Tweet
RUSSIA, FRANCE DID THEIR BEST TO PREVENT RESOLUTION ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH FROM PASSING IN UN - AMBASSADOR
Trend News Agency
March 19 2008
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan, Baku, 18 March /TrendNews corr S. Agayeva/ Azerbaijan's
Ambassador to UN Agshin Mehdiyev's interview at TrendCapital:
Question: Several days ago, UN General Assembly passed a Resolution
on the Situation in the Occupied Territory of Azerbaijan. Would you
comment on the document, as well as on its passing?
Answer: First of all, so far no international organization has ever
passed such a comprehensive and at the same time such a concrete
document on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The main regulations
of the Resolution are the following: approval of the leadership
of the principle on the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of Azerbaijan; no parallels or clauses connected with some other
principles and norms of the international law are made; requirement
for all Armenian armed forces to immediately and unconditionally
withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territories... Previously,
Armenians used to say that other international documents mention the
occupying forces but very vaguely, and the armed forces of Armenia
are not implied. This Resolution concerns all the occupying forces
without any exception or omissions. The document again confirms the
right of all refugees and IDPs to return to their own native lands,
shows impossibility of accepting the status-quo- the regime which
emerged from occupation of Azerbaijan's territory by Armenia as
normal and legal by the international community, reflects support
to the efforts of the international intermediaries, mainly the OSCE
Minsk Group, and finally, the document suggests to the UN Secretary
General to develop a special report and to deliver it at the 63rd
session of the UN General Assembly. Moreover, the General Assembly
recommends putting this issue on the agenda of the 63rd session.
As to passing of the Resolution, the UN General Assembly is the main
and the largest intergovernmental and inter-state forum in the world.
General Assembly's decisions reflect the position of the international
community on some issue. In this case, the General Assembly has
outlined the further settlement- the way the international community
sees it. To put this other way, we have our principles of settling
the conflict and new ones should not be invented.
Question: Armenians say that the decision of UN General Assembly is
just recommendation, but not mandatory which means that it is possible
not to follow them.
Answer: You are absolutely right. They could not have acted
otherwise. You did not expect Armenians to congratulate you on the
next diplomatic victory, did you? I think we must attach importance
not to the Armenian reaction, but to that of the world community,
because precisely it has created political and juridical basis for
the settlement. And the latter is clearly indicated in Resolution
of UN General Assembly. Remember that the co-chairmen of OSCE Minsk
Group, U.S., Russia and France worked against our interests and
voted against the resolution. Furthermore, even if Americans had
not tried to hinder us, the French and Russian would have done their
best to create obstacles for the adoption of the Resolution. As we
have been informed, under Russian and French pressure, some countries
had to revise their positions at the last moment and to refrain from
voting for the Resolution. The same occurred among the EU members who
expressed their support for us, including the members of notorious
Russia and Collective Security Treaty Organization, and political
satellites of Russia. I would like especially to point out the
position of Uzbekistan- who voted in favour of us. Doubtless, the
fact that majority of the member states of Organization of Islamic
Conference and GUAM voted for Resolution is noteworthy. I can cite
dozens of such examples. I would not condemn those who voted against
the resolution. You know, not all the countries are able to pursue
an independent foreign policy as Azerbaijan and withstand the pressure.
Simply, taking into consideration the condition under which the
Resolution fought its way through and the way the countries took
part in the voting, we will have to make certain corrections to
our relations with some countries. By the way, you may be informed
later on that after the voting representatives of several countries
phoned us and said that they could not take part in the voting due to
some technical reasons. And Iran sent a written notification to the
Secretariat of the General Assembly saying that the country planed
to support the Resolution. The relevant information about these facts
will be indicated in the official documents of the General Assembly.
In general, we could foresee the development of the situation, and
therefore, decided to put the document for voting. It is noteworthy
that three weeks have already passed since the draft resolution was
officially introduced and approved in the General Assembly. It is
unprecedented case! It is some kind of 'Blitzkrieg Diplomacy'. We
would achieve our goal.
Question: And what about the Minsk group co-chairmen? They state that
the Resolution indicates not all of their proposals and the Resolution
is 'unbalanced'.
Answer: I can not assess the work of Minsk group co-chairmen,
but I think that they had made a serious mistake voting against
the resolution. They were not able to change the situation; no one
supported them except India, Angola and Vanuatu. I think now everyone
asks the same question: Is it possible to work with them after all
this?! As to their statements which say that the Resolution does not
indicate all of their proposals and it is unbalanced are groundless.
