RUSSIAN ANALYST: NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF TERRITORIES AROUND NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Today
olitics/67957.html
May 14 2010
Azerbaijan
Interview with Alla Yazikova, doctor of historical sciences, professor,
Chair of the Mediterranean-Black Sea Problems Council at the Russian
Academy of Sciences Institute of Europe.
What is your assessment of the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s
official visit to Turkey?
In my opinion, any steps aimed at improving relations with Turkey in
the Black Sea-Caspian region are a positive fact, since the region is
literally filled with contradictions and conflicts. With regard to
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it should be noted that it was the first
time that this issue was mentioned specifically at such a high-level
bilateral meeting and encouraging statements were made.
As for the Medvedev’s position, he spoke very carefully. He said that
he has personally proposed the two conflicting parties his services
to mediate, and assured that all the parties together can contribute
to conflict resolution. However, he noted that, in the first place,
the conflict should be resolved by the conflicting parties themselves.
Medvedev believes that this conflict requires high caution and
sensitivity.
However, despite rather cautious position, Medvedev said that Moscow
and the Ankara intend to contribute to strengthening of stability in
the region in spite of the fact that Turkey is not included in the
OSCE Minsk Group. However, Turkey, along with Russia, stated it is
going to contribute to the conflict solution.
In your view, how realistic is Turkey’s becoming OSCE Minsk Group
co-chair as stated by Prime Minister Erdogan?
You know, the Minsk group was not active enough for the past decade
and a half. Therefore, speaking about Turkey’s involvement into the
conflict resolution, we do not mean it’s joining the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs, but creating several groups of countries that,
regardless of the Minsk Group, would contribute to resolving the
Karabakh conflict. So, I do not think that Turkey will become part
of the OSCE Minsk Group.
According to latest talks, there can be real progress in liberation
of Azerbaijan’s occupied lands in 2010. Is this realistic, in your
opinion?
I think there should be some real progress. In any case, the return
of the occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh is an issue which
had to be solved long ago because there is absolutely no justification
for continued occupation of those territories.
Another thing is that one should think about how to do it. Now many
say that five occupied regions should be freed first and foremost,
and then Kelbajar and Lachin should be liberated given their strategic
importance as claimed by Armenia.
I also want to mention that many experts have become entangled
in issues of international law. Some say supposedly we have two
conflicting principles – the right of nations to self-determination
and territorial integrity. However, I would like to recall that we
have as a major international law, UN Charter, which is the starting
point in addressing all legal problems. So, the UN Charter does not
contain the phrase "right of nations to self-determination". You will
not see this. There is a "principle of self-determination of peoples".
The word "nation" means the entire population of a State. In this case,
this state is Azerbaijan.
At least, there are two fundamental documents on economic, social
and political rights of states that were not only signed but also
ratified in late 1960s by all States, including the Soviet Union,
which also means that Armenia and Azerbaijan. This document has no
term on the status of a nation to self-determination.
With regard to subsequent wordings, referring to the UN resolution
1960, they concerned liberation of colonial peoples. So, international
lawyers must clearly understand all of these structures.
I think that it is high time to seriously appeal to sources of
international law. Talks that we want to see a resolution this way or
another are simply inappropriate. After all, there are still problems
of internally displaced persons, whose rights are registered in a
number of international instruments. There are rights and obligations
of those States, through whose fault they were forced to flee their
homes.
After all, there are still problems of internally displaced persons,
whose rights are stipulated in a number of international documents.
There are rights and obligations of those States, through whose fault
they were forced to flee their homes.
In your opinion, what one should expect from the Armenian government
next?
The diaspora has a very strong impact on Armenia’s position. Today
Armenia’s economic situation is too hard to get out from under the
influence of the influential diaspora. After the Russian-Georgian war,
Armenia was cut off from Russia. Yerevan is concerned over this. It
fears that if something happens, Russia will not be able to provide
support to Armenia, and is it unlikely to do this.
Now we must understand that there will be no peace in the Caucasus
without solving the Karabakh problem. Neither the U.S. nor Russia is
interested in unstable situation in the region.