Tweet
FOREIGN MINISTRY OF AZERBAIJAN VS. FOREIGN MINISTRY OF ARMENIA
Today.Az
http://www.today.az/news/politic s/45032.html
May 16 2008
Azerbaijan
Day.Az has asked famous Azerbaijani political reviewer, residing in
Hungary, Vugar Seidov, to comment on the recent exchange of statements
between deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov and new
Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan regarding principles
of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
* * * * *
It is difficult to add something to all said by deputy foreign minister
of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov. Azerbaijan's position on the main principles
of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has been stated
clearly and the hasty reaction of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandyan, which appeared in press immediately after the first speech
of Araz Azimov in Day.Az has been sent down to the court.
Nevertheless, I would like to evolve the position, voiced by the
Azerbaijani side. First of all, the Armenian diplomacy is always
referring to some "document", currently being on the negotiation
table. Frankly speaking, this phrase has bored to death. Though the
matter is not this-we will try to bear it, anyway. The important is
another matter. No one, except for Armenians, has ever referred to the
so-called "document, which is on the negotiation table". What is this
document and does it really exist? A document usually implies a legal
agreement, signed by parties. No one has agreed on or signed anything
so far. There are only proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs,
presented to the parties and currently being negotiated.
Perhaps, Armenian diplomats, constantly referring to the "document,
which is on the negotiation table", should gradually explain, what
they imply by the mythical source.
Second, in his debut speech on his new post, Edward Nalbandyan,
reacting on Araz Azimov's statement, said that the key issue of talks
on the peaceful resolution of the conflict is a status of Nagorno
Karabakh. We do not need the prompts of the Armenian Minister, as we
are well aware of it. The status of Nagorno Karabakh has been the
key issue since the first day of the conflict and remains it until
its resolution.
Edward Nalbandyan also added that plebiscite, which will be used
for definition of the future status of the region "will enable the
population of Nagorno Karabakh to express its will about the future
status of the republic freely". Well, the Minister has gone too far,
when he used the word "republic", while there has been nothing new
about the rest part. And the main thing is that his words do not
contradict to the principles of the conflict resolution, voiced by
Araz Azimov. Do you want the self-determination of the population? Here
it is. Do you want a plebiscite? Please, hold it.
However, the Armenian Minister did not specify, whom he implies saying
"the population of Nagorno Karabakh" and which format of the plebiscite
he means.
If Yerevan considers that the population of Nagorno Karabakh are
those who have been residing in the region since ethnic cleansing,
we will disappoint them. Though Armenians intend to consider the
forced driving of Azerbaijanis out to be an accomplished fact,
the population of the region still consists of two communities,
a greater part of which (Azerbaijani community) has been driven out.
And this is a position of not only Azerbaijan but also the world
society. If Yerevan thinks differently and considers the driving
of Azerbaijani community out to be an irreversible process, let it
call at least a single state, an international organization or at
least a bit influential politician in the world, who would say that
demographic situation in Nagorno Karabakh should not be restored on the
moment when the conflict started in February of 1988 and the return
of internally displaced persons and their offsprings to their native
lands is ruled out. Anyway, as Araz Azimov said, the former Foreign
Minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan had admitted inevitability of
the return of Azerbaijanis to Nagorno Karabakh.
Moreover, I would like to ask Mr. Nalbandyan what implies the
"document, which is on the negotiation table", regarding this issue.
The self-determination and participation of only one community
in the plebiscite is impossible as Nagorno Karabakh consists
of two communities. Azerbaijanis from Shusha, Khojaly and other
numerous villages of Nagorno Karabakh are also the residents of
the region, whose opinion is not less important than the opinion of
Armenians. Therefore, the final self-determination of the population
of Nagorno Karabakh requires equal participation of all residents
of the oblast, including those, who are far from their houses,
that is Azerbaijanis. Without their participation the legitimacy
of self-determination will not differ from legitimacy of ethnic
cleansing, which occurred there, and the outcomes will not be
recognized by anyone.
The participation of the Azerbaijani community in the definition of
the future status of their native oblast leads us to the problem
of creating conditions for their inevitable return. Naturally,
in conditions of continuing occupation of the Azerbaijani lands
by the Armenian armed forces, including Nagorno Karabakh, the
return of Azerbaijanis is impossible not only politically but also
technically. Return of the internally displaced persons to their
houses and psychologically complicated process of rehabilitation and
reintegration is only possible if equal security is ensured for all
civilians, both Armenians and returning Azerbaijanis.
