Tweet
Eurasia Review
Oct 27 2013
Azerbaijan's Actions In Full Compliance With Constitution Of
Azerbaijan And International Law - OpEd
By Yusif Babanly
October 26, 2013
A recent article by Aram Avetisyan, published in FPJ blog is nothing
but misrepresentation of facts in an effort to mislead the reader.
I'll start from the statements about the re-election of the President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.
First and foremost, the entire process of elections was assessed as
free and transparent and in accordance with all international
standards by many international institutions and watchdogs, including
the short-term OSCE Mission in Azerbaijan, Council of Europe and
European Union missions. Furthermore, numerous international observers
on the ground, including the American Observers Group, completely
endorsed the results of the elections, reaffirming the expectations
about the victory of the incumbent, forecasted by the pre-election
polls and exit polls on the day of elections.
Needless to say, there was criticism from other parties taking part in
the observation mission and it's absolutely fine as this remains a
part of proper democratic development of any given country. Second,
the Azerbaijani government clearly allows unrestricted access to
rallies and freedom of assembly at sanctioned venues in the pre- and
post-election period. The situation is quite the contrary in Armenia.
In Armenia, the country's leadership explicitly commits massacres of
peacefully demonstrating civilians in public areas. This was the case
with 2008 post-election rallies, resulting in deaths of 8
demonstrators who were shot by the security forces in the central
streets of Yerevan.[1] Another good example is an assassination
attempt of one of presidential hopefuls Paruyr Hayrikyan a couple of
weeks before the 2013 presidential elections were held in Armenia.[2]
Clearly, the modus operandi of the Armenian government is not to just
contain the opponents through political process but simply exterminate
them.
As far as President Ilham Aliyev's foregn policy vis-à-vis Armenia is
concerned, it is in full accordance with the obligations he has taken
before Azerbaijani people upon swearing in. The president is by all
means to `protect the independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan'[3]. Therefore, as Armenia
continues its occupation policy against Azerbaijan, Baku has a full
right to cease diplomatic and economic relations as long as the
territorial integrity of the country is not restored. As logic
dictates, no state in the history of mankind had continued diplomatic
and/or economic relations with the aggressor state, occupying the
former's territory.
It is hard to imagine that the Soviet Union would continue its
diplomatic relations with the Nazi Germany, allow it to ship materials
and commodities through its territory or endorse projects for laying
railways and other communication links through the Nazi controlled
territories, thus economically enriching it. The same can be said
about the position of the United States which suffered from the
aggression of the Imperial Japan during WWII. In fact, even today,
many countries exercise the same policies towards the rivals. For
instance, the U.S. and Israel do not seem to be too eager to see any
international projects realized in Iran or North Korea. On contrary
numerous sanctions have been inherently imposed on economies of these
states.
Let's also keep in mind that Azerbaijan had already readily agreed to
open all communication links to Armenia on September 23, 1991, when
the Zheleznovodsk Accords were signed. Sadly, a helicopter with
numerous Azerbaijani, Russian and Kazakh peacemakers onboard was soon
shot down on November 20, 1991 by Armenian militants near Qarakend
village of Khojavend district of Azerbaijan, which subsequently and
effectively ended all negotiations in early stages of the conflict.
Occupation and ethnic cleansing campaigns of Azerbaijani cities of
Khojaly, Shusha and Lachin ensued in the first half of 1992 and seven
more districts outside of former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast
(NKAO) were occupied in 1993. A rather rhetorical question is why
would Azerbaijan open up all of the communication links to Armenia
thus extending it an economic lifeline and source to financial gains
it desperately needs to amass ammunition and sustain its occupation of
Azerbaijani territories?
