ANTI-MUNICH THESES

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which started more than 30 years ago, is the oldest conflict in the territory of the former USSR. There were many mediation initiatives and negotiation formats during this time. Recently, the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan had the first verbal duel within the framework of the Munich Security Conference. We hope that it will help advance the negotiations in the future. But the first experience allows us to evaluate both the personal potential of the leaders and the strength of their positions. All experts in Baku, Yerevan and other countries agree that the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev had a flawless victory over his opponent.

Let’s be realistic: perhaps those who claim that knowledge of the English language, the ability to stand in front of cameras or refined gestures during a public speech are right for the leader of the country. This is true but not the main point. The Munich debate of the two leaders has revealed something else.

First of all, Nikol Pashinyan clearly lacked political experience and ‘intelligible’ approach to a very delicate issue: what a leader of country can make references to and what he cannot.

It is clear that the audience was not impressed by Pashinyan’s references to Tigran the Great, Arshakids, Bagraditon, etc., as well as Pashinyan’s infamous claim that ‘there was not such a country called Azerbaijan’ in the South Caucasus and the whole world. Firstly, historical references have ‘ultimate depth’. In those years, for example, there was no country called ‘Germany’, the host of the Munich Conference, or the United States either. Besides, the state of Tigran the Great was not located in the territory of the present-day Armenia and, especially, in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In response to a reminder of Ilham Aliyev about the UN Security Council resolutions, Nikol Pashinyan tried to quote them... from the former co-chair of the Minsk Group, Viktor Kazimirov, posted on Wikipedia!

It looks quite surreal, doesn’t it? The leader of one of the parties to the conflict discusses the UN Security Council resolutions for so much time, but at the same time knows about them only from a Wikipedia article, not the original document.

Pashinyan comments on the “document”: “If we look at resolution 884 of the UN Security Council, we can see that it says that Azerbaijan violated the ceasefire regime and lost its lands. It means that Azerbaijan did not comply with the terms of the resolution of the UN Security Council. It is very important to express this.”

But the thing is that the resolution no. 884, the fourth UN resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh, does not contain this. It clearly says about respect for borders and territorial integrity, about the need to withdraw troops from the Kalbajar region and other recently occupied regions of Azerbaijan (resolutions 822, 853 and 874). But there is nothing about Azerbaijan’s violation of the cease fire. And everyone can check it, because the document is in public domain.

Finally, the most important thing. Although the Armenian public believes that President Aliyev won the debate, she is nonetheless confident that it is possible to win the discussion, just a more prepared polemicist is needed. Unfortunately, in Armenia there is still no understanding that even the polemicist with the highest IQ in the world will not be able to outwit the world community and convince him that there are no Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh, that this is not an occupation of territories, but more lyrical, peace-loving phenomenon. For more than thirty years now, it has not been possible, and the world community still requires the de-occupation of the territory of Azerbaijan.

During the “Karabakh” debate in Munich, the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan  admitted that his son Ashot was serving in Nagorno-Karabakh, in the occupied Azerbaijani lands.

The international community considered and still considers Nagorno-Karabakh a part of Azerbaijan. From the point of view of official Baku, these lands are occupied by Armenia, and the conscript service from Yerevan in Nagorno-Karabakh is an eloquent confirmation that there is aggression and occupation by Armenia. They also assert that Karabakh is an independent "self-determined state", although it is not recognized by anyone that it has its own "defense army", and, as Nikol Pashinyan himself loudly states, "there are no Armenian troops." Then in what status the son of the Armenian leader serves in Karabakh?

In fact, if there is really no armed forces of the Republic of Armenia in Karabakh, then in this case Pashinyan Jr., who, instead of compulsory military service in his native Armenia’s army, ended up where, according to his father, there are no Armenian troops, should be considered a “deviator”. And if he was also in the army of another country, then, from the point of view of the law, he is a mercenary. Mercenary is considered an international crime, the UN adopts resolutions and declarations to combat it, they are not even covered by the norms of the Geneva Convention

But Pashinyan Jr. did not just pack his backpack and set off to Karabakh to “smell the gunpowder”. He appeared in the district military enlistment office and even voluntarily asked to send him to Nagorno-Karabakh. Which was done. It should be noted that the district military enlistment office is not a recruiting office of a "soldier of fortune" and not a travel agency. This is a government organization. She can send a conscript only to the military unit, which is part of the armed forces of the state. In addition, the army, even the Armenian one, is a structure with a tight command chain. If there are shoulder straps, then the soldier goes not to where he wants, but to where the native state will direct, as a soldier of the Armenian army.

There are situations when the military of one country deploy in the territory of another to provide military service. For example, Russian troops in Syria. According to the Kremlin, this was possible after the invitation of the official authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic represented by Bashar al-Assad. But at the same time, there is a Russian base in Syria with its command separate from the command of the Syrian armed forces. Russian military does not join the military units of Syria. Moreover, dressing up the military personnel of one country in the uniform of another is a violation of the rules and traditions of warfare and also an international crime. Russian military bases exist in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, but these bases have a separate command, clearly defined status and territory. In the same way, there are American bases in Japan and Germany, as well as British ones in Cyprus...

