Ar­me­nian lobby in West pushes Yere­van to hos­tile re­la­tions with neigh­bors

Trend’s in­ter­view with Spokesman of the Azer­bai­jani For­eign Min­istry Hik­mat Ha­jiyev

Azer News - - Nation -

Ques­tion: On De­cem­ber 16, the Ar­me­nian for­eign min­is­ter made a state­ment in which he put un­jus­ti­fied ac­cu­sa­tions against Azer­bai­jan and Turkey. What can you say about this?

An­swer: The state­ment of the Ar­me­nian For­eign Min­istry once again shows that Ar­me­nia doesn’t want civ­i­lized re­la­tions with its neigh­bors and still re­sorts to ar­chaic think­ing. Un­for­tu­nately, in­stead of es­tab­lish­ing good re­la­tions with neigh­bor coun­tries af­ter gain­ing in­de­pen­dence, Ar­me­nia put for­ward ter­ri­to­rial claims against them on the ba­sis of the “Great Ar­me­nia” myth­i­cal ide­ol­ogy.

As a con­se­quence of this pol­icy, Ar­me­nia launched a war against Azer­bai­jan, oc­cu­pied 20 per­cent of Azer­bai­jan’s ter­ri­to­ries, and com­mit­ted bloody eth­nic cleans­ing against more than one mil­lion Azer­bai­ja­nis liv­ing in Ar­me­nia and in the oc­cu­pied ter­ri­to­ries. Open ter­ri­to­rial claims against Turkey are put for­ward in the Ar­me­nian con­sti­tu­tion. The con­tro­ver­sial and myth­i­cal ide­ol­ogy of “Ar­me­nian High­lands” stip­u­lates ter­ri­to­rial claims against neigh­bor­ing Iran and Ge­or­gia.

As a con­se­quence of this feu­dal and fas­cist pol­icy, to­day Ar­me­nia is a coun­try that has iso­lated it­self in the re­gion. One can­not even imag­ine Ar­me­nia as an in­de­pen­dent coun­try. Dur­ing Serzh Sargsyan’s pres­i­dency, Ar­me­nia’s self-iso­la­tion has wors­ened. The coun­try’s ex­ter­nal debt ex­ceeded GDP by sev­eral times. The coun­try is in a so­cial, eco­nomic and de­mo­graphic cri­sis.

In such a sit­u­a­tion try­ing to show Azer­bai­jan and Turkey as Ar­me­nia’s en­e­mies, the Ar­me­nian rul­ing regime tries to de­ceive the peo­ple of Ar­me­nia.

Q.: The state­ment of the Ar­me­nian For­eign Min­istry al­leges that there is no res­o­lu­tion for the Ar­me­nia-Azer­bai­jan Nagorno-Karabakh con­flict.

A.: This does not lend it­self to any ex­pla­na­tion. In ac­cor­dance with Ar­ti­cle 4 of the UN Char­ter, all states should re­frain from ha­rass­ing and us­ing force in any way in­com­pat­i­ble with UN’s pur­poses against the ter­ri­to­rial in­tegrity and po­lit­i­cal in­de­pen­dence of another state. De­spite its com­mit­ment to the Char­ter of the United Na­tions, Ar­me­nia used mil­i­tary ag­gres­sion against Azer­bai­jan.

Res­o­lu­tions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) of the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil on the Ar­me­nia-Azer­bai­jan Nagorno-Karabakh con­flict draw the le­gal frame­work for po­lit­i­cal process in the con­flict set­tle­ment based on in­ter­na­tional law, in­clud­ing the rel­e­vant prin­ci­ples of in­ter­na­tional hu­man­i­tar­ian law.

The res­o­lu­tions con­demn the oc­cu­pa­tion of Azer­bai­jani ter­ri­to­ries, stress the in­ad­mis­si­bil­ity of us­ing force, reaf­firm the ter­ri­to­rial in­tegrity, sovereignty and in­vi­o­la­bil­ity of the borders of Azer­bai­jan, and de­mand the im­me­di­ate, com­plete and un­con­di­tional with­drawal of the oc­cu­py­ing forces. The de­ci­sions of the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil have no time lim­its. Th­ese res­o­lu­tions are rel­e­vant and on the agenda. No state has the right to dis­tort or re­duce the role of the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil res­o­lu­tions. The UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil res­o­lu­tions grant man­date to the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. Re­ject­ing the res­o­lu­tions trans­lates into re­ject­ing the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair man­date.

Un­der a doc­u­ment on the man­date of the OSCE Minsk Group, dated March 23, 1995, the co-chairs should base their ac­tiv­ity on rel­e­vant res­o­lu­tions of the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil, the de­ci­sions of the Bu­dapest sum­mit of the OSCE, and the Helsinki Fi­nal Act.

Q.: The state­ment of the Ar­me­nian For­eign Min­istry also touches upon the “Ar­me­nian geno­cide”.