Moving on. As far as the Chapter VII, Article 41 of the UN Charter is
concerned; Azerbaijan does not need another separate resolution to
enforce breaking off economic relations with Armenia. Four UN SC
resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 are quite sufficient to highlight
the fact of illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territories and provide
basis for Azerbaijan's actions vis-à-vis Armenia. And since we're
invoking the UN SC resolutions from 1993, the UN SC Resolution 853,
adopted on July 29, 1993 after the occupation of Agdam district by
Armenian forces, `reiterates in the context of paragraphs 3 and 4'
binding restoration of `economic, transport and energy links in the
region'[4] with the `immediate complete and unconditional withdrawal
of occupying forces involved from the district of Agdam and all other
recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan Republic'.[5]
In other words, UN SC suggests that once the Armenian occupying forces
withdraw from the Azerbaijani territories, all communication lines and
economic relations would need to be re-opened. What's more, it's
Armenia which has been enforcing a policy of blockade since the
beginning of the conflict. Aside from numerous assaults on civilian
buses and trains in 1988-1991, Armenians had instituted a full
containment of Azerbaijani populated districts and settlements during
the war. For instance, before Khojaly and surrounding villages were
occupied in February 1992, they remained in full blockade by the
Armenian armed forces for three months. The same can be said about the
districts of Gubadly and Zangelan, the communications of which to the
outside world were cut off due to blockade by Armenian forces in
August and October 1993, respectively. This policy of blockade led to
the eventual occupation and ethnic cleansing of these districts by
Armenian army. These events, in turn, produced the UN SC Resolutions
874 and 884.[6][7]
So far, Azerbaijan has continued its efforts to come to terms with
Armenia, including participating in various CBMs, but the entire
process is frequently disrupted by the Armenian side via illegal
initiatives. Take, for instance, the illegal relocation of Syrian
refugees of Armenian descent to the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan. In 2013, 24 Armenian families were relocated to occupied
Lachin district, 7 to Zangelan, and 27 to Kelbajar, which Armenian
leadership showcased to the outer world as an humanitarian effort.[8]
First and foremost, resettlement is in full violation of the Article
49 of the Geneva Convention from 1949, forbidding the occupying power
to transfer civilian population into the territory it occupies.[9]
Secondly, if the initiative was of humanitarian nature, Armenia would
have been able to use abundant space in its own republic for any
refugees, considering that a large portion of its own population
continues to emigrate to other countries due to lack of work and
economic opportunities in Armenia. In the first 9 months of 2012, 97
thousand people left Armenia but that is `just the tip of the
iceberg', and as much as one million Armenian have left the country in
the last two decades, writes an Armenian journalist Houry
Mayissian.[10] It follows, that Armenia's policy does not constitute
humanitarian efforts, but that the resettlement of Armenians to the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan is part of the deliberate policy of
changing the demographics in the territories and intentionally
disrupting the negotiations.
Azerbaijan has repeatedly and emphatically extended its olive branch
to the neighboring Armenia, eager to reconcile and prosper in the same
region with the Armenian people. The only precondition, endorsed by
the international community, is for Armenian troops to withdraw from
Azerbaijani occupied territories and allow the return of Azerbaijani
IDPs forced out by Armenian army during the war. The Armenian
community of Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan would be able to
live and prosper alongside their Azerbaijani neighbors and benefit
from the economic incentives generated by Azerbaijan, as much as
Georgian and Turkish economies have. Scores of international
documents, based on international law, have been issued in support of
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and condemning the occupation of
the territories by the Armenian armed forces, including the
aforementioned UN SC Resolutions 822, 853, 874, 884, UN GA Resolution
62/243, PACE Resolution 1416, OIC resolutions 10/11 and 10/37, and
last, but not least, the European Parliament Resolution on October 23,
2013 on the European Neighborhood Policy, stating the occupation `by
one country of the Eastern Partnership of the territory of another
violates the fundamental principles and objectives of the Eastern
Partnership and that the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
should comply with the UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874
and 884'.[11]
References
1. 8 killed in Armenian protests. Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2008
(http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/02/world/fg-armenia2)
2. Armenia presidential candidate shot, election in doubt. Reuters,
January 31, 2013
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-armenia-candidate-idUSBRE90U1GJ20130131)
3. The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan
(http://en.president.az/azerbaijan/constitution)
4. See Item 5, UN SC Resolution 853, July 29, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f15a60)
5. See Item 3, UN SC Resolution 853, July 29, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f15a60)
6. UN SC Resolution 874, October 14, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f1684)
7. UN SC Resolution 884, November 12, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f16520)
8. Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan to UN
General Assembly and UN SC
9. Geneva Convention, Article 49, August 12, 1949
(http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056)
10. Mayissian: Armenia's `Silent' National Security Threat. Armenian
Weekly, January 3, 2013
(http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/03/mayissian-armenias-silent-national-security-threat/)
11. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on the European
Neighbourhood Policy: towards a strengthening of the partnership.
Position of the European Parliament on the 2012 reports.
