Tweet
HAYK KOTANJIAN: AZERBAIJAN DISAVOWS RUSSIA, USA AND FRANCE WITHIN OSCE MINSK GROUP
Noyan Tapan
March 20, 2008
YEREVAN, MARCH 20, NOYAN TAPAN. The press-centre of the Ministry of
Defense of the RA has provided Noyan Tapan an interview with the
Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the MoD,
Doctor of Political Sciences, Major-General Hayk S. Kotanjian, which
we present completely.
Q. What are the objectives pursued in the statement by the Deputy
Minister of the Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan claiming that "the
status of Nagorno Karabakh is not a target of the OSCE Minsk Group
and a topic of discussion with Armenia"?
A. The Baku authorities undertook to address a task which is
quite obviously beyond their sole competence. By their actions the
Azerbaijani authorities are trying to persuade the international
community that the application of common principle of respect towards
the Armenians of Karabakh based on the human rights and freedoms
registered in the UN Charter as a universal norm is purely their
own internal business. They aim at disavowing the OSCE Minsk Group
and removing Russia, the US and France from the group in connection
with their systemic approaches to the application of the norms and
principles of International law on the Karabakh Problem resolution.
Q. What is underlying suchlike position of Azerbaijan?
A. The essence is that the Baku politicians are trying to impose
their own opportunistic-local interpretation of the International law
concerning the settlement and resolution of the Karabakh Problem. And
they are doing it with presumption of "lawmakers and indisputable
interpreters" of international law not only domestically but also
before the international auditoria. The head of the neighboring
state, as well as the FA officials in their statements on the
Baku authorities' commitments to the conflict resolution in "strict
conformity with the international law", persistently parallel this very
conformity with only one of the common norms of the International law
(the principle of territorial integrity and ignoring the other norms
applied when dealing with the problems like that of Karabakh. In this
context the ignorance of the principle of peoples' equality and their
right to self-determination is of strictly manipulative nature. This
unilateral approach by Baku to the norms of International law cannot
be of serious influence upon the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs' expert
position.
Q. Let's go back to the legal aspect of the problem. What are the
commitments of the states, by example of Azerbaijan, in compliance
with the norms and standards of the International law in the system
of the national law?
A. Azerbaijani official establishment announces that "the Karabakh
status problem can be resolved only on the basis of the internal
legislation of Azerbaijan" and the activities of the Minsk Group,
in consultations with the conflict sides on the status, are allegedly
an intrusion into the domestic affairs of Azerbaijan.
A symptomatic illustration appears to be the incompatibility of the
Republic of Azerbaijan's Constitution with the essence of international
legal norm on the principle and right of nations to master their fate
independently by means of free expression of popular will in conditions
of complete freedom, stipulated by the UN Charter and International
Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. As it is known, these documents
in the international relations system are treaties consolidating the
states' commitment to adhere to and respect universally recognized
fundamental principles and norms of the International law, first and
foremost - human rights and freedoms. It concerns those principles
of the International law, which comprise its most stable kernel and
are a universal criterion to evaluate legitimacy of states' conduct.
Q. Applying the legitimacy criteria accepted in the international
community, how would you evaluate the conformity of Azerbaijan's
conduct with its international commitments concerning the Karabakh
settlement?
A. The norm of the Azerbaijan's Constitution "on change of territory by
holding a referendum among all the Azerbaijani population" contradicts
the other norm of the same document, defined in the article "The
ultimate goal of the state". In accordance with the given definition
"human and citizen rights and freedoms, enumerated in the present
Constitution are employed in conformity with the international
treaties, which are supported by the Republic of Azerbaijan". In this
case the above mentioned international treaties should be touched upon.
Thus the assertions of the Azerbaijani authorities on their adherence
to the international law in the Karabakh conflict resolution
don't correspond to reality. The conduct of Azerbaijan in terms of
consistent reflection of universally accepted principles and norms of
the International law in the Constitution, as well as in the Karabakh
conflict settlement practice, doesn't correspond to the international
legitimacy criterion.
Q. What is your take on the position of the Minsk Group which voted
against the UN Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh proposed by Azerbaijan?
A. Judging from the official statements made by Russia, the USA
and France before and afterwards of the General Assembly, they
voted against the resolution, because the Azerbaijan's project
contradicted, firstly, the common fundamental principles and norms of
the International law, as well as the criterion of the international
legitimacy of their application. Secondly, the conduct of Azerbaijan
does not coincide with the balanced approach of the Minsk Group which
endorses the solution of the Karabakh conflict within the system of
the International relations. 100 abstained members of the UN virtually
demonstrated their understanding of the balanced position of Russia,
the USA and France.
Q. How would you explain the driving force of those 39 members of
the UN, which voted for the resolution?
A. The mentioned states, mainly representing the Organization of
Islamic Conference and the GUAM, backed the Azerbaijan's initiative
from the position, which was more characteristic to the period of
the Cold War, i.e. on the principle of bloc solidarity.
Q. Due to the results of the voting, Azerbaijan threatens to review
her policy on Russia, the USA and France. How to elaborate the
disrespectful position of Azerbaijan to the contribution of the Minsk
Group in the process of the peaceful solution and the ferociousness
of Baku vis-a-vis Russia, France and the USA?
A. Azerbaijan perceives the designated to her role in the European
Energy policy as a "historical" mission of geo-economic and
geo-strategic importance to compete with Russia. Playing on the
strategic interests of the EU, the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and
Central Asia, Baku is trying to at most bid for highest stakes in this
way to use this resource for illegal forcing through its interests
in the Karabakh settlement. In pursuit of these purposes Azerbaijan
will now allow itself to blackmail Russia, the USA, France and the
Minsk Group on the whole. According to many international observers
Azerbaijan is losing the sense of reality.
