Tweet
Ara Papian: OSCE MG trying to resurrecting Stalinism in a single region alone
March 26, 2011 - 10:32 AMT 06:32 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net -
One of the most important fundaments of maintaining order is
functioning within one's own mandate, within one's own area of
authority. This applies as well, without any qualifications, to bodies
established as per international law and working in the realm of
international relations, head of Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre,
historian Ara Papian said in his article titled `The Co-chairs are
Simply the Mediators or, An Attempt at Resurrecting Stalinism in a
Single Region Alone.'
`Nevertheless, it appears that this simple truth is being dismissed
ever increasingly by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The latest
testament to such an approach is the expression `the seven occupied
territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (NK)' found in
the report of the co-chairs of the 24th of March, 2011. It is evident
that, by such phrasing, this group has clearly functioned outside of
its authority and violated its own mandate,' Mr. Papian said.
`No-one has authorised this group of co-chairs to decide the status or
fate of any piece of territory. Who has given that group the right to
even equate what they refer to as `Nagorno-Karabakh' with the former
Autonomous Oblast of Mountainous Karabakh of the erstwhile USSR? That
is to be decided by the parties in dispute. The authority of the
co-chairs is limited to mediation, that is, to benefit the process of
negotiations founded on the exclusion of the use of force. That is
absolutely and clearly codified in the mandate of the co-chairs of the
Minsk Group: `Promoting a resolution of the conflict without the use
of force and in particular facilitating negotiations for a peaceful
and comprehensive settlement' [Mandate of the Co-Chairmen of the
Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh under the auspices of OSCE (`Minsk
Group', Vienna, 23 March 1995, DOC.525/95)]'. None of the fifteen
clauses of this mandate provide for the co-chairs to come to some
final decision or to make any sort of ruling on anything.'
He went on saying: `It is even more extraordinary and perfectly
baseless to refer to territories surrounding the former Autonomous
Oblast of Mountainous Karabakh as `territories of Azerbaijan'. I
imagine that the co-chairs, as high-ranking and experienced diplomats,
are more aware than I am that the legal possession of any territory in
international law is decided by the title to territory and not by
administrative boundaries. If they or anyone else could cite any
international legal document - again, any international, and, again,
any legal document, as opposed to the decision of some political party
- that the title to even a square inch of the current territory of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has ever been recognised as belonging to the
Republic of Azerbaijan, I would publicly apologise for my ignorance.
And if that cannot be done, then I am correct and consequently no one,
and certainly not any mediating group, has the right to make use of
such baseless wording.'
`A question may arise: what kind of phrasing to use, then? I believe
it would be most appropriate to say, `the territories adjacent to
former the Autonomous Oblast of Mountainous Karabakh', without
mentioning `Azerbaijan', as the AOMK (or NKAO, to use its Russian
abbreviation) was an autonomous unit within the Soviet Union, which
was subject to the entire country's authority in an indirect manner;
that is to say, it was an administrative unit of the USSR through yet
another administrative unit of the USSR. As a reminder, the Soviet
Union had a four-tier administrative organisation and, independent of
the tier level of the administrative unit, each administrative unit
was considered the same in terms of title: all of those administrative
units were subject to one and the same authority, namely, the
sovereignty of the USSR,' Mr. Papian said.
`Let me also emphasise that the administrative boundaries set by
Stalin could never act as legal bases for the delimitation of
frontiers of states, as international law makes clear, that ex injuria
jus non oritur, that is, law does not arise out of injustice. And let
me remind the forgetful that the very OSCE which authorised the
co-chairs equated Stalinism with Nazism in its resolution `Divided
Europe Reunited' at Vilnius on the 3rd of July, 2009. Is anyone in
Europe ready today to return to the boundaries set by Hitler? So why
would one think that it is acceptable to resurrect the crimes carried
out by Stalin in the southern Caucasus?'
From: A. Papazian
March 26, 2011 - 10:32 AMT 06:32 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net -
One of the most important fundaments of maintaining order is
functioning within one's own mandate, within one's own area of
authority. This applies as well, without any qualifications, to bodies
established as per international law and working in the realm of
international relations, head of Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre,
historian Ara Papian said in his article titled `The Co-chairs are
Simply the Mediators or, An Attempt at Resurrecting Stalinism in a
Single Region Alone.'
`Nevertheless, it appears that this simple truth is being dismissed
ever increasingly by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The latest
testament to such an approach is the expression `the seven occupied
territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (NK)' found in
the report of the co-chairs of the 24th of March, 2011. It is evident
that, by such phrasing, this group has clearly functioned outside of
its authority and violated its own mandate,' Mr. Papian said.
`No-one has authorised this group of co-chairs to decide the status or
fate of any piece of territory. Who has given that group the right to
even equate what they refer to as `Nagorno-Karabakh' with the former
Autonomous Oblast of Mountainous Karabakh of the erstwhile USSR? That
is to be decided by the parties in dispute. The authority of the
co-chairs is limited to mediation, that is, to benefit the process of
negotiations founded on the exclusion of the use of force. That is
absolutely and clearly codified in the mandate of the co-chairs of the
Minsk Group: `Promoting a resolution of the conflict without the use
of force and in particular facilitating negotiations for a peaceful
and comprehensive settlement' [Mandate of the Co-Chairmen of the
Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh under the auspices of OSCE (`Minsk
Group', Vienna, 23 March 1995, DOC.525/95)]'. None of the fifteen
clauses of this mandate provide for the co-chairs to come to some
final decision or to make any sort of ruling on anything.'
He went on saying: `It is even more extraordinary and perfectly
baseless to refer to territories surrounding the former Autonomous
Oblast of Mountainous Karabakh as `territories of Azerbaijan'. I
imagine that the co-chairs, as high-ranking and experienced diplomats,
are more aware than I am that the legal possession of any territory in
international law is decided by the title to territory and not by
administrative boundaries. If they or anyone else could cite any
international legal document - again, any international, and, again,
any legal document, as opposed to the decision of some political party
- that the title to even a square inch of the current territory of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has ever been recognised as belonging to the
Republic of Azerbaijan, I would publicly apologise for my ignorance.
And if that cannot be done, then I am correct and consequently no one,
and certainly not any mediating group, has the right to make use of
such baseless wording.'
`A question may arise: what kind of phrasing to use, then? I believe
it would be most appropriate to say, `the territories adjacent to
former the Autonomous Oblast of Mountainous Karabakh', without
mentioning `Azerbaijan', as the AOMK (or NKAO, to use its Russian
abbreviation) was an autonomous unit within the Soviet Union, which
was subject to the entire country's authority in an indirect manner;
that is to say, it was an administrative unit of the USSR through yet
another administrative unit of the USSR. As a reminder, the Soviet
Union had a four-tier administrative organisation and, independent of
the tier level of the administrative unit, each administrative unit
was considered the same in terms of title: all of those administrative
units were subject to one and the same authority, namely, the
sovereignty of the USSR,' Mr. Papian said.
`Let me also emphasise that the administrative boundaries set by
Stalin could never act as legal bases for the delimitation of
frontiers of states, as international law makes clear, that ex injuria
jus non oritur, that is, law does not arise out of injustice. And let
me remind the forgetful that the very OSCE which authorised the
co-chairs equated Stalinism with Nazism in its resolution `Divided
Europe Reunited' at Vilnius on the 3rd of July, 2009. Is anyone in
Europe ready today to return to the boundaries set by Hitler? So why
would one think that it is acceptable to resurrect the crimes carried
out by Stalin in the southern Caucasus?'
From: A. Papazian