UN DISCUSSING SITUATION IN THE AZERBAIJANI OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
A1 Plus | 12:46:35 | 24-11-2004 | Official |
The UN General Assembly met on November 23-th morning to conclude
debate on the outcome of the Millennium Summit and of the other major
United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and
related fields.
The Assembly was also expected to consider a draft resolution on
the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan (document
A/59/L.32), by which it would urge the parties to the conflict
involving the Nagorno-Karabakh region to continue seeking a peaceful
settlement based on relevant norms and principles of international
law. It would also reaffirm the right of return to refugees and
internally displaced persons while strongly appealing to the parties
in conflict to respect the rules of international humanitarian law.
In addition, the Assembly would stress that any actions to consolidate
the status quo of occupation was legally invalid and that actions
such as the transfer of settlers into the occupied territories were
illegal under international law and must be reversed immediately. It
would also invite the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) to urgently dispatch a multinational fact-finding
mission to inquire into and report on all aspects of the situation
in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Further, the Assembly
would request the Secretary-General to report on the situation at the
Assembly’s sixtieth session, and would decide to include the item on
the provisional agenda of that session.
Situation in Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan
ELMAR MAMMADYAROV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan,
introduced the relevant draft resolution, saying that 11 years
ago, the Assembly had considered the issue of the occupation of
the territories of his country, and had expressed support for the
efforts of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE)-led Minsk Group (Co-Chaired by France, United States and the
Russian Federation), aimed at settling the conflict in accordance
with the norms and principles of international law. Since then,
the OSCE-led negotiations had yielded both successes and failures,
and a host of Security Council resolutions adopted in response to the
occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories remained the principle basis
for settlement of the conflict with Armenia.
The Assembly, he continued, had previously contributed to alleviation
of the acute humanitarian situation in his country through its adoption
of its resolution 48/114 on emergency international assistance to
refugees and displaced persons in Azerbaijan. The occupation of
a significant part of Azerbaijan’s territories and the resultant
heavy humanitarian burden had obviously made Azerbaijan the country
most interested in bringing about an effective peace as soon as
possible. Azerbaijan’s consistent adherence to a ceasefire over the
past decade had demonstrated that it preferred peaceful settlement
of the conflict for the benefit of the entire region.
He went on to detail the Minsk Group negotiations on the matter,
taking place on various fronts and led by the Foreign Ministers
of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. During those talks, Azerbaijan
became concerned at credible information concerning increased
transfer of settlers to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan —
from which 750,000 Azerbaijanis had been expelled. Although similar
sporadic incidents had been registered in the past, those most recent
large-scale and organized transfers were being administered through
an official programme of Armenia called “Return to Karabakh”. That
programme was steered by Armenia’s Department of Refugees and Migrants
and was primarily financed through a budget specifically allocated
for the separatist Nagorno-Karabakh regime.
The most disturbing situation had arisen in the Lachin district,
which was populated by Azerbaijanis prior to the conflict. Following
the implementation of the settlement programme, that region was now
inhabited by some 13,000 Armenians, he said. Under one aspect of the
programme, Armenia renamed Azerbaijani towns — erasing their original
identities — in the occupied territories. For the establishment of
those settlements, the Armenian Government mobilized its armed forces
deployed in the occupied territories. Those forces had participated
in the establishment of two new settlements in the Kelbadjar region,
he added.
He went on to cite a number of official international sources that
had confirmed the transfer of settlers, noting that an OSCE official
had recently referred to the programme, which envisaged a two-fold
increase in the Armenian population in the occupied territories. In
addition, Armenia also consolidated its occupation of the Azerbaijani
territories through economic and financial policies. Indeed, the
banking system of the puppet regime established in the territories
was regulated by the Central Bank of Armenia.
Illegal settlement policies and practices carried out by Armenia were
clearly in violation of Security Council resolutions and international
humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, he said. Such
actions also ran counter to efforts aimed at a political settlement
of the conflict, undermined the credibility of the OSCE mediation
efforts, and were obviously aimed a prejudicing their outcome and
imposing a fait accompli on Azerbaijan. Although Armenia confirmed the
political will to settle the situation peacefully by its statements,
it continued to aggressively challenge Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity and sovereignty. Examining the entire chain of events, one
could conclude that, acting with impunity, Armenia was in the final
stages of implementing its heretofore camouflaged goal: to realize
its territorial claims over Azerbaijan.
