CHAPTER 25 THE KARABAKH-AZERBAIJAN CONFRONTATION AND THE PROPAGANDA OF UNIFICATION OF THE “TWO AZERBEIJANS”

After the capture of Kelbajar, Azerbaijan requested the UNO through Turkey to discuss the issue of “Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan.” The Pakistani representative to the UNO read the resolution which said that the confrontation of Azerbaijan and Armenia was increasing, entering into a dangerous phase, so it was urgent to withdraw the Armenian units from the occupied region, and provide assistance to the population of Kelbajar. Mention was made of encouraging peaceful operations in the framework of CSCE. The Turkish representative Akshin declared that the resolution of the Security Council and mild Akshin also stated that “Turkey won’t allow Armenia to continue its aggression against the fraternal Azerbaijan.”

Iran too, condemned the Armenian aggression and called for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Kelbajar.

The Russian representative of the Security Council vetoed the resolution of the Council.

On April 30, 1993 the UNO’s Security Council adopted another resolution (Resolution N822), aiming the establishment of peace all over the region.

On May 26 the Karabakhrepresentative in Armenia handed the official letter of the Karabakhgovernment to the Russian representative. The same letter was sent to the CSCE chairman. It read;

“Appreciating the efforts of the international community to establish peace in the region positively, we should like to express our viewpoints on some issues, concerning the efforts of Russia, USA, Turkey and the CSCE. The most important factor, expressing our anxiety, is the absence of an initiative to guarantee the safety of Karabagh’s civilians, as well as the realizations of the obligations by the parties to the conflict and their responsibilities in case they fail to realize them. In this connection we should like to draw your attention to the absence of corresponding agreement between the confronting parties. Besides Turkey’s role of a mediator is casting doubt on the plan’s viability, as Turkey has its interests in the area. Expressions of such interests are the success in squeezing Armenia’s and Karabagh’s economy with a blockade and the military assistance to one of the parties to the conflict, which directly violates the UNO’s Security Council April 30, 1993 Resolution N822. The controversy between the Resolution and the initiative arouse our doubt and concern about the future of our people. We are resolute in our decision to support the UNO’s Resolution totally. We pledge to support the peace plan if the other party accepts to fulfil its obligations in action. We are sure that the United Nations Security Council Resolution are compulsory to all the parties. We are also sure that the member of UNO Azerbaijan is avoiding its responsibilities, a fact, not being criticized by the international community, and by the members of CSCE particularly. Continuing the study of differences between the two documents, we want to note that the Security Council demands to stop hostilities and military operations with the aim of achieving a permanent fire, but the initiative calls for a 60-day cease-fire. It doesn’t touch upon such important points as the lift of transport and energy blockades of Armenia, Mountainous KarabakhRepublic and Nakhichevan.

While the Security Council is calling to resume the peace talks in the CSCE Minsk group framework, the initiative suggests to continue the Jeneva talks through non-formal negotiations, that is through the participation of Azerbaijani ally Turkey, enjoying its unlimited possibilities. We are sure that without the participation of the Karabakhauthorities on equal footing with other parties to the talks, no such talks can solve the problems connected with guarantees of safety of Karabagh’s civilians.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11