Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan vs. Foreign Ministry of Armenia

Day.Az has asked famous Azerbaijani political reviewer, residing in Hungary, Vugar Seidov, to comment on the recent exchange of statements between deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov and new Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan regarding principles of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

* * * * *

It is difficult to add something to all said by deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov. Azerbaijan's position on the main principles of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has been stated clearly and the hasty reaction of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan, which appeared in press immediately after the first speech of Araz Azimov in Day.Az has been sent down to the court.

Nevertheless, I would like to evolve the position, voiced by the Azerbaijani side. First of all, the Armenian diplomacy is always referring to some "document", currently being on the negotiation table. Frankly speaking, this phrase has bored to death. Though the matter is not this-we will try to bear it, anyway. The important is another matter. No one, except for Armenians, has ever referred to the so-called "document, which is on the negotiation table". What is this document and does it really exist? A document usually implies a legal agreement, signed by parties. No one has agreed on or signed anything so far. There are only proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, presented to the parties and currently being negotiated.

Perhaps, Armenian diplomats, constantly referring to the "document, which is on the negotiation table", should gradually explain, what they imply by the mythical source.

Second, in his debut speech on his new post, Edward Nalbandyan, reacting on Araz Azimov's statement, said that the key issue of talks on the peaceful resolution of the conflict is a status of Nagorno Karabakh. We do not need the prompts of the Armenian Minister, as we are well aware of it. The status of Nagorno Karabakh has been the key issue since the first day of the conflict and remains it until its resolution.

Edward Nalbandyan also added that plebiscite, which will be used for definition of the future status of the region "will enable the population of Nagorno Karabakh to express its will about the future status of the republic freely". Well, the Minister has gone too far, when he used the word "republic", while there has been nothing new about the rest part. And the main thing is that his words do not contradict to the principles of the conflict resolution, voiced by Araz Azimov. Do you want the self-determination of the population? Here it is. Do you want a plebiscite? Please, hold it.

However, the Armenian Minister did not specify, whom he implies saying "the population of Nagorno Karabakh" and which format of the plebiscite he means.

If Yerevan considers that the population of Nagorno Karabakh are those who have been residing in the region since ethnic cleansing, we will disappoint them. Though Armenians intend to consider the forced driving of Azerbaijanis out to be an accomplished fact, the population of the region still consists of two communities, a greater part of which (Azerbaijani community) has been driven out.

And this is a position of not only Azerbaijan but also the world society. If Yerevan thinks differently and considers the driving of Azerbaijani community out to be an irreversible process, let it call at least a single state, an international organization or at least a bit influential politician in the world, who would say that demographic situation in Nagorno Karabakh should not be restored on the moment when the conflict started in February of 1988 and the return of internally displaced persons and their offsprings to their native lands is ruled out. Anyway, as Araz Azimov said, the former Foreign Minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan had admitted inevitability of the return of Azerbaijanis to Nagorno Karabakh.

Moreover, I would like to ask Mr. Nalbandyan what implies the "document, which is on the negotiation table", regarding this issue.

The self-determination and participation of only one community in the plebiscite is impossible as Nagorno Karabakh consists of two communities. Azerbaijanis from Shusha, Khojaly and other numerous villages of Nagorno Karabakh are also the residents of the region, whose opinion is not less important than the opinion of Armenians. Therefore, the final self-determination of the population of Nagorno Karabakh requires equal participation of all residents of the oblast, including those, who are far from their houses, that is Azerbaijanis. Without their participation the legitimacy of self-determination will not differ from legitimacy of ethnic cleansing, which occurred there, and the outcomes will not be recognized by anyone.

The participation of the Azerbaijani community in the definition of the future status of their native oblast leads us to the problem of creating conditions for their inevitable return. Naturally, in conditions of continuing occupation of the Azerbaijani lands by the Armenian armed forces, including Nagorno Karabakh, the return of Azerbaijanis is impossible not only politically but also technically. Return of the internally displaced persons to their houses and psychologically complicated process of rehabilitation and reintegration is only possible if equal security is ensured for all civilians, both Armenians and returning Azerbaijanis.

Thus, the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the seven surrounding regions and demilitarization of Nagorno Karabakh is a main condition for return of internally displaced persons to their houses, restoration of ruined infrastructure, communications, mine clearing, establishment of trustful relations between the two communities and future of their joint participation in the definition of the status of the region. The free expression of the will of Nagorno Karabakh population, regarding its future status, will only be possible in this format. The plebiscite with participation of only one community or under the continuing occupation of the said area and seven other regions of Azerbaijan by its country, will not differ from the fancy ball with "the referendum" of the early 1990s, which was not recognized by anyone.

There is a stereotype among the Armenian population regarding the liberation of the occupied lands that after Armenian armed forces are withdrawn from the seven regions around Nagorno Karabakh Armenia will lose the military and strategic advantage, ensuring favorable defense capacities, which will be used by Azerbaijan in surrounding its Nagorno Karabakh province and extending the front line to many kilometers and following the withdrawal of the Armenian side from Nagorno Karabakh Azerbaijani troops would enter these regions and pose a threat for the Armenian community.