As the situation continued to worsen, Azerbaijan had been forced
to request the Assembly to take up the matter. The draft under
consideration today was aimed at creating favourable conditions for
continuing negotiations. “By doing this, we do not intend to solve
the problems of political settlement of the conflict in the United
Nations,” he said, adding that neither was Azerbaijan attempting to
engage the Assembly in conflict resolution issues. The matter, he
stressed, concerned a problem that was impeding the process of peace
negotiations, and which, if continued, could lead to a humanitarian
disaster.
He said the text was balanced and constructive and was based on the
principles of international humanitarian law and relevant provisions
of Security Council resolutions. It would have the Assembly give
its strong support for the OSCE mediation efforts and contained
concrete provisions aimed at addressing the impediments to peaceful
settlement of the conflict. The negotiations were now at a critical
juncture, he said, and prompt and adequate measures were needed from
everyone. Armenia must take immediate, unconditional and effective
measures to cease and reverse the transfer of settlers to the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan would continue to undertake
all possible diplomatic measures to stop the dangerous developments
in the occupied territories of its country.
ALTAY CENGIZER (Turkey) said his country had been unwavering in
its support for a just and lasting solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, based on international law, the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan and relevant Security Council resolutions. It had actively
supported every initiative geared towards peace that had come forth
from the OSCE Minsk Group, and encouraged all the parties concerned
to facilitate the work of that Group. It was unfortunate that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was still an obstacle to lasting peace,
stability and regional cooperation in the southern Caucuses.
Today’s debate, he said, was neither an attempt to hamper or replicate
the OSCE’s Minsk process, which was the platform to address the issue.
On the contrary, it was a call to support that very process. The
Assembly should recognize today’s debate for what it was: a cry out
of frustration for years of despondency that had to be endured each
day for more than a decade by those directly affected by the results
of the prolonged conflict. “Hence, it is time for the international
community to see the dangers of prolonged human suffering, and the
perils inherent in allowing conflicts to fester”, he said.
“We have seen…how problems, which were left to linger on, eventually
come back to haunt all of us, and how people locked in protracted
conflict situations, left solely to their own devices, failed
alas to attain peace”, he said. It was based on that understanding
that Turkey voiced its support for the dispatch of a multinational
OSCE fact-finding mission that would report on all aspects of the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. That would have
a constructive impact on the efforts of the Minsk Group.
ARMEN MARTIROSYAN (Armenia) said that, about a month ago, a process
had started in the Assembly to discuss concerns over the situation
in the so-called occupied territories of Azerbaijan. That had been
done under the guise of “urgency”, using loopholes, and had not been
based on any substantiation of the arguments’ supposed “urgency” by
providing any factually correct information. The inclusion of a new
agenda item on the matter did not enjoy the support of an overwhelming
majority of the Assembly and was opposed by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs,
who had been dealing with the conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh
for 12 years now. They had unequivocally stated that the move did
not meet the required criteria of urgency and importance, and was
counterproductive as well.
At that time, some countries, while supporting Azerbaijan’s motion,
expressed their sensitivities arising from the alleged “transfer of
settlers into the occupied territories”. Armenia had clearly stated
then and would reiterate today that there was no official policy of
settlement being carried out, and that neither was there any official
document or report of any kind confirming Azerbaijan’s allegations.
Armenia strongly opposed the Azerbaijani initiative, since the existing
mechanisms within the OSCE could fully and effectively address all
Azerbaijan’s concerns. But in a constructive manner, the Armenian
Government, nevertheless, decided, in order to put all concerns to
rest, to suggest facilitating a fact-finding team within the Minsk
Group framework to assess the situation. “Let’s see how Azerbaijan
tries to address its own concerns”, he added.
He said that, although presenting the draft under consideration
as a balanced document that did not interfere in the Minsk Group
mediation, Azerbaijan had attempted to give one-sided answers to almost
all the elements of the negotiation package, namely the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh, the issues of Azerbaijani refugees and internally
displaced persons and the territories themselves. Azerbaijan also
tried to present its resolution from the perspective of human rights
and humanitarian law, he said.