Thus, the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the seven
surrounding regions and demilitarization of Nagorno Karabakh is a main
condition for return of internally displaced persons to their houses,
restoration of ruined infrastructure, communications, mine clearing,
establishment of trustful relations between the two communities and
future of their joint participation in the definition of the status
of the region. The free expression of the will of Nagorno Karabakh
population, regarding its future status, will only be possible in
this format. The plebiscite with participation of only one community
or under the continuing occupation of the said area and seven other
regions of Azerbaijan by its country, will not differ from the fancy
ball with "the referendum" of the early 1990s, which was not recognized
by anyone.
There is a stereotype among the Armenian population regarding the
liberation of the occupied lands that after Armenian armed forces
are withdrawn from the seven regions around Nagorno Karabakh Armenia
will lose the military and strategic advantage, ensuring favorable
defense capacities, which will be used by Azerbaijan in surrounding
its Nagorno Karabakh province and extending the front line to many
kilometers and following the withdrawal of the Armenian side from
Nagorno Karabakh Azerbaijani troops would enter these regions and
pose a threat for the Armenian community.
Well, first of all by entering the 21st century, Armenia should
gradually stop to use the concepts of gained territories and forced
change of borders. The times of Peter the Great have passed and
international law and UN charter are operating in the world. It is
time to wake up and get used to new realities. Besides, it is senseless
for Azerbaijan to settle the problem peacefully, planning the renewal
of war in its mind. Azerbaijan does not hold peaceful negotiations
today to start war upon their completion again. Azerbaijan is able to
liberate its lands by forced way without any peaceful negotiations. But
the essence of the peaceful process is the preference, given to the
resolution of interstate conflicts on the very basis of international
law. Therefore, Yerevan will anyway have to withdraw its occupational
forces from seven regions of Azerbaijan both in case of the peaceful
talks and in case of retreat under attack of the Azerbaijani army.
Second, Yerevan's concerns regarding security of the Armenian
community of Nagorno Karabakh following withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces are also groundless. Azerbaijan has no need or even intention
to deploy its troops in the region immediately. Baku is interested
in the demilitarization of the region and restoration of trust
between the two communities-citizens of Azerbaijan, who are equal
in rights. Moreover, the public order in the region can be restored
by the mixed police forces, composed of the residents of the oblast,
as it is not the army which ensures order in Baku, Yerevan and other
cities of the two countries.
Therefore, Yerevan should consider withdrawal of its armed forces
from seven regions of Azerbaijan as an inevitable substance. As
for its concerns regarding the security of the Armenian community
of Nagorno Karabakh following the withdrawal of Armenian troops,
it is time for Yerevan to recover from this paranoia, otherwise,
the case will not end in a plebiscite, spoken of by Nalbandyan.
We do hope that speaking about the future status of Nagorno Karabakh
the officials of the foreign ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan
imply the same under the term of Nagorno Karabakh. Both the Armenian
press and the announcements of Armenian officials often mention
the altered contours of this oblast, differing from the previous
borders of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic. First,
they have spoken about some "Shaomyan region of Nagorno Karabakh"
(of course, "occupied" by Azerbaijan), then included some "Getashen
subregion". They have recently spoken of the Lachin and Kelbajar
regions of Azerbaijan as about the integral parts of Nagorno Karabakh
and even made up Armenian names for these settlements.
In this connection, it should be noted that former Shaomyan (rural)
region of Azerbaijan has never been a part of the Nagorno Karabakh
Autonomous Republic and the debates on ancient history, in which
Armenians try to draw Azerbaijanis, are not included into the peaceful
talks under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. Chaykend has never
been a part of Nagorno Karabakh, like there has never been such an
administrative unit as "subregion". The said invention, like inclusion
of Lachin and Kelbajar into Nagorno Karabakh, belong to Armenian press,
but in the process of peaceful negotiations Azerbaijani and Armenian
diplomacies should understand clearly that the term "Nagorno Karabakh"
implies an area of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic
of the Azerbaijan SSR. If Nalbandyan's structure really intends to
build a constructive dialogue with its Azerbaijani counterparts,
we want to hope that there will not be any unexpected surprise from
the side of Yerevan in this issue.