Well, first of all by entering the 21st century, Armenia should gradually stop to use the concepts of gained territories and forced change of borders. The times of Peter the Great have passed and international law and UN charter are operating in the world. It is time to wake up and get used to new realities. Besides, it is senseless for Azerbaijan to settle the problem peacefully, planning the renewal of war in its mind. Azerbaijan does not hold peaceful negotiations today to start war upon their completion again. Azerbaijan is able to liberate its lands by forced way without any peaceful negotiations. But the essence of the peaceful process is the preference, given to the resolution of interstate conflicts on the very basis of international law. Therefore, Yerevan will anyway have to withdraw its occupational forces from seven regions of Azerbaijan both in case of the peaceful talks and in case of retreat under attack of the Azerbaijani army.

Second, Yerevan's concerns regarding security of the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh following withdrawal of Armenian armed forces are also groundless. Azerbaijan has no need or even intention to deploy its troops in the region immediately. Baku is interested in the demilitarization of the region and restoration of trust between the two communities-citizens of Azerbaijan, who are equal in rights. Moreover, the public order in the region can be restored by the mixed police forces, composed of the residents of the oblast, as it is not the army which ensures order in Baku, Yerevan and other cities of the two countries.

Therefore, Yerevan should consider withdrawal of its armed forces from seven regions of Azerbaijan as an inevitable substance. As for its concerns regarding the security of the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh following the withdrawal of Armenian troops, it is time for Yerevan to recover from this paranoia, otherwise, the case will not end in a plebiscite, spoken of by Nalbandyan.

We do hope that speaking about the future status of Nagorno Karabakh the officials of the foreign ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan imply the same under the term of Nagorno Karabakh. Both the Armenian press and the announcements of Armenian officials often mention the altered contours of this oblast, differing from the previous borders of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic. First, they have spoken about some "Shaomyan region of Nagorno Karabakh" (of course, "occupied" by Azerbaijan), then included some "Getashen subregion". They have recently spoken of the Lachin and Kelbajar regions of Azerbaijan as about the integral parts of Nagorno Karabakh and even made up Armenian names for these settlements.

In this connection, it should be noted that former Shaomyan (rural) region of Azerbaijan has never been a part of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic and the debates on ancient history, in which Armenians try to draw Azerbaijanis, are not included into the peaceful talks under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. Chaykend has never been a part of Nagorno Karabakh, like there has never been such an administrative unit as "subregion". The said invention, like inclusion of Lachin and Kelbajar into Nagorno Karabakh, belong to Armenian press, but in the process of peaceful negotiations Azerbaijani and Armenian diplomacies should understand clearly that the term "Nagorno Karabakh" implies an area of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic of the Azerbaijan SSR. If Nalbandyan's structure really intends to build a constructive dialogue with its Azerbaijani counterparts, we want to hope that there will not be any unexpected surprise from the side of Yerevan in this issue.

Finally, I would like to say something about the issue of plebiscite as a mechanism of joint definition of the future status of demilitarized, mine-cleared and restored Nagorno Karabakh by two reconciled communities of this region within Azerbaijan. It is difficult to add anything else to all Araz Azimov has said. Following the completion of the peaceful resolution and the final stage of this process (definition of the status of Nagorno Karabakh), Baku will fully back the self-determination of the oblast on the basis of the Final Helsinki Act of 1975, envisioning the territorial integrity of countries, inviolability of borders, as well as equality and right of peoples to define their fate independently. The latter, however, does not imply the right for the unauthorized separation and, on the contrary, encourages internal self-determination and democratic self-government of the national minorities (Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh).

This is the position of the Azerbaijani side and if Armenian diplomatic still refer to some document, which is on the negotiation table and which is based on the principle of the self-determination by way of plebiscite, the official position of Baku, voiced by deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov by no way contradicts to the principle, but, on the contrary, comply with it and fully bases on the norms of international law.

We hope that Armenian side will stop manipulating different sociological terms for attainment, substantiation and legal fixing of territorial integrity in the style of the times of the first world war and instead will finally join the civilian processes of the 21st century for the regional stability, cooperation, progressive development and integration. The intention to implement their fix idea of expansion of lands at the cost of neighbors instead of doing so will lead Armenian people to nowhere. Prosperity is only possible in case Armenians get rid of the complex of a pinched, humiliated, suffering people and territorial inefficiency, which pursues them from their childhood. Armenia should realize that happiness does not require a large territory, even so more, occupied from a neighbor. Both small Luxembourg and Monaco are able to live happily. Existence of good neighbors around a small state is more important that expansion of territory and having enemies along 80% of its state border.

Only friendly relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran and Georgia may guarantee security and prosperity of the Armenian state. No Treaty of Collective Security will take their place and guarantee safety. Not a single state in the world will be able to cause damage or pose a threat of Armenia, if the latter maintains good relations with its four neighbors, while being in the state of frozen war with one of the neighbors and having hidden territorial claims to two others and having good relations only with south neighbor, which has doubtful reputation in the world, it will not be possible to ensure prosperity of its people. At the same time, it will not be possible to improve relations with neighbors without rejecting plans to expand territories at their expense.

Therefore, the new leadership of Armenia will have to choose between the priorities if far North does not deprive it from the right of independent choice. However, it is up to Armenians to decide.

/Day.Az/