Azerbaijan’s Territorial Integrity Has No Bearing on Karabakh

Shavarsh Kocharyan (left), President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev (right) (Photo by ArmeniaNow.com)

YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)—Noyan Tapan news agency recently interviewed Armenia’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Shavarsh Kocharyan, in which the minister spoke about Azerbaijan and the Karabakh negotiations.

NOYAN TAPAN: How would you comment on the statements from the president of Azerbaijan at a military parade in which he claimed that Armenia is afraid of Azerbaijan’s military expenditure?

SHAVARSH KOCHARYAN: This neurotic proclamation, which is an attempt to present a pipe dream as reality, is just another failed attempt by the Azerbaijani government to hide its own fear and panic over the inescapable prospect of losing its authoritarian grip as a result of growing discontent in the country. Continuous publications about exaggerated military expenses and glorifications of the military on a daily basis, especially while close to presidential elections, are intended to distract domestic public attention from the huge wealth of the ruling family of Azerbaijan, which has been obtained by the unsparing plundering of the state and population.

N.T.: How do you assess the statements from Baku that Karabakh and Armenia are located on Azerbaijani territories and that Armenians are newcomers in the region?

S.K.: The fact that it has been less than one hundred years that a country named Azerbaijan appeared on the world map renders it funny that Azerbaijan would deny references from historians as far back as the likes of Strabo, Plutarch and many others. On the other hand, the official historiography of Turkey accepts that Turks came to our region from Central Asia. The leadership of Azerbaijan, which describes its relations with Turkey with the phrase “one nation, two states,” in fact admits that the nation, which got the name “Azerbaijani” only in the 1930’s, is a newcomer nation in this region. There is nothing insulting about that and one shouldn’t be ashamed of it. But it is shameful to cut a people off from their roots and falsify their history.

Such ridiculous statements from Baku only prove that both foreign and internal politics in Azerbaijan are totally based on lies and falsification. Azerbaijani propaganda even tries to attribute massacres organized by themselves in Khojali to Armenians. It seems to Baku that the Azerbaijani leadership can avoid responsibility for the cruel mass killings of Armenians in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad and other places in Azerbaijan simply by using falsified propaganda on the Khojali tragedy.

The president of Azerbaijan declares that Armenians are their number one enemy. In truth, the main enemy of Azerbaijan is its government. For Azerbaijan’s hereditary regime, the words “Armenian” and “the truth” have become synonymous. Any criticism by international organizations and individuals about the rampant corruption and pervasive violations of basic human rights in the country are considered a result of the activities of Armenians and pro-Armenian groups.

N.T.: You mentioned Turkey, which supports Azerbaijan’s position in the Karabakh issue and denies the Armenian Genocide. How do you assess the possibility of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations from this perspective?

S.K.: Turkey is not consistent in its foreign policy. In defiance of the letter and the spirit of the Armenian-Turkish protocols signed in Zurich, Ankara supports the unrealistic intentions of Azerbaijan and contributes to Baku’s rigid, narrow-minded position, creating obstacles for both the progress of the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation process and for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. In contrast, Armenia is consistent in all directions of its foreign policy. We have been and are supporters of unconditional normalization of relations with Turkey. So the ball is in Turkey’s court.

N.T.: Recently, meetings with the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have become more frequent and after every meeting, Azerbaijan declares that the conflict must be resolved in the scope of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. To what extent do those announcements reflect the negotiations process?

S.K.: First of all, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. As for the negotiations with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group, Azerbaijan has accepted the Madrid documents as a basis for negotiations. The principles and elements of the Madrid documents, which were made public by the heads of the OSCE Minsk Group, should be considered as an integrated whole and no element should be emphasized over another. This was reaffirmed in the joint statement given by the Presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries on June 18, 2013.

Azerbaijan, in contradiction with the UN charter, the principles and elements of the Madrid documents, and the negotiation process, tries to attach prevalence to the principle of territorial integrity, totally ignoring the other principles that it has accepted, which dictate that the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined through a legally binding expression of will.

The attempts of Azerbaijan to present the negotiations process in a distorted and selective way, to falsely present the essence of the issues and the reasons of the conflict, to diminish the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group, and to obstruct the progress of the negotiations process are useless. Despite the desperate efforts of Azerbaijan, the conflict will be resolved in the framework of the right to self-determination for the people of Artsakh and in the framework of responsibility for the consequences of Azerbaijani aggression against self-determined Artsakh.

Authors

Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

4 Comments

  1. Ara said:

    I would have thought that our Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs would know better than to dig the a hole deeper than it already is.

    Can’t be mentioning the UN Charter while not complying with UN resolutions, that’s just asking for an argumentative beat down.

    Perhaps he’s too be busy lining his pockets and forgot about the facts of the matter, then again hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand.

  2. Dr. Hermon Mihranian said:

    The reality is that Turkey and Azerbadijan must handover the armenian lands to the Mother Land. This armenian soil, no question in that.

  3. Ara said:

    I’ve mentioned this in the comments section of another article. The first step in my opinion would be to show a precedent for such action. As far as my knowledge of history goes, I can’t recall any such occurrence, the closest ones I can think of is Israel being established in the M.E. and the more recent attempts of Palestinians taking Israel to the ICC over occupied lands. Certainly, I don’t envisage the Australians, Americans, Norwegians, Russians i.e. peoples who have by force taken the lands of indigenous peoples, ever giving these lands back to their “rightful” owners.

    Likewise, what and who do Armenians have, other than themselves and their own resources, to back such demands? As I mentioned previously, making demands without the power to back these demands is useless, this is an obvious reality. What leverage does Armenia have in its requests? Do we have anything that is valuable to the relevant governing bodies (read US, Europe, etc)? No. Our lobby can only get us so far.

    On the other hand, Turkey and Azerbaijan have much to offer in terms of M.E. security (Iran, Syria) and energy alternatives for Europe. Armenia on the other hand is pro Iran (our only viable trade partner) and pro Assad (his enemy Islamist are a threat to Syrian Armenians).

    It’s completely unrealistic is it that any major western organization would back Armenia in this case. Why would they help Armenia acquire lands which are currently offensive to the West’s enemies when the same lands, when handed over to Armenia, would be friendly to the West’s enemies? There is no Western strategic interest in such a scenario.

    Before any such claim can become even a glimmer of reality, major fundamental changes have to take place in Armenian politics and the current status quo with the blockades etc, simply does not allow any such possibility. Though I hope I am wrong and would be grateful to hear any concrete and realistic arguments in this regard.

  4. jackob said:

    in the fact we will get our land back from turkey same way we got our land back from azerbaijan end of story

*

Top