Finally, I would like to say something about the issue of plebiscite as
a mechanism of joint definition of the future status of demilitarized,
mine-cleared and restored Nagorno Karabakh by two reconciled
communities of this region within Azerbaijan. It is difficult to add
anything else to all Araz Azimov has said. Following the completion
of the peaceful resolution and the final stage of this process
(definition of the status of Nagorno Karabakh), Baku will fully back
the self-determination of the oblast on the basis of the Final Helsinki
Act of 1975, envisioning the territorial integrity of countries,
inviolability of borders, as well as equality and right of peoples
to define their fate independently. The latter, however, does not
imply the right for the unauthorized separation and, on the contrary,
encourages internal self-determination and democratic self-government
of the national minorities (Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh).
This is the position of the Azerbaijani side and if Armenian diplomatic
still refer to some document, which is on the negotiation table and
which is based on the principle of the self-determination by way of
plebiscite, the official position of Baku, voiced by deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov by no way contradicts to the principle, but,
on the contrary, comply with it and fully bases on the norms of
international law.
We hope that Armenian side will stop manipulating different
sociological terms for attainment, substantiation and legal fixing
of territorial integrity in the style of the times of the first
world war and instead will finally join the civilian processes of
the 21st century for the regional stability, cooperation, progressive
development and integration. The intention to implement their fix idea
of expansion of lands at the cost of neighbors instead of doing so will
lead Armenian people to nowhere. Prosperity is only possible in case
Armenians get rid of the complex of a pinched, humiliated, suffering
people and territorial inefficiency, which pursues them from their
childhood. Armenia should realize that happiness does not require a
large territory, even so more, occupied from a neighbor. Both small
Luxembourg and Monaco are able to live happily. Existence of good
neighbors around a small state is more important that expansion of
territory and having enemies along 80% of its state border.
Only friendly relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran and Georgia may
guarantee security and prosperity of the Armenian state. No Treaty of
Collective Security will take their place and guarantee safety. Not
a single state in the world will be able to cause damage or pose a
threat of Armenia, if the latter maintains good relations with its
four neighbors, while being in the state of frozen war with one of
the neighbors and having hidden territorial claims to two others and
having good relations only with south neighbor, which has doubtful
reputation in the world, it will not be possible to ensure prosperity
of its people. At the same time, it will not be possible to improve
relations with neighbors without rejecting plans to expand territories
at their expense.
Therefore, the new leadership of Armenia will have to choose between
the priorities if far North does not deprive it from the right of
independent choice. However, it is up to Armenians to decide.
Today.Az
http://www.today.az/news/politic s/45032.html
May 16 2008
Azerbaijan
Day.Az has asked famous Azerbaijani political reviewer, residing in
Hungary, Vugar Seidov, to comment on the recent exchange of statements
between deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov and new
Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan regarding principles
of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
* * * * *
It is difficult to add something to all said by deputy foreign minister
of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov. Azerbaijan's position on the main principles
of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has been stated
clearly and the hasty reaction of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandyan, which appeared in press immediately after the first speech
of Araz Azimov in Day.Az has been sent down to the court.
Nevertheless, I would like to evolve the position, voiced by the
Azerbaijani side. First of all, the Armenian diplomacy is always
referring to some "document", currently being on the negotiation
table. Frankly speaking, this phrase has bored to death. Though the
matter is not this-we will try to bear it, anyway. The important is
another matter. No one, except for Armenians, has ever referred to the
so-called "document, which is on the negotiation table". What is this
document and does it really exist? A document usually implies a legal
agreement, signed by parties. No one has agreed on or signed anything
so far. There are only proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs,
presented to the parties and currently being negotiated.
Perhaps, Armenian diplomats, constantly referring to the "document,
which is on the negotiation table", should gradually explain, what
they imply by the mythical source.
Second, in his debut speech on his new post, Edward Nalbandyan,
reacting on Araz Azimov's statement, said that the key issue of talks
on the peaceful resolution of the conflict is a status of Nagorno
Karabakh. We do not need the prompts of the Armenian Minister, as we
are well aware of it. The status of Nagorno Karabakh has been the
key issue since the first day of the conflict and remains it until
its resolution.
Edward Nalbandyan also added that plebiscite, which will be used
for definition of the future status of the region "will enable the
population of Nagorno Karabakh to express its will about the future
status of the republic freely". Well, the Minister has gone too far,
when he used the word "republic", while there has been nothing new
about the rest part. And the main thing is that his words do not
contradict to the principles of the conflict resolution, voiced by
Araz Azimov. Do you want the self-determination of the population? Here
it is. Do you want a plebiscite? Please, hold it.
