Tweet
DISCUSSION OF KARABAKH CONFLICT IN UN PROMOTES LIBERATION OF OCCUPIED LANDS
news.az
Sept 2 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Rafael Huseynov, member of PACE and deputy of
Milli Majlis.
The 66th session of the UN General Assembly will discuss two issues
regarding the Karabakh conflict. These documents are resolutions named
"Protracted conflicts in GUAM space and their impact on international
peace, security and development" and "The situation in the occupied
lands of Azerbaijan". Is it expedient that Azerbaijan has been putting
these documents for discussion for over three consecutive years?
Azerbaijan joined the Council of Europe on 25 January 2001 and in April
of the same year that is beginning from the spring session of the CE
Parliamentary Assembly, the Azerbaijani delegation got an opportunity
to submit documents and speak in the Assembly, At that time, we
asked the PACE deputies from over 40 states to sign the documents
and resolutions adopted by UN on Karabakh conflict. These documents
reflected occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia, the problem of
refugees and displaced persons. However, some famous and influential
deputies of PACE refused even to read those documents and some even
accused us of 'occupying' Armenia. This state of affairs formed as a
result of Armenian policy, in other words, European parliamentarians
had a wrong opinion about the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. But in
2005 PACE adopted resolution No1415 in which Armenia was indicated
as a state that occupied Azerbaijani lands. It means that in just a
few years of Azerbaijan's membership in the Council of Europe, the
position of European parliamentarians on Karabakh conflict has changed.
Nagorno Karabakh conflict, overall, Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is
not a problem solvable in an hour or in one document. The settlement
of this problem is a long process. If today all international
organizations, including the UN, have formed a clear view about
the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia, that Karabakh is an
Azerbaijani land and that over 300,000 Azerbaijanis were deported
from Armenia, it means the world community is already informed about
the essence of the Karabakh conflict.
On the other hand, each time when the problem of Karabakh is put to
the agenda of international organizations, including UN, Armenia gets
anxious, creates hindrances and speaks against such discussions. There
appears a question: if there is no need and expedience of discussing
the problem of Karabakh by international organizations, then why
Armenia is trying to hamper this through various diplomatic channels.
We can watch the same case, particularly, hindrance of discussions
of the Karabakh conflict by Armenia, in PACE. As is known, Armenia
hampers creation of the subcommittee on Karabakh settlement in PACE.
I want to note that it is very important to indicate the fact of
occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, problem of occupation of Azerbaijani
lands by Armenia, problem of refugees and displaced persons, problem
of vandalism in these lands, the damage caused by occupation to the
cultural monuments of Azerbaijan, in the documents of international
organizations.
For this reason, I think that the repeated discussion of the occupation
of Azerbaijani lands in UN. Such a discussion is at least necessary for
the most influential international organization to keep the problem of
Karabakh on the agenda. Additionally, it is important to adopt to adopt
a document by results of these discussions, naturally, to reflect the
fact of occupation. I think that such a position is closing Azerbaijan
to its final goal-liberation of the occupied lands-step by step.
Is it possible to expect that this resolution will be supported by
more states, compared to previous years?
The number of votes for the adoption of any document in UN cannot
be the indicator of support to Azerbaijan's position in the Karabakh
issue, because Azerbaijan's success can be considered the inclusion
of these documents onto the agenda of the UN General Assembly. If
Azerbaijan has attained inclusion of these documents onto the agenda
of the UN General Assembly, it means that official Baku has held a
definite work through diplomatic channels with the states that will
be voting for these documents. I am sure that Baku has held such a
work and for this reason I hope that the number of states to vote
for adoption of these documents will rise this year.
Can we expect the Minsk Group co-chairing countries to support those
resolutions as well?
I consider it important for the Minsk Group to continue its activity
as this OSCE group, represented by three big superpowers, can become
a mechanism for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Certainly,
Azerbaijan has to continue working with the OSCE Minsk Group
member-states for their stance on Karabakh settlement to be more
objective. I think that positive changes will occur in the position
of the OSCE Minsk Group with respect to constant criticism of their
activity and their incautious steps and statements in the past.
Does the inclusion of the resolution on Karabakh onto the agenda of
the UN session prove that the Minsk Group is inactive and does not
cope with its mission?
If we suggest that there is no need for Azerbaijan to raise the
issue in UN, the same approach should have been demonstrated in
other international organizations, particularly, the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation and the Council of Europe. For this reason,
I consider that Azerbaijan must raise the occupation of its lands at
all international levels and put for discussion the documents related
to this problem. Thus, to attain its goal, Azerbaijan must use all
possible channels, including such an important one, as UN.
