
Therefore, on April 14 the Western community adopted a strictly
ambiguous decision, i.e. the mediators oppose the resolution in
order to proceed with the talks based on the fundamental principles
introduced in Madrid but at the same time, they push Azerbaijan to
attack Armenia, so as it can hold a "moral victory" with the help of
some Islamic countries.
This is, of course, a form of disguised pressure with the help of which
the Western community is trying to check the responsive reaction of
the Armenian side. The reason is obvious: the time-limits of voting
for the resolution coincided with the culminating point of the Western
community's counteraction with regard to the recent internal political
developments of Armenia. In such conditions it's clear why the European
countries, which do not absolutely have a pro-Azerbaijani attitude
towards the Karabakh issue, adopted strictly passive attitudes.
Is it possible during the coming months to drive the Azerbaijani
diplomacy into a corner with the help of responsive actions,
thus preventing the further political speculations of the March 14
Resolution in the General Assembly? We believe it is necessary to wait
till the coming autumn as Azerbaijan is to hold presidential elections
then; thereafter, the international community will undoubtedly start
the process of driving Baku into a corner, preparing a Resolution
on the "Absence of an Alternative to the Peaceful Settlement of the
Karabakh Conflict" and including it in the agenda of the UN General
Assembly. The Resolution shall include:
a) the key points of the balanced proposals introduced in Madrid by
the OSCE Co-Chairs November 29, 2007. These proposals are based on
the equality of the principles of the states' territorial integrity
and the nations' rights to self-determination.
b) the political assessment of the fact of Azerbaijan's committing
genocidal acts in response to the steps undertaken by the NKAR people
based upon the USSR laws and the idea of the impermissibility of new
ethnic cleansings and the military solution of the conflict after
establishing the ceasefire regime.
c) Applying an international sanction against any party to the conflict
and resorting to military solutions in case the given party refuses
the mediation of the Minks Group. This may also include submitting
the issue to the discussion of the Security Council.
After the adoption of such Resolution Armenia may announce that in
case Azerbaijan refuses the peaceful settlement and resorts to new
ethnic cleansings, it will unanimously recognize the NKR independence,
together with its allies.