(2013/2621(RSP))
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0446+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN&language=EN)
Yusif Babanly is the co-founder and secretary of the US Azeris Network (USAN)
http://www.eurasiareview.com/26102013-azerbaijans-actions-full-compliance-constitution-af-azerbaijan-international-law-oped/
Oct 27 2013
Azerbaijan's Actions In Full Compliance With Constitution Of
Azerbaijan And International Law - OpEd
By Yusif Babanly
October 26, 2013
A recent article by Aram Avetisyan, published in FPJ blog is nothing
but misrepresentation of facts in an effort to mislead the reader.
I'll start from the statements about the re-election of the President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.
First and foremost, the entire process of elections was assessed as
free and transparent and in accordance with all international
standards by many international institutions and watchdogs, including
the short-term OSCE Mission in Azerbaijan, Council of Europe and
European Union missions. Furthermore, numerous international observers
on the ground, including the American Observers Group, completely
endorsed the results of the elections, reaffirming the expectations
about the victory of the incumbent, forecasted by the pre-election
polls and exit polls on the day of elections.
Needless to say, there was criticism from other parties taking part in
the observation mission and it's absolutely fine as this remains a
part of proper democratic development of any given country. Second,
the Azerbaijani government clearly allows unrestricted access to
rallies and freedom of assembly at sanctioned venues in the pre- and
post-election period. The situation is quite the contrary in Armenia.
In Armenia, the country's leadership explicitly commits massacres of
peacefully demonstrating civilians in public areas. This was the case
with 2008 post-election rallies, resulting in deaths of 8
demonstrators who were shot by the security forces in the central
streets of Yerevan.[1] Another good example is an assassination
attempt of one of presidential hopefuls Paruyr Hayrikyan a couple of
weeks before the 2013 presidential elections were held in Armenia.[2]
Clearly, the modus operandi of the Armenian government is not to just
contain the opponents through political process but simply exterminate
them.
As far as President Ilham Aliyev's foregn policy vis-à-vis Armenia is
concerned, it is in full accordance with the obligations he has taken
before Azerbaijani people upon swearing in. The president is by all
means to `protect the independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan'[3]. Therefore, as Armenia
continues its occupation policy against Azerbaijan, Baku has a full
right to cease diplomatic and economic relations as long as the
territorial integrity of the country is not restored. As logic
dictates, no state in the history of mankind had continued diplomatic
and/or economic relations with the aggressor state, occupying the
former's territory.
It is hard to imagine that the Soviet Union would continue its
diplomatic relations with the Nazi Germany, allow it to ship materials
and commodities through its territory or endorse projects for laying
railways and other communication links through the Nazi controlled
territories, thus economically enriching it. The same can be said
about the position of the United States which suffered from the
aggression of the Imperial Japan during WWII. In fact, even today,
many countries exercise the same policies towards the rivals. For
instance, the U.S. and Israel do not seem to be too eager to see any
international projects realized in Iran or North Korea. On contrary
numerous sanctions have been inherently imposed on economies of these
states.
Let's also keep in mind that Azerbaijan had already readily agreed to
open all communication links to Armenia on September 23, 1991, when
the Zheleznovodsk Accords were signed. Sadly, a helicopter with
numerous Azerbaijani, Russian and Kazakh peacemakers onboard was soon
shot down on November 20, 1991 by Armenian militants near Qarakend
village of Khojavend district of Azerbaijan, which subsequently and
effectively ended all negotiations in early stages of the conflict.
Occupation and ethnic cleansing campaigns of Azerbaijani cities of
Khojaly, Shusha and Lachin ensued in the first half of 1992 and seven
more districts outside of former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast
(NKAO) were occupied in 1993. A rather rhetorical question is why
would Azerbaijan open up all of the communication links to Armenia
thus extending it an economic lifeline and source to financial gains
it desperately needs to amass ammunition and sustain its occupation of
Azerbaijani territories?