Noyan Tapan
March 20, 2008
YEREVAN, MARCH 20, NOYAN TAPAN. The press-centre of the Ministry of
Defense of the RA has provided Noyan Tapan an interview with the
Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the MoD,
Doctor of Political Sciences, Major-General Hayk S. Kotanjian, which
we present completely.
Q. What are the objectives pursued in the statement by the Deputy
Minister of the Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan claiming that "the
status of Nagorno Karabakh is not a target of the OSCE Minsk Group
and a topic of discussion with Armenia"?
A. The Baku authorities undertook to address a task which is
quite obviously beyond their sole competence. By their actions the
Azerbaijani authorities are trying to persuade the international
community that the application of common principle of respect towards
the Armenians of Karabakh based on the human rights and freedoms
registered in the UN Charter as a universal norm is purely their
own internal business. They aim at disavowing the OSCE Minsk Group
and removing Russia, the US and France from the group in connection
with their systemic approaches to the application of the norms and
principles of International law on the Karabakh Problem resolution.
Q. What is underlying suchlike position of Azerbaijan?
A. The essence is that the Baku politicians are trying to impose
their own opportunistic-local interpretation of the International law
concerning the settlement and resolution of the Karabakh Problem. And
they are doing it with presumption of "lawmakers and indisputable
interpreters" of international law not only domestically but also
before the international auditoria. The head of the neighboring
state, as well as the FA officials in their statements on the
Baku authorities' commitments to the conflict resolution in "strict
conformity with the international law", persistently parallel this very
conformity with only one of the common norms of the International law
(the principle of territorial integrity and ignoring the other norms
applied when dealing with the problems like that of Karabakh. In this
context the ignorance of the principle of peoples' equality and their
right to self-determination is of strictly manipulative nature. This
unilateral approach by Baku to the norms of International law cannot
be of serious influence upon the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs' expert
position.
Q. Let's go back to the legal aspect of the problem. What are the
commitments of the states, by example of Azerbaijan, in compliance
with the norms and standards of the International law in the system
of the national law?
A. Azerbaijani official establishment announces that "the Karabakh
status problem can be resolved only on the basis of the internal
legislation of Azerbaijan" and the activities of the Minsk Group,
in consultations with the conflict sides on the status, are allegedly
an intrusion into the domestic affairs of Azerbaijan.
A symptomatic illustration appears to be the incompatibility of the
Republic of Azerbaijan's Constitution with the essence of international
legal norm on the principle and right of nations to master their fate
independently by means of free expression of popular will in conditions
of complete freedom, stipulated by the UN Charter and International
Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. As it is known, these documents
in the international relations system are treaties consolidating the
states' commitment to adhere to and respect universally recognized
fundamental principles and norms of the International law, first and
foremost - human rights and freedoms. It concerns those principles
of the International law, which comprise its most stable kernel and
are a universal criterion to evaluate legitimacy of states' conduct.
Q. Applying the legitimacy criteria accepted in the international
community, how would you evaluate the conformity of Azerbaijan's
conduct with its international commitments concerning the Karabakh
settlement?
A. The norm of the Azerbaijan's Constitution "on change of territory by
holding a referendum among all the Azerbaijani population" contradicts
the other norm of the same document, defined in the article "The
ultimate goal of the state". In accordance with the given definition
"human and citizen rights and freedoms, enumerated in the present
Constitution are employed in conformity with the international
treaties, which are supported by the Republic of Azerbaijan". In this
case the above mentioned international treaties should be touched upon.
Thus the assertions of the Azerbaijani authorities on their adherence
to the international law in the Karabakh conflict resolution
don't correspond to reality. The conduct of Azerbaijan in terms of
consistent reflection of universally accepted principles and norms of
the International law in the Constitution, as well as in the Karabakh
conflict settlement practice, doesn't correspond to the international
legitimacy criterion.
Q. What is your take on the position of the Minsk Group which voted
against the UN Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh proposed by Azerbaijan?
A. Judging from the official statements made by Russia, the USA
and France before and afterwards of the General Assembly, they
voted against the resolution, because the Azerbaijan's project
contradicted, firstly, the common fundamental principles and norms of
the International law, as well as the criterion of the international
legitimacy of their application. Secondly, the conduct of Azerbaijan
does not coincide with the balanced approach of the Minsk Group which
endorses the solution of the Karabakh conflict within the system of
the International relations. 100 abstained members of the UN virtually
demonstrated their understanding of the balanced position of Russia,
the USA and France.
Q. How would you explain the driving force of those 39 members of
the UN, which voted for the resolution?
A. The mentioned states, mainly representing the Organization of
Islamic Conference and the GUAM, backed the Azerbaijan's initiative
from the position, which was more characteristic to the period of
the Cold War, i.e. on the principle of bloc solidarity.
Q. Due to the results of the voting, Azerbaijan threatens to review
her policy on Russia, the USA and France. How to elaborate the
disrespectful position of Azerbaijan to the contribution of the Minsk
Group in the process of the peaceful solution and the ferociousness
of Baku vis-a-vis Russia, France and the USA?
A. Azerbaijan perceives the designated to her role in the European
Energy policy as a "historical" mission of geo-economic and
geo-strategic importance to compete with Russia. Playing on the
strategic interests of the EU, the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and
Central Asia, Baku is trying to at most bid for highest stakes in this
way to use this resource for illegal forcing through its interests
in the Karabakh settlement. In pursuit of these purposes Azerbaijan
will now allow itself to blackmail Russia, the USA, France and the
Minsk Group on the whole. According to many international observers
Azerbaijan is losing the sense of reality.