The Resolution is a document of the UN General Assembly and only 7
of 146 countries, taking part in the voting, voted against it. And it
cannot be balanced, since there can not be a balance between aggressor
and the victim of aggression. If they did not like the Resolution,
they could have made relevant statements by disclosing their positions
and could have refrained from voting or not to vote at all, but not
by taking an obvious pro-Armenian position! It is obvious that their
advisers did their best. Just for the sake of justice, it should be
mentioned that we were informed that Americans did not want to vote
against it until the last minute and tried to avoid such a decision,
but obviously, the French and Russians made them to do it.
Question: What can you say about Kosovo? Is there any connection
between Kosovo and Karabakh? Can any parallels be drawn? Is it
appropriate to speak about any effect of the Kosovo-related events
on Azerbaijan's actions in the UN?
Answer: Kosovo in no way can be a precedent for Karabakh. The key
difference is that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is
two countries' conflict- in which one country- Armenia, relying upon
the assistance and direct help of the third country, mercenaries and
international terrorism groups occupied the territory of another
sovereign country- Azerbaijan, and tries to annex the occupied
territories under different pretexts. The occupants develop minerals
in the Azerbaijani territory and misappropriate the revenues; they
plundered the belongings of the Azerbaijani IDPs; they take measures
to change the demographic situation in the occupied territory, and
finally, destroying the cultural and historical heritage- with that
they are trying to remove all traces conforming the belongingness of
the land to Azerbaijanis. That is a territorial inter-state conflict
with occupation and attempt of annexation. Any self-determination is
completely irrelevant here.
If somebody wants to draw some parallels, I would compare the actions
by Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh with the actions of Nazis during the
World War II. The Danzig corridor resembles the Lachin corridor; the
Sudet Germans resemble Karabakh's Armenians; the racial superiority of
Aryans resembles exclusiveness of Armenians; Anschluss and Miatsum,
anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish statements by the representatives
of Armenia's political elite and Goebbels' propaganda. Are these not
alike? I think it is. But one should remember how the Aryans ended.
Question: So now, what are the further plans?
Answer: There are some plans and outlines, but everything has its due
time. And now, we have to complete our work over the GUAM resolution,
develop the Secretary General's report which is mentioned in the
Resolution.
Trend News Agency
March 19 2008
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan, Baku, 18 March /TrendNews corr S. Agayeva/ Azerbaijan's
Ambassador to UN Agshin Mehdiyev's interview at TrendCapital:
Question: Several days ago, UN General Assembly passed a Resolution
on the Situation in the Occupied Territory of Azerbaijan. Would you
comment on the document, as well as on its passing?
Answer: First of all, so far no international organization has ever
passed such a comprehensive and at the same time such a concrete
document on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The main regulations
of the Resolution are the following: approval of the leadership
of the principle on the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of Azerbaijan; no parallels or clauses connected with some other
principles and norms of the international law are made; requirement
for all Armenian armed forces to immediately and unconditionally
withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territories... Previously,
Armenians used to say that other international documents mention the
occupying forces but very vaguely, and the armed forces of Armenia
are not implied. This Resolution concerns all the occupying forces
without any exception or omissions. The document again confirms the
right of all refugees and IDPs to return to their own native lands,
shows impossibility of accepting the status-quo- the regime which
emerged from occupation of Azerbaijan's territory by Armenia as
normal and legal by the international community, reflects support
to the efforts of the international intermediaries, mainly the OSCE
Minsk Group, and finally, the document suggests to the UN Secretary
General to develop a special report and to deliver it at the 63rd
session of the UN General Assembly. Moreover, the General Assembly
recommends putting this issue on the agenda of the 63rd session.
As to passing of the Resolution, the UN General Assembly is the main
and the largest intergovernmental and inter-state forum in the world.
General Assembly's decisions reflect the position of the international
community on some issue. In this case, the General Assembly has
outlined the further settlement- the way the international community
sees it. To put this other way, we have our principles of settling
the conflict and new ones should not be invented.
Question: Armenians say that the decision of UN General Assembly is
just recommendation, but not mandatory which means that it is possible
not to follow them.