If something similar had taken place in Karabakh, then, firstly, Armenia should have recognized Karabakh as a subject of international law. Secondly, it would conclude an agreement on bases and military presence with this “subject”. And even in this case, clearly distinguish their soldiers from the local ones. But there is nothing similar in Karabakh. Draftees from Armenia and Karabakh serve in the same military units, where they often conflict with each other. Now the question is: what army charter is in force in this situation? There are no separate "Karabakh" and "Yerevan" military units there. As there is no separate command. As the President of Azerbaijan recalled, the personnel of the military units stationed in Karabakh are 80% Armenian citizens. And military ranks easily change names from "Karabakh" bosses to "Yerevan" and vice versa.

When President Aliyev was asked about the shooting down of a military helicopter of the Armenian Armed Forces by the Azerbaijani Armed Forces in Karabakh, he logically asked  what the helicopter of the Armenian regular troops was doing in the Azerbaijani territory?

Another failed topic for Pashinyan was the decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks. According to the Armenian Prime Minister, Stalin handed over Karabakh to Azerbaijan using this decision. In fact, the Caucasus Bureau decided to retain Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said.

Secondly, Stalin did not participate in this meeting at all. And thirdly, there are archives, there are documents and evidence.

It should be noted that during the Munich discussion, Mr. Pashinyan never said the main thing: does Armenia intend to withdraw troops from the occupied Azerbaijani lands, which is required of it by UN Security Council resolutions and what the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and world leaders call on. Instead, Mr. Pashinyan talked about "micro-revolutions", while making gross mistakes in citing documents.

So, let's go over the points. As Pashinyan points out in his Facebook account, “Nagorno-Karabakh gained independence in the same way as Azerbaijan.” Then, in a television interview, he repeated: “When they talk about the principle of territorial integrity, the territorial integrity of which particular country are they talking about? When Azerbaijan gained independence, did it take into account and respect the territorial integrity of the USSR? They may give a counterargument that the USSR as a state no longer exists... That’s true. But also the state of which Nagorno-Karabakh was a part, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, does not exist either. Therefore, this discourse has subtleties that must be taken into account.”

Azerbaijan announced its withdrawal from the USSR. This was an absolutely legal step, the right to leave the Union was provided by the Constitution of the USSR. So, Azerbaijan cannot be blamed for violation of the laws. However, autonomous regions, including Nagorno-Karabakh, did not have this right. Moreover, Azerbaijan is a state that was recognized by the world community within its current borders almost thirty years ago, and these borders include Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, world community considers the Nagorno-Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan, not as an "independent state". Moreover, Armenia itself does not recognize Karabakh as a subject of international law. If it is an independent state, then what is the meaning of the following statement made by Pashinyan: “Karabakh is Armenia, period”? Let us explain: Armenia violated the laws of the USSR in the late eighties and violates international law today.

Armenian Prime Minister continues: “Nagorno-Karabakh is a party to the conflict and negotiations, and it is impossible to resolve the conflict without negotiations.” Again, according to OSCE decisions, there are two sides to the conflict in Karabakh - Azerbaijan and Armenia, and two interested parties - the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Karabakh.

Karabakh, particularly the Armenian community of Karabakh, may not be a “third party to the conflict”. And now the most important thing. Pashinyan declares: "There are no territories, there is security: Nagorno-Karabakh cannot compromise to its security." Then, in his interview, Pashinyan repeats: “We say that when the status quo formed, when the Artsakh Armed Forces took control of these territories, they did not do it for pleasure, they did it because there was no other way out. This was done to prevent the aggressive actions of Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh and to make it inaccessible to them. Consequently, the concept of “territory” is not discussed in this context; the concept of “security” must be discussed. And therefore, if there is a proposal for equally effective security, then let it be couched by Azerbaijan, the international community, and the Armenian people will discuss whether it is acceptable or not. My opinion is the following: Karabakh cannot give up its security. I tell my partners if they show me a single country, where people is ready to give up their security, then I will change my mind. Therefore, to make our position clear and constructive, there is a fifth principle - any solution should be acceptable to the peoples of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Both Armenia and Artsakh are ready to make serious efforts to find such a solution. Azerbaijan should also demonstrate such readiness.”

Behind these ornate discussions is actually a reluctance to withdraw troops from the occupied Azerbaijani lands, which the entire international community demands from Armenia. The requirement for the withdrawal of troops is included in four UN Security Council resolutions on Karabakh and adopted in the early nineties. Then, in many international documents, it was confirmed that the status quo in Karabakh was unacceptable and should be changed, and the settlement of the conflict must start with the withdrawal of troops. And this circumstance cannot be blocked by any discussion about “microrevolutions” or by assurances that the Armenian side is ready to contribute to peace. Moreover, Pashinyan’s assurances that he allegedly is looking for “a solution acceptable to the people of Armenia, the people of Azerbaijan and the people of Nagorno-Karabakh” will not work. Azerbaijan clearly states that it will not reconcile with the occupation of its lands, that the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan must be restored, and refugees and internally displaced persons must receive the right to return. And this can lead to the war.

After the Munich debate, Mr. Pashinyan was criticized in Armenia for his inability to discuss, defend his own opinion and lack of professionalism! But I think the reason for Mr. Pashinyan’s failure in Munich is different - the truth is on the Azerbaijani side! Even a genius of diplomacy with the spirit of Talleyrand, impeccable articulation of the English language, the highest IQ, and phenomenal erudition would lose the battle. Modern international law does not assume options that welcome a forceful redrawing of borders, which means that the citizens of Armenia should reconsider the outcome of the Munich debate.