Russian analyst: No justification for continued occupation of territories around Nagorno-Karabakh

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.


/Day.Az/