A top Azerbaijani official has dismissed comments by the Armenian president that the Karabakh conflict should be settled by a referendum held in 1991.
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan made the remarks in an interview with Russian radio station Ekho Moskvy, broadcast today.
"I am sure that the only means to settle the conflict are peaceful means and the only way is the holding of a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh or the recognition of the results of the referendum that was held in 1991 in complete accord with the legislation of the Soviet Union and international law," Sargsyan said.
Elnur Aslanov, head of the political analysis and information department at the Presidential Administration, dismissed Sargsyan's claim that the 1991 referendum had been in accord with Soviet and international law.
He told Trend news agency that recognition of the illegitimate referendum held in Nagorno-Karabakh on 10 December 1991 was impossible, since according to expert legal opinion, it was conducted in violation of the law of the USSR, did not have a legal framework and did not comply with international law.
"A new vote should also not contradict the law, otherwise it would be pointless and, similarly, recognized as having no legal consequences. Moreover, a new vote is impossible while the occupation of the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan and the exile of a third of the population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Region is continuing. Referendums are not held like this, especially in the territory of member-states of the Council of Europe and OSCE. If these serious flaws are removed, it is possible to conduct a vote, but not contrary to the Constitution of Azerbaijan," Elnur Aslanov said.
He said Azerbaijan recognized the territorial integrity of Armenia and its borders and expected a similar approach in return.
"Territorial integrity is not discussed and does not have different forms, while self-determination can be of different types - both internal and external, depending on the context. If the OSCE Minsk Group's Madrid proposals suggest combining these two principles, then it logically means choosing a form of self-determination, which does not lead to violation of the territorial integrity of sovereign states.
"The only way to combine these two principles is self-determination in the framework of territorial integrity in accordance with Article VIII of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which is the basis for the peace process. So, this is internal self-determination. Self-determination, leading to the separation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Region from Azerbaijan, violates territorial integrity and is, therefore, primarily contrary to the logic of the Madrid principles. Therefore, the position of Azerbaijan, which adopted a similar scheme, is a full compromise - here you can see the territorial integrity which allows self-determination within its framework, and self-determination which does not violate territorial integrity," Elnur Aslanov told Trend.
He said that Armenia took a maximalist position by demanding a form of self-determination, which, negated the principle of territorial integrity. "This is the reason that Armenia's current position in the negotiating process is called non-constructive. This position does not build compromise, it destroys it, it leads to destruction. Hence the definition of ‘ the unconstructive position of Armenia'."
The presidential official said that Azerbaijan's readiness to consider and discuss self-determination was great compromise in itself.
"The solution to inter-state conflicts is based on respect for the territorial integrity of sovereign states and self-determination in this kind of conflict is inappropriate, because the parties in interstate conflicts are already self-determined, independent states, rather than their separate provinces," Elnur Aslanov said.
He said that Azerbaijan's readiness to consider self-determination for the two peoples of Karabakh was "a big concession, given the undeniable fact that the armed forces of Armenia are located in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, including in Nagorno-Karabakh. If the conflict is to cease to be an inter-state one, then Armenia should withdraw its troops from the territory of Azerbaijan. The issue of territorial integrity will then be closed, and the question will move to the level of dialogue between the capital city and the provinces to determine appropriate forms of self-determination of citizens. However, when it says 'self-determination', Yerevan means the division of Azerbaijan into two.
"After all, we are not demanding a similar self-division and the appearance of a second Azerbaijani state in Zangezur and Eastern Goycha, which were inhabited by Azerbaijanis for centuries, through hiding behind the term ‘the right of nations to self-determination’. Balance is needed in everything," Elnur Aslanov said.
Therefore, in determining the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh at the final stage of the settlement process, no vote should lead to the violation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
"If Armenia continues to demand ‘independence for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh', we too should demand that it allocate an equal territory for the self-determination of the former Azerbaijani population of Armenia, for example, the Goycha-Zangezur people, and the appearance of a second Azerbaijani state in Armenia. But instead of advancing a long way up a blind alley, we still just want to bring official Yerevan back to the constructive mainstream," Aslanov said.
He also summed up Baku's position on the conflict: "Azerbaijan supports the peaceful settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the restoration of the internationally recognized state border of Azerbaijan peacefully, without resort to hostilities. This requires the withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven adjacent districts, which together constitute 20 percent of our state."
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
