CO-CHAIRS AGAINST AZERBAIJAN, THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGAINST CO-CHAIRS

An extraordinary event happened in the history of Azerbaijani foreign policy on 14 March. The UN General Assembly adopted the Azerbaijan-sponsored draft resolution on the situation in the occupied territories with 39 votes in favour, seven against and 100 abstentions. In fact, our country is the first CIS country that managed to push its own draft resolution through the UN General Assembly without support from great powers. There is no doubt that by the time this edition of our magazine is published, this event will have been commented on repeatedly and comprehensively by the national media, politicians and political experts. For this reason, we would like to draw your attention to the most important aspects and consequences of this event.

The main importance of this resolution is that it considerably strengthens Baku's positions in the so-called "negotiating" process which is taking place under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk Group and looks more like an attempt by doctors to lull their Azerbaijani patient to sleep with a high dose of anaesthesia. The preamble of this document absolutely clearly confirms that the Nagornyy Karabakh region belongs to Azerbaijan, which draws a line under the attempts of a number of mediators and their allies to question this fact. It is well-known how difficult it is to persuade Russian and French diplomacy that it is necessary to recognize the Nagornyy Karabakh region as an integral part of Azerbaijani territory. Incidentally, the co-chairs are still taking a dangerously ambiguous position on this issue. They recognize the sovereignty, integrity and inviolability of the borders of Azerbaijan and at the same time, say that they do not recognize the independence of Nagornyy Karabakh, which leaves us wondering whether they recognize this region as an integral part of our country or not. From now on, Azerbaijani diplomacy which has enlisted support from the UN General Assembly has the right to act more toughly and insistently to have our sovereign rights to Nagornyy Karabakh confirmed. It is clear that the mediators and their Armenian prot?g?s need a formula of constructive ambiguity, while we need a formula of constructive clarity, and in this sense, the resolution is an important step forward and unquestionable success of Azerbaijani diplomacy.

Incidentally, the principle of full sovereignty is also confirmed in the part of the resolution that notes such important principles as respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within its internationally-recognized borders, an immediate, full and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of our country.

It is also important that the resolution confirms a number of principles that secure the fair elimination of the consequences of the conflict. It confirms "the integral right of the population expelled from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan to return to their homes" and stresses the "need to create relevant conditions for their return, including the comprehensive rehabilitation of the territories damaged by the conflict". In other words, the withdrawal of the occupying forces, the return of displaced persons to their permanent places of residence and restoration of transport relations all become the basis of the peace process. These provisions also create a legal base for raising with international organizations the issue of compensation for the damage worth billions inflicted by Armenia on the economy, flora and fauna of Azerbaijan.

But the main thing is that the resolution recognizes "the need to ensure normal, safe and equal living conditions for the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in the Nagornyy Karabakh region of the Azerbaijan Republic, which will help create an effective democratic system of self-government in this region within the Azerbaijan Republic". In other words, it identifies the parameters of the future status of Nagornyy Karabakh, which are acceptable to us - self-government within Azerbaijan. Of course, the very fact that this principle was included in the UN General Assembly resolution does not mean that it will be automatically implemented, however, this fact considerably strengthens our positions in reaching the final stage in the conflict settlement on the basis of principles that are acceptable to us. The Armenian side often accuses Baku of unwillingness or inability to disclose its position on the future of Nagornyy Karabakh and on what it can offer the Armenians of this region. Since 14 March, there have been no grounds for such accusations. We showed our vision clearly, and the most important thing here is that it is based on international law and political support from the General Assembly. In other words, Azerbaijan wants to see Nagornyy Karabakh as a peaceful and prosperous region in which the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities would be living in friendship and security.

After the adoption of the resolution and its discussion at the General Assembly, the countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group, specifically Russia, accused our country, saying that this resolution was lopsided. For example, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a press release saying that Azerbaijan included in this draft resolution "only some of the basic principles of the settlement which meet the interests of Azerbaijan without mentioning, for example, the determination of the final legal status of Nagornyy Karabakh by holding a plebiscite among its population for the free and true expression of its will". Such an approach made the draft resolution "unacceptable to the Armenian side and exacerbated the prospects for the swift resumption of the high-level Armenian-Azerbaijani talks on the Nagornyy Karabakh settlement after the inauguration of the new president of Armenia", the Russian Foreign Ministry believes. This statement demonstrates how much Moscow is lobbying Yerevan's interests. Did the foreign ministry of a great power have to mention in its official report the need to take account of Armenia's interests? How can we talk about the impartiality of the Russian co-chair after this? In essence, there is nothing criminal about Baku thinking only about its interests - is Yerevan thinking about Azerbaijan's interests? It is quite natural that every country and its diplomacy are thinking only about their own interests, especially as Azerbaijan is not Armenia for which the co-chairs have been thinking and helping for 15 years already.

In their joint statement on the motives of the voting, the USA, France and Russia explained their position against the draft resolution by the lopsided, untimely and counter-productive nature of such a step by the Azerbaijani side. This position is understandable - the mediators who are actually blocking progress are not interested in any change to the status quo in the negotiating process. For this reason, the resolution is extremely timely - it was necessary to remind all countries of the world that Azerbaijan has not just resources, but also the desire to change this situation in the interests of the almost one million refugees, the sovereignty and security of our country, and peace and welfare in the region, which are impossible without a fair solution to the conflict.

We would like to dwell on another important aspect. Today some forces in the world and in the region are trying to accuse Azerbaijan of strengthening its military capability and increasing its military spending and are saying that the decisive statements by the president testify to Azerbaijan's militarist policy and aspiration to solve the problem in a military way. The very adoption of this resolution shows that in its approach to the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh problem, our country is placing an emphasis, first of all, on peaceful, political and diplomatic means. In this context, it is also important to stress that the importance of the resolution should be not overestimated, but at the same time, it should not be underestimated either. It should become the first step and a political-legal basis on the path to more active political and diplomatic work to win over all the countries of the world, both those which voted against us and those which abstained from voting.