From: A. Papazian
news.az
Sept 2 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Rafael Huseynov, member of PACE and deputy of
Milli Majlis.
The 66th session of the UN General Assembly will discuss two issues
regarding the Karabakh conflict. These documents are resolutions named
"Protracted conflicts in GUAM space and their impact on international
peace, security and development" and "The situation in the occupied
lands of Azerbaijan". Is it expedient that Azerbaijan has been putting
these documents for discussion for over three consecutive years?
Azerbaijan joined the Council of Europe on 25 January 2001 and in April
of the same year that is beginning from the spring session of the CE
Parliamentary Assembly, the Azerbaijani delegation got an opportunity
to submit documents and speak in the Assembly, At that time, we
asked the PACE deputies from over 40 states to sign the documents
and resolutions adopted by UN on Karabakh conflict. These documents
reflected occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia, the problem of
refugees and displaced persons. However, some famous and influential
deputies of PACE refused even to read those documents and some even
accused us of 'occupying' Armenia. This state of affairs formed as a
result of Armenian policy, in other words, European parliamentarians
had a wrong opinion about the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. But in
2005 PACE adopted resolution No1415 in which Armenia was indicated
as a state that occupied Azerbaijani lands. It means that in just a
few years of Azerbaijan's membership in the Council of Europe, the
position of European parliamentarians on Karabakh conflict has changed.
Nagorno Karabakh conflict, overall, Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is
not a problem solvable in an hour or in one document. The settlement
of this problem is a long process. If today all international
organizations, including the UN, have formed a clear view about
the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia, that Karabakh is an
Azerbaijani land and that over 300,000 Azerbaijanis were deported
from Armenia, it means the world community is already informed about
the essence of the Karabakh conflict.
On the other hand, each time when the problem of Karabakh is put to
the agenda of international organizations, including UN, Armenia gets
anxious, creates hindrances and speaks against such discussions. There
appears a question: if there is no need and expedience of discussing
the problem of Karabakh by international organizations, then why
Armenia is trying to hamper this through various diplomatic channels.
We can watch the same case, particularly, hindrance of discussions
of the Karabakh conflict by Armenia, in PACE. As is known, Armenia
hampers creation of the subcommittee on Karabakh settlement in PACE.
I want to note that it is very important to indicate the fact of
occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, problem of occupation of Azerbaijani
lands by Armenia, problem of refugees and displaced persons, problem
of vandalism in these lands, the damage caused by occupation to the
cultural monuments of Azerbaijan, in the documents of international
organizations.
For this reason, I think that the repeated discussion of the occupation
of Azerbaijani lands in UN. Such a discussion is at least necessary for
the most influential international organization to keep the problem of
Karabakh on the agenda. Additionally, it is important to adopt to adopt
a document by results of these discussions, naturally, to reflect the
fact of occupation. I think that such a position is closing Azerbaijan
to its final goal-liberation of the occupied lands-step by step.
Is it possible to expect that this resolution will be supported by
more states, compared to previous years?
The number of votes for the adoption of any document in UN cannot
be the indicator of support to Azerbaijan's position in the Karabakh
issue, because Azerbaijan's success can be considered the inclusion
of these documents onto the agenda of the UN General Assembly. If
Azerbaijan has attained inclusion of these documents onto the agenda
of the UN General Assembly, it means that official Baku has held a
definite work through diplomatic channels with the states that will
be voting for these documents. I am sure that Baku has held such a
work and for this reason I hope that the number of states to vote
for adoption of these documents will rise this year.
Can we expect the Minsk Group co-chairing countries to support those
resolutions as well?
I consider it important for the Minsk Group to continue its activity
as this OSCE group, represented by three big superpowers, can become
a mechanism for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Certainly,
Azerbaijan has to continue working with the OSCE Minsk Group
member-states for their stance on Karabakh settlement to be more
objective. I think that positive changes will occur in the position
of the OSCE Minsk Group with respect to constant criticism of their
activity and their incautious steps and statements in the past.
Does the inclusion of the resolution on Karabakh onto the agenda of
the UN session prove that the Minsk Group is inactive and does not
cope with its mission?
If we suggest that there is no need for Azerbaijan to raise the
issue in UN, the same approach should have been demonstrated in
other international organizations, particularly, the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation and the Council of Europe. For this reason,
I consider that Azerbaijan must raise the occupation of its lands at
all international levels and put for discussion the documents related
to this problem. Thus, to attain its goal, Azerbaijan must use all
possible channels, including such an important one, as UN.
From: A. Papazian