BAKU WANTS TO START WORK ON A MAJOR KARABAKH PEACE TREATY

Azerbaijan has proposed starting work on a major peace treaty with Armenia to resolve the Karabakh conflict, the foreign minister has said.

Interviewed by Azerbaijani news agency Trend, Elmar Mammadyarov said he had made the proposal during recent talks with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, the international body mediating a settlement to the conflict.

"During my visit to New York to attend the UN General Assembly, I had consultations with the American and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, which were also attended by Andrzej Kasprzyk, the special envoy of the OSCE chairman-in-office," the minister said.

“The consultations aimed to evaluate the situation and identify directions for our future action. We understand that great work has been done and general contours have been defined. Work is under way on the details at the moment.

"Azerbaijan's position is known. It has been impossible to agree on the principles so far, therefore we suggested starting work on a major peace agreement, with understanding and consideration of all the details currently outstanding in the talks," Elmar Mammadyarov said.

"In my speech at the UN General Assembly I set out again the parameters of a conflict settlement envisaged by Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani side is committed to continuing the peace talks and we understand where the problem is.

"We also understand that a huge amount of work has been done with the OSCE Minsk Group in order to draw the contours for peace, stability and, most importantly, predictability in the region, and we are ready to continue work on this."

The minister acknowledged the difficulties of the peace process. "Baku always proceeds from the fact that the Karabakh conflict is very complicated and delicate, and at the same time very emotional. The task of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs is not so easy, but when three permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, Russia, France - act as mediators, we cannot expect a better format."

Ways of approaching a solution are another subject, Mammadyarov said. "There is the peace-making approach, when the sides come themselves to agree to the proposals made to them. The second option is to enforce peace, that is, to eliminate the consequences of the armed conflict with a political decision on a final settlement. But as you can see, both approaches are phased, of course, which is what we are moving towards."

He said that the collision of many interests in a small area like the South Caucasus had to be taken into account. "Whenever new elements appear, like the factor of gas contracts, they may, on the one hand, help a solution and, on the other, create obstacles. If we take a sober view of the question, then best format is the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs with the three permanent members of the UN, which I would say, should bring peace and stability to the region."

Territorial integrity

Elmar Mammadyarov stressed to Trend that self-determination for Nagorno-Karabakh should not be contrary to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

"Under the UN Charter, only people who have been colonized and nobody else, has the right to self-determination. After expelling the Azerbaijani population of Karabakh, how can the Armenians now talk about self-determination? Where is the logic? And to talk about democracy in Nagorno-Karabakh is an absurdity.

"Expelling all the Azerbaijanis from Karabakh and saying that we are a democratic state, and now we are going to determine our status and let the world accept us as we are... I cannot find a logical explanation of Armenia's position," Mammadyarov said.

He was commenting on Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's remarks to the UN General Assembly that two decades ago, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh had exercised their right to self-determination and survived war and bloodshed to earn their freedom.

Mammadyarov said that he had not seen a more destructive position during his diplomatic career.

"A phrase like 'Armenia gained the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh at the expense of the blood of its sons' defies logic," the minister said.

The Azerbaijani foreign minister described the Armenian president's statement at the UN General Assembly as an aggressive and outspoken call for war.

 source: news.az

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)