By Times.am at 18 March, 2010, 5:54 pm
By Levon MELIK-SHAKHNAZARYAN
Bernard Fassier, French cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group made few statements in Yerevan on 73rd NATO Parliamentary Assembly “Rose–Roth” seminar that were ambiguously and not always adequately perceived in Yerevan, Stepanakert and Baku. Most observers of Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan concentrated their attention on the estimation of combat efficiency and courage of Armenian soldiers, given by Mr. Fassier
“Azerbaijan’s victory in the event of renewed war is impossible, because I know about the bravery of the Armenian and Karabakh warriors”, said French cochairman, and strongly angered Azerbaijan side. Meanwhile this phrase is statement of fact; it should be perceived as a reality reflection and should not divert our attention from some other statements of B. Fassier.
In fact, B. Fassier and France know, not by hearsay, about the valor and courage of the Armenian soldier: names of Marshal Murat, Rostom, Missak Manouchian and other Armenian military leaders are widely known throughout Europe. In addition, Fassier himself repeatedly obtained the opportunity to discover on scene the possibilities of the Armenian army and to admire the results of the Armenian soldiers’ collective heroism during the Artsakh war. Azerbaijan is much more familiar with the Armenian soldier. This republic suffered crushing defeat in the war with Nagorno-Karabakh Republic likes to explain its fiasco by involvement of Russian soldiers and officers, but no one knows better than Azeris than aggressor was driven away from Karabakh only by Armenian soldiers. Nevertheless, Russian, Afghan, Turkish, Arab and other mercenaries that fought in Artsakh were only on the side of Azerbaijan aggressor.
Let’s return to B. Fassier. At NATO Parliamentary Assembly seminar French cochairman made some interesting statements that were unfairly shadowed by public admiration for the Armenian soldier. For example B. Fassier stated that cochairmen “managed to offer updated Madrid principles including the principle of equal rights, the right of self-determination, the integrity of borders and the principle of the non-use of force”. We can’t say that cochairmen offered something new, it all long ago had been approved in the UN Charter; article 1 (paragraph 2) states that UN intended to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and taking other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”.
The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples is essential element of peaceful coexistence policy and (détente) the easing of strained international and interstate tension. As remembers, despite the efforts of Armenian side this principle, and international law itself were ignored in the process of peaceful solution of Nagorno-Karabakh’s conflict. From this perspective B. Fassier’s statement, that word for word repeats UN Charter, should be accepted as positive signal.
Detailed formulation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination is given in the UN declaration on Principles of International Law on October 24th, 1970. In this declaration, in the part about principle of equal rights and self-determination, indicates:
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, fixed in the Charter, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status without external interference and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; every state has a duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
Each state shall promote through joint and separate action the principle of equal rights and self-determination in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and assist the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities, entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of this principle in order to:
without delay put an end to colonialism, manifesting proper respect to the freely expressed will of the concerned peoples, and also bearing in mind that peoples subjection to foreign yoke, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of this principle, as well as the denial of basic human rights contradicts to the UN Charter.
Each state should promote through joint and independent action universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.
The creation of the sovereign and independent state, free association with an independent state, unification with it or the establishment of any other political status, freely determined by people, are the methods of peoples right on self-determination.
Every state shall refrain from any violent actions, which deprive peoples; mentioned above, the concrete definition of this principle, their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. In its actions against such violent measures and in the resistance of these peoples, seeking to exercise its right to self-determination, right to seek and receive support in accordance with their purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
Thus, reference by the French cochairman to this principle, most likely, reflects the new trends in regulation of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Fassier’s following statement also quite notable: “The recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some countries had a little bit changed the process of regulating Karabakh conflict, since Azerbaijan attempts to prioritize the territorial integrity and to ignore the rest”.
After the “justice stream” Fassier, as if frightened by his own courage, immediately passed to his usual mainstream politics of the truth raping and joined the disordered number of commentators and intermediaries seeking to find the differences between Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Kosovo. Here are his comments on the subject:
1. “Kosovo issue has arisen within the borders of one state, while the Karabakh conflict is a conflict between several sides”.
2. “What was possible in Kosovo could not be applied in Karabakh… Karabakh wasn’t recognized by any world countries, including Armenia”.
3. “Karabakh and Kosovo issues are incomparable, since there are many differences between them” (? -L.M.-Sh).
All Fassier’s “arguments” given above are not only fictional, but also amoral, since they are frankly false. Hard to understand, whom are they intended on? In any case, people that gathered in Yerevan on NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s seminar “Rose- Roth” were sufficiently informed. Yet, let’s check how many of Fassier’s words are true.
1. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict arose within the borders of one state – the USSR – exactly the same as Kosovo. In the course of the conflict this state, same as Yugoslavia, ceased to exist. In the Kosovo conflict actively interfered border country Albania, while Armenia drawn into the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was part of the USSR. Subsequently, in the Kosovo conflict were involved NATO forces that represent wide range of states while in Karabakh it didn’t happen.
Thus, this Fassier’s “argument” is not only wrong, but reverses the true situation on its head. The Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo conflicts arose within one state, but Kosovo conflict has turned in a conflict of many sides.
2. According to Fassier, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic can’t be recognized, since it’s not recognized “including Armenia”. Some European officials like this “argument” a lot since they consider that it could be used “to remove” Kosovo from Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Meanwhile, this “argument” most vividly demonstrates the immorality of this position.
The independence of Kosovo was proclaimed (note, without referendum) on February 17th, 2008. The same evening Kosovo was officially recognized… by Afghanistan. The guardians of Kosovo recognition were not confused even by the cynical fact that the independence of occupied by NATO troops Kosovo first recognized Afghanistan that was also occupied by NATO troops. Only after the Kosovo recognition by Afghanistan, the conductors of this play considered possible to declare the Kosovo recognition in their states, including Albania, which took direct part in the war against Serbia.
3. Indeed there are a lot of differences between Kosovo and Karabakh. Thus, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic proclaimed its independence in 1991 demonstrated to the entire world the ability to protect its borders from the aggressor, while Kosovo had been protected by the NATO troops. In contrast to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the state’s governing body which extends throughout its territory and internal order in Kosovo and Metohija are protected by the troops of other states. Short time after armistices with Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh Republic moved to peaceful and creative life, built democratic state that recognized by many authoritative non-governmental organizations in the world. Meanwhile, Kosovo today became a major drug traffic state to Europe.
What other differences between Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Kosovo Mr. Fassier finds, the well-known fact, that the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is aboriginal in contrast to the Albanian population of Kosovo, would be rejected as “unessential”? B. Fassier’s fictional “arguments” are compulsory, and therefore unconvincing. Meanwhile, Kosovo has parallels with the Armenian reality.
Nakhchivan was cut from Armenia and by the efforts of third states, without taking into account the opinion of Armenian people placed under the protectorate of Azerbaijan SSR, same as Kosovo from Serbia.
/Times.am/
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
No comments yet.