Tweet
AZERI AGENCY RAPS KARABAKH MEDIATORS FOR REJECTING UN RESOLUTION ON KARABAKH
Azeri Press Agency
March 17 2008
Azerbaijan
The USA, Russia and France, which are mediating a peaceful resolution
of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, did not show support for
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity by voting against a resolution at
the UN General Assembly on 14 March, the Azerbaijani news agency APA
says in a news analysis. It says that these three countries lost trust
in Azerbaijan after the vote. The agency suggests that Azerbaijan
should continue the peace talks with Armenia on the condition that
any resolution of the conflict can be based only on the principle
of territorial integrity. The following is the text of the analysis
piece by APA:
Baku, 17 March: The most unexpected moment in the adoption by the
UN General Assembly of a resolution on the situation in Azerbaijan's
occupied territories was undoubtedly the fact that the co-chairs of
the OSCE Minsk Group - the USA, Russia and France - voted against this
document. In reality, this document has destroyed illusions around the
existing situation concerning the resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict and brought full clarity to this issue. We are talking about
the votes of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, which directly address the
settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, against the resolution
that recognizes Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and envisions a
solution to the conflict on the basis of this principle.
The votes of the USA, France and Russia against the resolution generate
a fair question: "How objectively can the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group mediate a settlement to the conflict if they vote against the
resolution recognizing Azerbaijan's territorial integrity?" Another
interesting point concerning the adoption of the resolution is that
the co-chairs did not only vote against the resolution, but also
carried out active work against its adoption.
This situation has unveiled two important results:
1. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are not impartial mediators,
but specific parties to the settlement of the conflict. Their position
coincides not with that of Azerbaijan, whose rights have been violated
in the wake of the conflict, but with that of the aggressor, Armenia.
2. The solutions offered by the co-chairs can not be based on
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The position of the co-chairs
shows that they are trying to resolve the conflict not on the basis
of the principle of territorial integrity, but on the basis of the
principle of self-determination of peoples or on the basis of a mixed
formula of these two principles.
It is unnecessary to say, judging by the mentioned two results,
that the confidence of the Azerbaijani public in the work of the
OSCE Minsk Group will dwindle. Moreover, the public has already had
mixed reactions towards the Minsk Group, which has failed to achieve
a breakthrough in the resolution of the conflict for many years.
However, by voting against the resolution, the co-chairs have
overlooked one factor their position at the UN General Assembly has
made it difficult not for Azerbaijan, but for the OSCE Minsk Group.
It is beyond any doubt that one of the key points in the settlement of
the conflict irrespective of its outcome is to prepare both publics for
compromises. The co-chairs have made statements about it many times and
stressed the necessity of preparing public in Azerbaijan and Armenia
for compromises. Under the current circumstances the position of the
co-chairs both limits Azerbaijan's capabilities to make compromises and
nullifies the chances of the public to accept the existing compromises.
There is a simple logic here if the mediators do not recognize
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and avoid resolving the conflict on
this principle, then the [Azerbaijani] public will refuse any proposal
from the co-chairs, thinking that it meets Armenia's interests. Thus,
the co-chairs dealt a blow to the confidence of the public in
themselves by their position at the UN General Assembly.
Can Azerbaijan reject the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group? This does
not seem to be real even after the resolution adopted at the UN General
Assembly simply because the resolution supports the activities of the
OSCE Minsk Group and [Azerbaijani] Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov
said in his statement that Azerbaijan is interested in continuing the
talks with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group. However, Azerbaijan
wants to see important qualitative changes in the peace talks. We can
reach such a conclusion by assessing both the adopted resolution and
the official statements.
But if Azerbaijan really wants to see a breakthrough in the peace talks
and benefit from the resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly,
it should set a specific term to the co-chairs the conflict should
be resolved within the framework of the territorial integrity of
countries and the talks should be held specifically on the basis of
this principle. The resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly
allows Azerbaijan to put forth such a term. The next stage of the
talks on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict depends on
the acceptance of this term by the co-chairs. It is not plausible
that the results of the talks that are not based on the principle
of territorial integrity of countries will be any different from the
results that have been achieved up to date.