A.: This once again shows that Ar­me­nia is a pris­oner of a fake past and doesn’t look to the fu­ture. The so-called Ar­me­nian geno­cide is a vivid ex­am­ple of his­tor­i­cal fraud and the use of this fraud for po­lit­i­cal pur­poses. It is in­ter­est­ing that the Ar­me­nian side re­fuses to open the his­tor­i­cal ar­chives and doesn’t al­low his­to­ri­ans from Turkey and Ar­me­nia to ob­jec­tively in­ves­ti­gate this is­sue.

Ar­me­nian di­as­po­ras and lob­by­ists in Western coun­tries, in­stead of con­tribut­ing to the devel­op­ment of Ar­me­nia's re­la­tions with neigh­bor states, push Ar­me­nia to strife and hos­til­ity with its neigh­bors.

Speak­ing about the so-called Ar­me­nian geno­cide, the Ar­me­nian side is try­ing to keep silence about the atroc­i­ties com­mit­ted by Ar­me­ni­ans in Ana­to­lia dur­ing the First World War as well as the mas­sacres that were com­mit­ted in Baku in March 1918, known as the March Mas­sacres. Also, Ar­me­ni­ans, who fal­si­fied the his­tory of 100 years ago, are try­ing to es­cape re­spon­si­bil­ity for the Kho­jaly tragedy com­mit­ted in 1992 with the di­rect in­volve­ment of Ar­me­nia’s po­lit­i­cal and mil­i­tary lead­er­ship.

ASALA ter­ror­ists, who com­mit­ted ter­ror acts against Turk­ish diplo­mats in the 1970s and who be­gan ter­ror acts against Azer­bai­jan in the 1980s, to­day are na­tional heroes of Ar­me­nia. One of them is Monte Melko­nian. Another war ter­ror­ist, Varou­jan Garabe­dian, who com­mit­ted a ter­ror act against Turk­ish Air­lines in Orly Air­port in Paris in 1983, was freed un­der un­cer­tain cir­cum­stances in France in 2000 and is now liv­ing freely in Ar­me­nia and is pro­moted to a na­tional hero.

It is a pity that eth­nic ha­tred against neigh­bor­ing na­tions is a state pol­icy in Ar­me­nia.

Q.: The Ar­me­nian side also points to the closed bor­der be­tween Turkey and Ar­me­nia.

A.: Ver­ily Ar­me­nia is re­spon­si­ble for the clo­sure of the Ar­me­nian-Turk­ish borders. Based on norms and prin­ci­ples of in­ter­na­tional law and the UN Char­ter, Turkey closed its borders to Ar­me­nia due to Ar­me­nia’s vivid ag­gres­sion against Azer­bai­jan and the oc­cu­pa­tion of Azer­bai­jani ter­ri­to­ries. In par­tic­u­lar, this hap­pened im­me­di­ately af­ter the Ar­me­nian mil­i­tary at­tack to oc­cupy the Kal­ba­jar district of Azer­bai­jan. The UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil adopted res­o­lu­tion 822 con­demn­ing the oc­cu­pa­tion of Azer­bai­jan’s Kal­ba­jar and other ter­ri­to­ries by Ar­me­nia. This fair po­si­tion of fra­ter­nal Turkey is highly ap­pre­ci­ated by the Azer­bai­jani peo­ple.

In ad­di­tion, Ar­me­nia puts for­ward ter­ri­to­rial claims and ac­cu­sa­tions of the so-called geno­cide against Turkey. The Ar­me­nian side is wrong to be­lieve that ev­ery­one will turn a blind eye to its ag­gres­sion, oc­cu­pa­tion, bloody eth­nic cleans­ing, and un­founded ac­cu­sa­tions against neigh­bors. Pak­istan, Saudi Arabia, Dji­bouti and other states have not es­tab­lished diplo­matic re­la­tions with Ar­me­nia in con­nec­tion with its ag­gres­sion against Azer­bai­jan.

Q.: What should be done to en­sure last­ing peace and se­cu­rity in the re­gion?

A.: Ar­me­nia must end oc­cu­pa­tion and with­draw its troops from the oc­cu­pied ter­ri­to­ries of Azer­bai­jan in ac­cor­dance with the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil res­o­lu­tions, and put an end to un­rea­son­able de­mands against neigh­bor states, in­clud­ing Turkey. Ar­me­nia should fi­nally es­tab­lish civ­i­lized re­la­tions with neigh­bor states.

The sooner the Ar­me­nian lead­er­ship un­der­stands this re­al­ity, the sooner the Ar­me­nian pop­u­la­tion can ben­e­fit from bet­ter re­la­tions with neigh­bor coun­tries and par­tic­i­pa­tion in re­gional co­op­er­a­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Azerbaijan

© PressReader. All rights reserved.