Answer: You are absolutely right. They could not have acted
otherwise. You did not expect Armenians to congratulate you on the
next diplomatic victory, did you? I think we must attach importance
not to the Armenian reaction, but to that of the world community,
because precisely it has created political and juridical basis for
the settlement. And the latter is clearly indicated in Resolution
of UN General Assembly. Remember that the co-chairmen of OSCE Minsk
Group, U.S., Russia and France worked against our interests and
voted against the resolution. Furthermore, even if Americans had
not tried to hinder us, the French and Russian would have done their
best to create obstacles for the adoption of the Resolution. As we
have been informed, under Russian and French pressure, some countries
had to revise their positions at the last moment and to refrain from
voting for the Resolution. The same occurred among the EU members who
expressed their support for us, including the members of notorious
Russia and Collective Security Treaty Organization, and political
satellites of Russia. I would like especially to point out the
position of Uzbekistan- who voted in favour of us. Doubtless, the
fact that majority of the member states of Organization of Islamic
Conference and GUAM voted for Resolution is noteworthy. I can cite
dozens of such examples. I would not condemn those who voted against
the resolution. You know, not all the countries are able to pursue
an independent foreign policy as Azerbaijan and withstand the pressure.
Simply, taking into consideration the condition under which the
Resolution fought its way through and the way the countries took
part in the voting, we will have to make certain corrections to
our relations with some countries. By the way, you may be informed
later on that after the voting representatives of several countries
phoned us and said that they could not take part in the voting due to
some technical reasons. And Iran sent a written notification to the
Secretariat of the General Assembly saying that the country planed
to support the Resolution. The relevant information about these facts
will be indicated in the official documents of the General Assembly.
In general, we could foresee the development of the situation, and
therefore, decided to put the document for voting. It is noteworthy
that three weeks have already passed since the draft resolution was
officially introduced and approved in the General Assembly. It is
unprecedented case! It is some kind of 'Blitzkrieg Diplomacy'. We
would achieve our goal.
Question: And what about the Minsk group co-chairmen? They state that
the Resolution indicates not all of their proposals and the Resolution
is 'unbalanced'.
Answer: I can not assess the work of Minsk group co-chairmen,
but I think that they had made a serious mistake voting against
the resolution. They were not able to change the situation; no one
supported them except India, Angola and Vanuatu. I think now everyone
asks the same question: Is it possible to work with them after all
this?! As to their statements which say that the Resolution does not
indicate all of their proposals and it is unbalanced are groundless.
The Resolution is a document of the UN General Assembly and only 7
of 146 countries, taking part in the voting, voted against it. And it
cannot be balanced, since there can not be a balance between aggressor
and the victim of aggression. If they did not like the Resolution,
they could have made relevant statements by disclosing their positions
and could have refrained from voting or not to vote at all, but not
by taking an obvious pro-Armenian position! It is obvious that their
advisers did their best. Just for the sake of justice, it should be
mentioned that we were informed that Americans did not want to vote
against it until the last minute and tried to avoid such a decision,
but obviously, the French and Russians made them to do it.
Question: What can you say about Kosovo? Is there any connection
between Kosovo and Karabakh? Can any parallels be drawn? Is it
appropriate to speak about any effect of the Kosovo-related events
on Azerbaijan's actions in the UN?
Answer: Kosovo in no way can be a precedent for Karabakh. The key
difference is that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is
two countries' conflict- in which one country- Armenia, relying upon
the assistance and direct help of the third country, mercenaries and
international terrorism groups occupied the territory of another
sovereign country- Azerbaijan, and tries to annex the occupied
territories under different pretexts. The occupants develop minerals
in the Azerbaijani territory and misappropriate the revenues; they
plundered the belongings of the Azerbaijani IDPs; they take measures
to change the demographic situation in the occupied territory, and
finally, destroying the cultural and historical heritage- with that
they are trying to remove all traces conforming the belongingness of
the land to Azerbaijanis. That is a territorial inter-state conflict
with occupation and attempt of annexation. Any self-determination is
completely irrelevant here.
If somebody wants to draw some parallels, I would compare the actions
by Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh with the actions of Nazis during the
World War II. The Danzig corridor resembles the Lachin corridor; the
Sudet Germans resemble Karabakh's Armenians; the racial superiority of
Aryans resembles exclusiveness of Armenians; Anschluss and Miatsum,
anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish statements by the representatives
of Armenia's political elite and Goebbels' propaganda. Are these not
alike? I think it is. But one should remember how the Aryans ended.
Question: So now, what are the further plans?
Answer: There are some plans and outlines, but everything has its due
time. And now, we have to complete our work over the GUAM resolution,
develop the Secretary General's report which is mentioned in the
Resolution.