Azeri Press Agency
March 17 2008
Azerbaijan
The USA, Russia and France, which are mediating a peaceful resolution
of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, did not show support for
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity by voting against a resolution at
the UN General Assembly on 14 March, the Azerbaijani news agency APA
says in a news analysis. It says that these three countries lost trust
in Azerbaijan after the vote. The agency suggests that Azerbaijan
should continue the peace talks with Armenia on the condition that
any resolution of the conflict can be based only on the principle
of territorial integrity. The following is the text of the analysis
piece by APA:
Baku, 17 March: The most unexpected moment in the adoption by the
UN General Assembly of a resolution on the situation in Azerbaijan's
occupied territories was undoubtedly the fact that the co-chairs of
the OSCE Minsk Group - the USA, Russia and France - voted against this
document. In reality, this document has destroyed illusions around the
existing situation concerning the resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict and brought full clarity to this issue. We are talking about
the votes of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, which directly address the
settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, against the resolution
that recognizes Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and envisions a
solution to the conflict on the basis of this principle.
The votes of the USA, France and Russia against the resolution generate
a fair question: "How objectively can the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group mediate a settlement to the conflict if they vote against the
resolution recognizing Azerbaijan's territorial integrity?" Another
interesting point concerning the adoption of the resolution is that
the co-chairs did not only vote against the resolution, but also
carried out active work against its adoption.
This situation has unveiled two important results:
1. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are not impartial mediators,
but specific parties to the settlement of the conflict. Their position
coincides not with that of Azerbaijan, whose rights have been violated
in the wake of the conflict, but with that of the aggressor, Armenia.
2. The solutions offered by the co-chairs can not be based on
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The position of the co-chairs
shows that they are trying to resolve the conflict not on the basis
of the principle of territorial integrity, but on the basis of the
principle of self-determination of peoples or on the basis of a mixed
formula of these two principles.
It is unnecessary to say, judging by the mentioned two results,
that the confidence of the Azerbaijani public in the work of the
OSCE Minsk Group will dwindle. Moreover, the public has already had
mixed reactions towards the Minsk Group, which has failed to achieve
a breakthrough in the resolution of the conflict for many years.
However, by voting against the resolution, the co-chairs have
overlooked one factor their position at the UN General Assembly has
made it difficult not for Azerbaijan, but for the OSCE Minsk Group.
It is beyond any doubt that one of the key points in the settlement of
the conflict irrespective of its outcome is to prepare both publics for
compromises. The co-chairs have made statements about it many times and
stressed the necessity of preparing public in Azerbaijan and Armenia
for compromises. Under the current circumstances the position of the
co-chairs both limits Azerbaijan's capabilities to make compromises and
nullifies the chances of the public to accept the existing compromises.
There is a simple logic here if the mediators do not recognize
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and avoid resolving the conflict on
this principle, then the [Azerbaijani] public will refuse any proposal
from the co-chairs, thinking that it meets Armenia's interests. Thus,
the co-chairs dealt a blow to the confidence of the public in
themselves by their position at the UN General Assembly.
Can Azerbaijan reject the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group? This does
not seem to be real even after the resolution adopted at the UN General
Assembly simply because the resolution supports the activities of the
OSCE Minsk Group and [Azerbaijani] Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov
said in his statement that Azerbaijan is interested in continuing the
talks with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group. However, Azerbaijan
wants to see important qualitative changes in the peace talks. We can
reach such a conclusion by assessing both the adopted resolution and
the official statements.
But if Azerbaijan really wants to see a breakthrough in the peace talks
and benefit from the resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly,
it should set a specific term to the co-chairs the conflict should
be resolved within the framework of the territorial integrity of
countries and the talks should be held specifically on the basis of
this principle. The resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly
allows Azerbaijan to put forth such a term. The next stage of the
talks on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict depends on
the acceptance of this term by the co-chairs. It is not plausible
that the results of the talks that are not based on the principle
of territorial integrity of countries will be any different from the
results that have been achieved up to date.