However, the Armenian Minister did not specify, whom he implies saying
"the population of Nagorno Karabakh" and which format of the plebiscite
he means.
If Yerevan considers that the population of Nagorno Karabakh are
those who have been residing in the region since ethnic cleansing,
we will disappoint them. Though Armenians intend to consider the
forced driving of Azerbaijanis out to be an accomplished fact,
the population of the region still consists of two communities,
a greater part of which (Azerbaijani community) has been driven out.
And this is a position of not only Azerbaijan but also the world
society. If Yerevan thinks differently and considers the driving
of Azerbaijani community out to be an irreversible process, let it
call at least a single state, an international organization or at
least a bit influential politician in the world, who would say that
demographic situation in Nagorno Karabakh should not be restored on the
moment when the conflict started in February of 1988 and the return
of internally displaced persons and their offsprings to their native
lands is ruled out. Anyway, as Araz Azimov said, the former Foreign
Minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan had admitted inevitability of
the return of Azerbaijanis to Nagorno Karabakh.
Moreover, I would like to ask Mr. Nalbandyan what implies the
"document, which is on the negotiation table", regarding this issue.
The self-determination and participation of only one community
in the plebiscite is impossible as Nagorno Karabakh consists
of two communities. Azerbaijanis from Shusha, Khojaly and other
numerous villages of Nagorno Karabakh are also the residents of
the region, whose opinion is not less important than the opinion of
Armenians. Therefore, the final self-determination of the population
of Nagorno Karabakh requires equal participation of all residents
of the oblast, including those, who are far from their houses,
that is Azerbaijanis. Without their participation the legitimacy
of self-determination will not differ from legitimacy of ethnic
cleansing, which occurred there, and the outcomes will not be
recognized by anyone.
The participation of the Azerbaijani community in the definition of
the future status of their native oblast leads us to the problem
of creating conditions for their inevitable return. Naturally,
in conditions of continuing occupation of the Azerbaijani lands
by the Armenian armed forces, including Nagorno Karabakh, the
return of Azerbaijanis is impossible not only politically but also
technically. Return of the internally displaced persons to their
houses and psychologically complicated process of rehabilitation and
reintegration is only possible if equal security is ensured for all
civilians, both Armenians and returning Azerbaijanis.
Thus, the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the seven
surrounding regions and demilitarization of Nagorno Karabakh is a main
condition for return of internally displaced persons to their houses,
restoration of ruined infrastructure, communications, mine clearing,
establishment of trustful relations between the two communities and
future of their joint participation in the definition of the status
of the region. The free expression of the will of Nagorno Karabakh
population, regarding its future status, will only be possible in
this format. The plebiscite with participation of only one community
or under the continuing occupation of the said area and seven other
regions of Azerbaijan by its country, will not differ from the fancy
ball with "the referendum" of the early 1990s, which was not recognized
by anyone.
There is a stereotype among the Armenian population regarding the
liberation of the occupied lands that after Armenian armed forces
are withdrawn from the seven regions around Nagorno Karabakh Armenia
will lose the military and strategic advantage, ensuring favorable
defense capacities, which will be used by Azerbaijan in surrounding
its Nagorno Karabakh province and extending the front line to many
kilometers and following the withdrawal of the Armenian side from
Nagorno Karabakh Azerbaijani troops would enter these regions and
pose a threat for the Armenian community.
Well, first of all by entering the 21st century, Armenia should
gradually stop to use the concepts of gained territories and forced
change of borders. The times of Peter the Great have passed and
international law and UN charter are operating in the world. It is
time to wake up and get used to new realities. Besides, it is senseless
for Azerbaijan to settle the problem peacefully, planning the renewal
of war in its mind. Azerbaijan does not hold peaceful negotiations
today to start war upon their completion again. Azerbaijan is able to
liberate its lands by forced way without any peaceful negotiations. But
the essence of the peaceful process is the preference, given to the
resolution of interstate conflicts on the very basis of international
law. Therefore, Yerevan will anyway have to withdraw its occupational
forces from seven regions of Azerbaijan both in case of the peaceful
talks and in case of retreat under attack of the Azerbaijani army.
Second, Yerevan's concerns regarding security of the Armenian
community of Nagorno Karabakh following withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces are also groundless. Azerbaijan has no need or even intention
to deploy its troops in the region immediately. Baku is interested
in the demilitarization of the region and restoration of trust
between the two communities-citizens of Azerbaijan, who are equal
in rights. Moreover, the public order in the region can be restored
by the mixed police forces, composed of the residents of the oblast,
as it is not the army which ensures order in Baku, Yerevan and other
cities of the two countries.
