UN DISCUSSING SITUATION IN THE AZERBAIJANI OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Support A1+!

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 Draft The 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.