Armenian Foreign Minister address to the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on 11 March 2015.

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian touched on the current state of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and conflict settlement process and other international issues when addressing the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on 11 March. We are reproducing here his speech in full.

Mr. Chairman,
Excellences,
Dear friends,

It is a pleasure to address the Permanent Council again. Last time I was here in 2013 in my capacity as the Chairman of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe. I will start from the most important issue on our national agenda today - the Centennial commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.

Back in May 1915 the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia characterized the Armenian massacres as "crimes against humanity and civilization." This was one of the first occasions of the use of the term "crimes against humanity" on an international level, leading to its elaboration as an inherent concept of the international legal system.

For the contemporaries of the Armenian Genocide it might really sound as a miracle that the Armenian nation could survive and re-establish its statehood. It is therefore truly symbolic on this centenary to address you as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one of the 57 participating states of this organization.

As a nation, which passed through the horrors of genocide, Armenia is a firm advocate of the international efforts of prevention of crimes against humanity. One of the most effective measures in this regard is the full and frank acknowledgment of past genocides. That is why states must not subordinate this noble cause to any geopolitical calculation. The OSCE is also well placed to address the issue, since the adherence to its principles and commitments can vastly contribute to the Genocide prevention efforts.

Remembrance dates should be approached by genuine will of peace and reconciliation. It is with this aim that the Armenian President invited his Turkish counterpart to participate in the commemoration of the genocide centenary on April 24th in Yerevan. I personally handed over the invitation to President Erdogan in Ankara. It is regrettable that our invitation was left unanswered, constituting yet another missed opportunity.

Mr. Chairman,

In September 2014 the sanctuary for the remains of many victims of the Armenian Genocide, the Saint Martyrs Armenian Church, in Syrian town of Deir el-Zor was destroyed by terrorists in a sad, yet symbolic link between past and present crimes against humanity. Destruction of cultural masterpieces is an attempt to erase the memory of other people, destroy millennia-old cultures and civilizations.

Recently we all saw the chilling video footage of how the ISIS militants were smashing the 2.700 years old statues in the Mosul museum. This crime against civilization is an appalling reminder of earlier similar barbaric acts of destruction of Bamian Buddha's statues, Mausoleums of Timbuktu and thousands of Medieval Armenian cross-stones in Nakhijevan.

During the recent years the OSCE has rendered its input to the issues related to the protection of the religious minorities. Armenia raised the issues of protection of religious groups in the OSCE area and its neighborhood at the level of the Ministerial and Permanent Councils, including by reminding participating states of their commitments to prevent use of their territories by terrorist groups.

Mr. Chairman,

Armenia values the OSCE both as a norm setting and an implementing organization. We continue to closely cooperate with the OSCE institutions, including with the ODIHR and the Representative for Freedom of the Media. Their input in raising the democratic profile of Armenia is well-perceived in our country equally by the Government and civil society. Human dimension is mainstreamed in the activities of Yerevan Office which is currently the only full-fledged OSCE office in the South Caucasus. There have been positive developments regarding Armenia's compliance with human rights instruments, democratic reforms, good governance, freedom of expression and assembly, free media and internet.

Mr. Chairman,

With regard to the evolving integration processes in the OSCE area, let me share our conviction that by employing more creativity and building our approaches on opportunities rather than incompatibilities, we can make best use of different integration formats and generate synergies while avoiding creation of new dividing lines.

As it is known Armenia recently joined the Eurasian Economic Union, which reflects our strategic interests, creates new opportunities for the economic development of the state.

Currently we are working with our EU colleagues to identify the scope of our future legal framework that will reflect the essence of our cooperation, building upon the progress that we have achieved. Armenia is ready in all formats, in all possible areas and directions to continue its comprehensive cooperation, which do not contradict our commitments in other integration processes.

Mr. Chairman,

Needless to say that conflict and crisis situations continue to occupy a central place on the OSCE agenda. The Ukrainian crisis, in particular has dominated the discourse. Armenia has welcomed the Minsk Summit results - the adoption of joint declaration by the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, France and the Chancellor of Germany and the signing of document by Contact Group on the means of implementation of Minsk agreements.

In 2014, the year of 20th anniversary of the signing of the cease-fire agreement between Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia, Baku significantly escalated the situation by drastically increasing the ceasefire violations and targeting civilian areas, including with the use of heavy weaponry. It has claimed unprecedented high number of casualties among all parties to the conflict. Azerbaijan having an almost total control of mass media conceals the real number of its losses caused by its provocations.

In this situation of ongoing escalation as a result of Azerbaijan's destructive stance the Co-Chairs met with the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan and (I quote from the press-release of the Co-chairmen) "expressed serious concern about reported incursions across the Line of Contact and the Armenia-Azerbaijan border". They directly urged (and I quote) "Azerbaijan to observe its commitments to a peaceful resolution of the conflict" (end of quote). We are glad that the Co-chairs have eventually responded to our calls to clearly identify the side responsible for the violence. However, nothing restrains Azerbaijan. Not even the calls of Co-Chair Countries to refrain from provocative actions especially on the eve of and during religious holidays. Azerbaijan intensified its attacks on the New Year and Christmas holidays causing several casualties.