Therefore, Yerevan should consider withdrawal of its armed forces
from seven regions of Azerbaijan as an inevitable substance. As
for its concerns regarding the security of the Armenian community
of Nagorno Karabakh following the withdrawal of Armenian troops,
it is time for Yerevan to recover from this paranoia, otherwise,
the case will not end in a plebiscite, spoken of by Nalbandyan.
We do hope that speaking about the future status of Nagorno Karabakh
the officials of the foreign ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan
imply the same under the term of Nagorno Karabakh. Both the Armenian
press and the announcements of Armenian officials often mention
the altered contours of this oblast, differing from the previous
borders of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic. First,
they have spoken about some "Shaomyan region of Nagorno Karabakh"
(of course, "occupied" by Azerbaijan), then included some "Getashen
subregion". They have recently spoken of the Lachin and Kelbajar
regions of Azerbaijan as about the integral parts of Nagorno Karabakh
and even made up Armenian names for these settlements.
In this connection, it should be noted that former Shaomyan (rural)
region of Azerbaijan has never been a part of the Nagorno Karabakh
Autonomous Republic and the debates on ancient history, in which
Armenians try to draw Azerbaijanis, are not included into the peaceful
talks under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. Chaykend has never
been a part of Nagorno Karabakh, like there has never been such an
administrative unit as "subregion". The said invention, like inclusion
of Lachin and Kelbajar into Nagorno Karabakh, belong to Armenian press,
but in the process of peaceful negotiations Azerbaijani and Armenian
diplomacies should understand clearly that the term "Nagorno Karabakh"
implies an area of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic
of the Azerbaijan SSR. If Nalbandyan's structure really intends to
build a constructive dialogue with its Azerbaijani counterparts,
we want to hope that there will not be any unexpected surprise from
the side of Yerevan in this issue.
Finally, I would like to say something about the issue of plebiscite as
a mechanism of joint definition of the future status of demilitarized,
mine-cleared and restored Nagorno Karabakh by two reconciled
communities of this region within Azerbaijan. It is difficult to add
anything else to all Araz Azimov has said. Following the completion
of the peaceful resolution and the final stage of this process
(definition of the status of Nagorno Karabakh), Baku will fully back
the self-determination of the oblast on the basis of the Final Helsinki
Act of 1975, envisioning the territorial integrity of countries,
inviolability of borders, as well as equality and right of peoples
to define their fate independently. The latter, however, does not
imply the right for the unauthorized separation and, on the contrary,
encourages internal self-determination and democratic self-government
of the national minorities (Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh).
This is the position of the Azerbaijani side and if Armenian diplomatic
still refer to some document, which is on the negotiation table and
which is based on the principle of the self-determination by way of
plebiscite, the official position of Baku, voiced by deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov by no way contradicts to the principle, but,
on the contrary, comply with it and fully bases on the norms of
international law.
We hope that Armenian side will stop manipulating different
sociological terms for attainment, substantiation and legal fixing
of territorial integrity in the style of the times of the first
world war and instead will finally join the civilian processes of
the 21st century for the regional stability, cooperation, progressive
development and integration. The intention to implement their fix idea
of expansion of lands at the cost of neighbors instead of doing so will
lead Armenian people to nowhere. Prosperity is only possible in case
Armenians get rid of the complex of a pinched, humiliated, suffering
people and territorial inefficiency, which pursues them from their
childhood. Armenia should realize that happiness does not require a
large territory, even so more, occupied from a neighbor. Both small
Luxembourg and Monaco are able to live happily. Existence of good
neighbors around a small state is more important that expansion of
territory and having enemies along 80% of its state border.
Only friendly relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran and Georgia may
guarantee security and prosperity of the Armenian state. No Treaty of
Collective Security will take their place and guarantee safety. Not
a single state in the world will be able to cause damage or pose a
threat of Armenia, if the latter maintains good relations with its
four neighbors, while being in the state of frozen war with one of
the neighbors and having hidden territorial claims to two others and
having good relations only with south neighbor, which has doubtful
reputation in the world, it will not be possible to ensure prosperity
of its people. At the same time, it will not be possible to improve
relations with neighbors without rejecting plans to expand territories
at their expense.
Therefore, the new leadership of Armenia will have to choose between
the priorities if far North does not deprive it from the right of
independent choice. However, it is up to Armenians to decide.