WAR AGAINST THE UNARMED

It has been just over a month since the moment a cease-fire agreement was reached following large-scale military action in the Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia. However, Yerevan continues to escalate tension on the contact line between troops and, effectively, undermines the negotiating process. Convincing proof of this is the initiative of Armenian parliamentarians to recognize the so-called "NKR" [self-styled "Nagornyy Karabakh republic"]. However, the complete failure of the initiative only reinforced the state of extreme confusion that the occupying country's leadership is in.

In early April, the Azerbaijani army liberated a number of strategic positions at the Karabakh front, thus proving the futility of the Armenian propaganda about the allegedly impregnable defence system organized by the invaders in the occupied Karabakh. Despite a cease-fire agreement, Armenian occupying troops continued to shell populated areas and positions of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev rightly pointed out during a recent visit to the front line: "When Armenia sees that it loses a combat, it resorts to dirty provocations. Just like in the early 1990s, it chooses civilians as a target again. Back then, too, Armenia waged war against civilians. Waging war against unarmed people is a major war crime. But the Azerbaijani army has given an adequate response to the Armenians."

Further proof of Armenia's criminal policy is a piece of chemical ammunition (white phosphorus) that has been found in a frontline village in Azerbaijan's Tartar District. The ammunition is banned by international conventions. Obviously, the Armenian occupiers use chemical mass destruction ammunition in order to kill Azerbaijani civilians. Meanwhile, the April defeat of the Armenian army caused a panic in Armenia, whose leadership clearly saw for itself its inability to confront the powerful armed forces of Azerbaijan, as the saying goes, one on one. In addition, the Armenian public clearly saw the inadequacy and criminal nature of President Serzh Sargsyan's regime, which is based on all-out corruption and a violent suppression of any anti-government actions. Sargsyan himself did not come up with anything better to do than refuse to have further negotiations on the Karabakh conflict settlement. There is no other description for the conditions that he put forward for Armenia's return to dialogue under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. Those conditions suggest, in particular, the introduction of incident investigation mechanisms and guarantees of non-use of force by Azerbaijan. As you can see, these conditions are aimed at maintaining the status quo and a continued Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories, and therefore they are unacceptable for Baku by default.

The destructive nature of Yerevan's policy manifested itself in the latest discussion on the recognition of the "NKR" - the puppet regime in Azerbaijan's territories that are occupied by Armenia. A bill to this effect was submitted to the Armenian parliament, and there was no doubt that, if adopted, it would definitively have eliminated the Nagornyy Karabakh peace process. Yerevan realized that this prospect was fraught with Azerbaijan immediately starting a liberation war with all relevant consequences for Armenia, and it decided to stop the process of "recognition", as the saying goes, at the most interesting moment.

Armenian media first reported that the country's government held a meeting, to which it even invited opposition MP Zaruhi Postanjyan, one of the authors of the bill on "recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh's independence", and approved the product of her lawmaking. She welcomed the government's recommendation, expressing hope that the bill would go into force after parliament endorsed it.

However, the Armenian Foreign Ministry presented the situation in a completely different way. According to Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan, the final decision on this issue is yet to be taken, and parliament needs to await instructions from the president and the government who "watch the situation" and take into account "foreign factors, among other things". As a result, the controversial bill was not included on the agenda of an extraordinary session of the Armenian parliament.

But what are those "foreign factors" mentioned by the Armenian Foreign Ministry person? He meant, in particular, the position of the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group - the USA, Russia and France, who are aware that recognition by Yerevan of the self-proclaimed entity in Azerbaijan's occupied territories would mean the collapse of the peace process and immediately lead to a resumption of the Karabakh war. The fact that the Russian and US foreign ministers - Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry - are paying increasingly more attention to the Karabakh conflict in the course of bilateral discussions and considering it to be one of the most urgent global problems speaks of their concern about the prospect of a large fire in the South Caucasus. This is why Yerevan is getting clear warnings about the unacceptability of such a rash move as recognition of the self-proclaimed "NKR".

The US co-chair, James Warlick, recalled that "no country recognizes Nagornyy Karabakh" and the final status of Nagornyy Karabakh would be determined within the context of a comprehensive settlement of the conflict, which would also include the return of the occupied territories to Azerbaijan.

Even more indicative is the position of Russia, which seeks to play chief moderator for the Karabakh settlement. The Kremlin press secretary, Dmitriy Peskov, very pointedly made it clear that the Armenian bill on the recognition of the "NKR" had not been discussed with Moscow. He also confirmed Russia's expectation that "the parties to the conflict will avoid any steps that could disrupt the rather fragile cease-fire and lead to an overall escalation of tension in Nagornyy Karabakh".

Equally convincing was Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He recalled that during his recent visit to Yerevan and the visit by Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan to Moscow, the Armenians clearly confirmed their commitment to a peaceful settlement. This means, Lavrov concluded, that "Karabakh's status is to be determined within the context of common agreement, and not unilaterally".

In this regard, it should be pointed out that one more reason why Yerevan politicians initiated the "recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh" was apparently to try and find out how Russia would react to such a nimble piece of Armenian lawmaking. It seems they did find out: Russia made it clear that Armenia should not count on its solidarity on this matter because a possible recognition of the self-proclaimed "NKR" would deal a blow to Moscow's mediation efforts. Especially as those efforts are clearly tied to the issue of maintaining and expanding Russia's influence in the South Caucasus.

However, the most important thing in the story with the failed "recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh" is Yerevan's fear of the consequences of this possible move. Armenia came up with the initiative with the controversial but unsuccessful bill in order to, among other things, influence the further course of the negotiating process. Armenia did not exclude two options either: option one being a complete disruption of the negotiating process that inevitably promises the Karabakh settlement a cessation of the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories, and option two being the strengthening - in the event of a resumption of the negotiating process - of Yerevan's positions, which were seriously shattered after the April successes of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. However, it was the growing military might of Baku that was the chief reason for Yerevan withdrawing the effectively worthless "document" on "recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh".

In the current situation, Azerbaijan once again makes it clear that the settlement of the conflict is only possible on the basis of the principle of territorial integrity. If Armenia is refusing to resolve the problem on the basis of this principle that is in line with international law and is proposed by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group as one of the most fundamental principles towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict, Azerbaijan reserves the right to liberate its lands in any manner. Fortunately, it possesses all the necessary capacity to do so, something that the large-scale fighting a month ago proved.

It is relevant here to cite statements made by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on 9 May: "This Victory Day is celebrated in Azerbaijan with special elation. As a result of another armed provocation by Armenia against Azerbaijan at the beginning of last month, our army carried out a successful counteroffensive operation in Karabakh. As a result of the operation, we liberated part of our occupied land from the invaders and reinforced even further our positions on the contact line. I would like once again to congratulate from the bottom of my heart the people of Azerbaijan on this historic and brilliant victory. The fighting in the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict zone demonstrated the might of the Azerbaijani army and the unity of the nation."