Opinion: ELNUR ASLANOV: “A just way to an ideal world. How to work out the legal status of NK based on a similar European experience"

This article was first published in the Russian Newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. The English version is reproduced from News.az.

The student’s ability to perceive knowledge often depends on the teacher’s manner to explain a complex formula. But when the basic truth is repeated without any effect for the fifteenth time, the problem is rather about the student than the teacher and there is a risk that this student will lag behind in his development.

Beginning from December 1991 the world community has been constantly explaining the basics of international law to both the regime in the occupied lands of Azerbaijan and the political leadership in Yerevan. The main point of the lesson is that the process of dominant satisfaction of personal needs cannot be called elections especially against the backdrop of the termination and deportation of a significant part of the aboriginal population. The lesson that it is inappropriate to present the so-called NKR as an independent member of the world community has continued for more than 20 years.

The map of the region makes it clear that the political system of the society cannot function normally without the due economic provision of the political process. For two out of the three countries, the state changed in the late 1990’s: in the case with Georgia this happened through the social blast, through revolutions and in the case with Azerbaijan it happened evolutionally through transformations and modernization.

The situation with Armenia, its shaky socioeconomic state of the population is a different issue. Meanwhile, the percent correlation of the gross foreign debt of Armenia to the nominal GDP of the country which makes 72% is a subject of a separate study.

Thanks to the competent use of mutual connection and mutual dependence, political and economic system of the society, Azerbaijan has grown from a passive player into a regional leader. However, the illegal presence of the Armenian armed forces in Azerbaijan seems too inappropriate against the backdrop of such a positive development.

Some attempts of ‘politicians’ to present their own position in support of legitimization of the established state, in particular, the elections of the so-called president of the occupational regime can be heard recently. They attempt hard to forget the fact of recognition and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan on the basis of principles of international law, UN charter and Helsinki final act. Both international organizations, and separate states are unanimous in this position while supporting official Baku in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.

However, the attempts to legitimize separatism causing nothing but regret can be seen even in the information space of the strategic partner country of Azerbaijan-Russia, which repeatedly voiced the official position of the Kremlin that supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

These attempts cause regret and raise questions. Let’s distance from the fact of the forced cessation of the internationally recognized lands of Azerbaijan with the million of refugees and IDPs. Thanks to pseudo-politicians and semiexperts, the theory of the presence of the ‘self-sufficient and independent state’ is still wandering around the world.

The information ground for this article was formed by the note ‘A heavy road to peace’ of 29 August in Nezavisimaya Gazeta by Viktor Sheynis. According to the author, who practically rejected all possible norms of international law, it is possible to say that “ the basis must be the ‘real’ situation rather than the medieval right of a neighbor state for lands, which it considers its property without respect to the will of people living there’

The author prefers not to mention the real essence of this situation. A man of science cannot confuse historical facts in an attempt to set up Armenian wishes for the reality. It is not good for a professor to make such loud statements as ‘the right of the people of Karabakh for freedom and independent choice cannot be a subject of negotiations’.Since this firm obstinacy not to notice the approaching disaster costs much to the population in Karabakh, the regime in Khankandi almost fully terminated the future young generation.

However, there is still a way out of this situation-Azerbaijani side always sought a constructive dialogue and peaceful resolution of the conflict and has already proposed to start working on a peaceful treaty for already several times, but Yerevan does not even want to hear about such a document. Yerevan’s stance does not only complicate any positive perspective of regional development but also reduce to zero the internal resources of the contemporary Armenian public.

Ideally, the legal status of Nagorno Karabakh will be worked out with respect to a similar European experience, once the occupied lands are liberated. For example, as a variant of the legal status of the region, we study the experience of Southern Tirol, develop mechanisms of the peaceful coexistence of Azerbaijani and Armenian communities, economic, social and cultural development of the region.

It would be ideal if Yerevan accepted the axiom of the return of the occupied lands under the full control of Azerbaijan. It would be ideal if the Armenian and pro-Armenian politicians contribute to the development of the plan of joint coexistence of the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in the Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan... However, the situation is far from being ideal.

It is September now, the start of the new academic year. It became new for many, but for some who lagged behind for the second year (here - the second decade), it has become only a repetition of an old programme. The real situation can be spoken of much. It is even possible to speak referring to the more than twenty-year-old lessons of both international law, history and simple routine logic. However, if the basic truth is repeated for the 15th time, the problem should be sought in other places...

Elnur Aslanov is the Head of the Department for Political Analysis and Information Support of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration.

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)