“A country which has violated these laws in the first place with
meticulously planned and systematically carried out massacres of
Armenians in its capital Baku, cities of Sumgait and Kirovabad
(Ganja) from 1988 to 1990 during peacetime, tries to cloak its own
actions by selectively applying international humanitarian law”,
he said of Azerbaijan. It limits the application of the return
of refugees to “the area of conflict” and to ethnic Azeris only,
conveniently leaving out the rights of over 400,000 Armenians under
the same laws, particularly those from the immediate conflict zone
from Shahumain, Getashen and northern Martakert. Their homes today
were fully confiscated and populated by ethnic Azeris, he said.
Despite its continued calls for the observance of humanitarian law,
it was Azerbaijan that consistently hindered any kind of international
involvement or operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, thus violating those
laws, as well as relevant Security Council resolutions, he continued.
Azerbaijan also spotlighted Nagorno-Karabakh as being an alleged safe
haven for all possible sorts of ills, yet when authorities there and
Armenia invited international fact-finding teams to verify the nature
of those allegations, Azerbaijan had created all kinds of obstacles,
hindering the mission’s dispatch.
In addition, Azerbaijan also tried to formalize its totally baseless
allegations by misrepresenting the tenor of Security Council
resolutions and selective interpretation of international laws. It
avoided mentioning one major international legal principle in the
current resolution: the right of peoples to self-determination. That,
despite the fact that the exercise of that right was at the core of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Further, Azerbaijan “conveniently forgets”
that the Council resolutions mentioned “local Armenian forces” and
called for unimpeded access for international relief efforts, and
restoration of economic, transport and energy links to the region.
Indeed, Azerbaijan had never implemented those particular provisions
of the Council resolutions it so frequently mentioned.
With the resolution under consideration today, Azerbaijan tried
to dissect the so-called occupied territories from the package
of negotiations, he said. However, it failed to admit that those
territories had come under the control of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians
as a result of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in an attempt to stifle
the peaceful drive of the people of that region for self-determination.
Given the military suppression in the region in the very recent past
and the war mongering rhetoric of the Azerbaijani leadership, the
issue of those territories could not be resolved unless there was a
resolution on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, and security guarantees
were provided.
He said that Nagorno-Karabakh had never been a part of an independent
Azerbaijan. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh had proven their right to
live freely and securely on their own territory both legally — through
a referendum conducted in 1991 — and by defending that right in a war
unleashed against them by Azerbaijan. While peace should be achieved
first and foremost between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan
was not interested in the peaceful resolution of the conflict. It
had rejected or walked out on every single peace proposal made by
the Minsk Group. The present motion aimed at further torpedoing those
ongoing negotiations and in diverting the international community’s
efforts into parallel processes, which would allow it to manoeuvre
between them without committing to a final settlement of the conflict.
SUSAN MOORE (United States), speaking on behalf of the co-Chairs
of the OSCE’s Minsk Group (United States, France and the Russian
Federation), said the issue before the Assembly was one in which the
OSCE and the Minsk Group had been actively involved in, with a view
to finding a lasting solution to the situation prevailing in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The Minsk process had already
produced positive results. It had made proposals to the parties and
was now awaiting a response to those proposals before proceeding to
the next stage.
In that light, she welcomed the efforts of the international community,
through the Assembly, noting that any actions taken by that body
and others were helpful and, therefore, welcome. Stressing that no
efforts should be spared in the search for a peaceful resolution of
the problem, she said serious consideration should be given to the
dispatching of a fact-finding mission, and urged the parties to take
necessary steps to facilitate the OSCE’s efforts.
MASOOD KHALID (Pakistan) said his country supported all the efforts
to peacefully resolve the conflict surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue and attached great importance to all the initiatives of the
OSCE Minsk Group, the Organization of Islamic Conference and others
who were seeking to advance the peace process. The best path to
be pursued was through peaceful dialogue with the support of the
international community.
Action on DraftThe Assembly was then informed that action on the draft
resolution on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan
would be taken at a later date.