During their last visit to the region in February the Co-Chairs stated: "the Presidents agreed to consider proposals from the Co-Chairs that could strengthen the ceasefire". However, immediately after the regional visit of the Co-Chairs Azerbaijan rejected the proposals and further escalated the situation displaying its flagrant disrespect to the proposals of the Co-Chairs.

The implementation of the agreement on the mechanism to investigate the incidents on the Line of Contact, together with other proposals on confidence and security building measures made by the Co-Chairs could be an important tool for prevention of such incidents and creation of the environment conducive for the peace talks. However, Azerbaijan continuously rejects numerous proposals of Co-Chairs on consolidation of the cease-fire, withdrawal of snipers and on other confidence building measures.

Azerbaijan has failed the cooperation with the OSCE in all dimensions and instead of using it as a floor for the genuine discussions dares to exploit the Organization for the purposes of pushing its narrow political agenda. Some of you have witnessed how Azerbaijan threatened to veto the entire budget of the OSCE if any financing is allocated to the creation of the investigative mechanism.

And this is not the only case when Azerbaijan attempted to paralyze the work of the Organization. The same happens during the preparatory phase of almost every Ministerial Council, when Azerbaijan takes hostage our joint decisions in an attempt to impose its narrow objectives. The same happened when Azerbaijan while downgrading the status of the OSCE office in Baku at the same time tries to hinder the operation of field missions in the neighboring participating states. Last but not least Azerbaijan entertains itself by introducing a fabricated titles on each PC agenda.

Azerbaijani provocations on the line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh and border with Armenia have also been matched with Azerbaijani consistent bellicose, warmongering rhetoric and anti-Armenian hate speech. On numerous occasions Baku threatened to solve the conflict by military means and claim that Armenia and its millennia old capital are Azerbaijani lands. Those journalists, activists and the intelligentsia who have been advocating for peace and reconciliation are all persecuted as "Armenian spies". Azerbaijani authorities punish those who dare to think about reconciliation and rewarding those who commit crimes against Armenians.

Baku continues to oppose the Minsk Group Co-Chairs and is doing its utmost to undermine the peace talks. It rejects the proposals that are the product of the tireless efforts of the last six years - about twenty summits, several dozen ministerial-level meetings, innumerable visits by the three Co-Chairs to the region. Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, has stated many times that it is ready to continue negotiations, based on the proposals of the Co-Chair countries.

Instead of engaging in the negotiations Baku tries to present its own ideas on creation of the imitation of negotiations, as proposals of the Co-Chairs, misinterprets the essence of the conflict and negotiation process and undertakes a campaign of denigration against the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. It also continuously attacks the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office. Facing this reality, the Minsk Group Co-chairs in January 27th were obliged to remind the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan about their mandates and they (I quote) "expressed concern about voices critical of the ongoing negotiation process, the role of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs, and the duties of OSCE monitors" (end of quote).

On May 3, 2015 the people of Nagorno-Karabakh for the sixth time will exercise their democratic right to elect members to the National Assembly. The democratic processes in Nagorno-Karabakh are not meant to influence the peace process or anyhow add to its international recognition, as was referred by some participating states also here at one of the last PC meetings. Building of democracy based on fundamental human rights and freedoms anywhere in the world should only be welcomed by other democratic members of the international community. Let us remind that Article 2 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights states (I quote) "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction ... No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs" (end of quote). It is indicative, in this regard, that according to the Freedom House report on the Freedom in the World in 2015 Nagorno-Karabakh is way ahead of Azerbaijan in terms of fundamental freedoms.

Therefore, It does not come as a surprise when Baku criticizes elections in Nagorno-Karabakh given well-known Human Rights situation in Azerbaijan. However, sometimes few participating States while declaring about their support the Minsk Group Co-Chairs at the same time are resorting to the statements that contradict the spirit and terminology of the peace process. The Co-Chairs have been clear to note that through the electoral process "Nagorno-Karabakh tries to organize democratically the public life of its population". We call on all participating States to follow the Co-Chairs' wording, not only in the case of elections in Nagorno-Karabakh, but on other matters related to that issue as well, since this format is the only internationally mandated body for the conflict resolution and any deviation from their language may mean taking the sides in this dispute.

Mr. Chairman,

In the light of deteriorating security environment around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict we believe that the consolidated and concerted actions of the international community through unconditional support of the activities of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs is the only way of advancing towards a fair, lasting and durable settlement.

In the year that marks the 40th anniversary of signing of the Helsinki Final Act the best way to honor its commitments and ensure its continued relevance would be the joint efforts of achieving meaningful progress on issues that continue to challenge our region, not leaving anything aside as less important and not creating artificial hierarchy between the issues which concern all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

source: commonspace.eu with Armenian Public Radio.

photo: Edward Nalbandian (archive picture).

 

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).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

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)