Elimination of Illiteracy by Khazar Ibrahim

- The Moscow declaration signing was followed by statements of the Armenian Foreign ministry and separatists, who started to interpret the declaration in their favor insisting that it excludes the forced resolution, envisions participation of separatists in talks and so on. What is the real essence of this document?

- Unfortunately, our attempts to demonstrate constructiveness were not understood by the Armenian side and caused a number of unprofessional comments. In this view, I am obliged to pass from the diplomatic rhetorics to the explanatory-pedagogical that is to the elimination of illiteracy.

I would explain in details.

The declaration proved once again that

1. The conflict is intergovernmental. Armenia which has long been rejecting it, despite the consensus opinion of the world community and long-lasting talks between the Azerbaijan Republic and Republic of Armenia, admitted that by signing a document.

2. The principle of the territorial integrity is crucial for the resolution of the conflict. The declaration says directly that the settlement is possible "...on the basis of principles and norms of international law and resolutions and documents, adopted in this framework". Let's study the most frequently quoted document: the Helsinki Final act of 1975.

Paragraph 3, Inviolability of borders:

The member-states shall regard the borders of each others as inviolable like the borders of all the states in Europe and, therefore, they will abstain, now and in the future, from any attacks against these borders.

Paragraph 4. The territorial integrity of the states:

The member-states shall respect the territorial integrity of other member-states... abstain from any actions, not complying with the purposes and principles of the UN charter and directed against territorial integrity... any actions, which imply application of force of threat of force... from transforming the territory of each others into an object of military occupation. No occupations of the kind will be recognized as legal.

Also there is paragraph 8, called "Equality and rights of nations for self-determination", which proves that some Armenian diplomats are mistaken:

The member-states shall respect the equality and rights of nations for self-determination, always acting in line with the purposes and principles of the UN charter and due norms of international law, including those, which are connected with the territorial integrity of states.

Let's add here 4 resolutions of the UN Security Council, the recent resolution of the UN General Assembly, documents and resolutions of OSCE (including the Lisbon summit), EU. Council of Europe, NATO, OIC and others. All of them recognize the principle of territorial integrity.

3. The conflict must be settled in phases, which is proved by paragraph 3 of the declaration. Azerbaijan always states the need to withdraw the armed forces of Armenia from the occupied Azerbaijani lands and return of Azerbaijani IDP. These are the first two stages to be followed by the rest.

As for the Madrid principles, the declaration speaks of "the Madrid meeting... and further discussions". The brief reference on the further discussions: A) "Azerbaijan has commented on the proposals of the co-chairs in written: B) discussions were also held in the UN frames before the adoption of the GA resolution with results well-known.

As for the "non-application of force", which is spoken too much about, I want to explain the following:

A) Yes, force should not be applied, but unfortunately Armenia has already applied it thus violating the norms and principles of international law. As the Moscow declaration envisions international law as a basis of resolution, the Armenian armed forces should have quited Azerbaijan two days ago.

B) As force has already been applied, then there is a right for self-defense, again based on the international law and again reflected in the Moscow declaration.

Whatever is done, the result is the same.

/Day.Az/