Moving on. As far as the Chapter VII, Article 41 of the UN Charter is
concerned; Azerbaijan does not need another separate resolution to
enforce breaking off economic relations with Armenia. Four UN SC
resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 are quite sufficient to highlight
the fact of illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territories and provide
basis for Azerbaijan's actions vis-à-vis Armenia. And since we're
invoking the UN SC resolutions from 1993, the UN SC Resolution 853,
adopted on July 29, 1993 after the occupation of Agdam district by
Armenian forces, `reiterates in the context of paragraphs 3 and 4'
binding restoration of `economic, transport and energy links in the
region'[4] with the `immediate complete and unconditional withdrawal
of occupying forces involved from the district of Agdam and all other
recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan Republic'.[5]
In other words, UN SC suggests that once the Armenian occupying forces
withdraw from the Azerbaijani territories, all communication lines and
economic relations would need to be re-opened. What's more, it's
Armenia which has been enforcing a policy of blockade since the
beginning of the conflict. Aside from numerous assaults on civilian
buses and trains in 1988-1991, Armenians had instituted a full
containment of Azerbaijani populated districts and settlements during
the war. For instance, before Khojaly and surrounding villages were
occupied in February 1992, they remained in full blockade by the
Armenian armed forces for three months. The same can be said about the
districts of Gubadly and Zangelan, the communications of which to the
outside world were cut off due to blockade by Armenian forces in
August and October 1993, respectively. This policy of blockade led to
the eventual occupation and ethnic cleansing of these districts by
Armenian army. These events, in turn, produced the UN SC Resolutions
874 and 884.[6][7]
So far, Azerbaijan has continued its efforts to come to terms with
Armenia, including participating in various CBMs, but the entire
process is frequently disrupted by the Armenian side via illegal
initiatives. Take, for instance, the illegal relocation of Syrian
refugees of Armenian descent to the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan. In 2013, 24 Armenian families were relocated to occupied
Lachin district, 7 to Zangelan, and 27 to Kelbajar, which Armenian
leadership showcased to the outer world as an humanitarian effort.[8]
First and foremost, resettlement is in full violation of the Article
49 of the Geneva Convention from 1949, forbidding the occupying power
to transfer civilian population into the territory it occupies.[9]
Secondly, if the initiative was of humanitarian nature, Armenia would
have been able to use abundant space in its own republic for any
refugees, considering that a large portion of its own population
continues to emigrate to other countries due to lack of work and
economic opportunities in Armenia. In the first 9 months of 2012, 97
thousand people left Armenia but that is `just the tip of the
iceberg', and as much as one million Armenian have left the country in
the last two decades, writes an Armenian journalist Houry
Mayissian.[10] It follows, that Armenia's policy does not constitute
humanitarian efforts, but that the resettlement of Armenians to the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan is part of the deliberate policy of
changing the demographics in the territories and intentionally
disrupting the negotiations.
Azerbaijan has repeatedly and emphatically extended its olive branch
to the neighboring Armenia, eager to reconcile and prosper in the same
region with the Armenian people. The only precondition, endorsed by
the international community, is for Armenian troops to withdraw from
Azerbaijani occupied territories and allow the return of Azerbaijani
IDPs forced out by Armenian army during the war. The Armenian
community of Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan would be able to
live and prosper alongside their Azerbaijani neighbors and benefit
from the economic incentives generated by Azerbaijan, as much as
Georgian and Turkish economies have. Scores of international
documents, based on international law, have been issued in support of
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and condemning the occupation of
the territories by the Armenian armed forces, including the
aforementioned UN SC Resolutions 822, 853, 874, 884, UN GA Resolution
62/243, PACE Resolution 1416, OIC resolutions 10/11 and 10/37, and
last, but not least, the European Parliament Resolution on October 23,
2013 on the European Neighborhood Policy, stating the occupation `by
one country of the Eastern Partnership of the territory of another
violates the fundamental principles and objectives of the Eastern
Partnership and that the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
should comply with the UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874
and 884'.[11]
References
1. 8 killed in Armenian protests. Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2008
(http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/02/world/fg-armenia2)
2. Armenia presidential candidate shot, election in doubt. Reuters,
January 31, 2013
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-armenia-candidate-idUSBRE90U1GJ20130131)
3. The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan
(http://en.president.az/azerbaijan/constitution)
4. See Item 5, UN SC Resolution 853, July 29, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f15a60)
5. See Item 3, UN SC Resolution 853, July 29, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f15a60)
6. UN SC Resolution 874, October 14, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f1684)
7. UN SC Resolution 884, November 12, 1993
(http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f16520)
8. Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan to UN
General Assembly and UN SC
9. Geneva Convention, Article 49, August 12, 1949
(http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056)
10. Mayissian: Armenia's `Silent' National Security Threat. Armenian
Weekly, January 3, 2013
(http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/03/mayissian-armenias-silent-national-security-threat/)
11. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on the European
Neighbourhood Policy: towards a strengthening of the partnership.
Position of the European Parliament on the 2012 reports.
(2013/2621(RSP))
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0446+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN&language=EN)
Yusif Babanly is the co-founder and secretary of the US Azeris Network (USAN)
http://www.eurasiareview.com/26102013-azerbaijans-actions-full-compliance-constitution-af-azerbaijan-international-law-oped/