The press-centre of the Ministry of Defense of the RA interviewed the Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the MoD, Doctor of Political Sciences, Major-General Hayk S. Kotanjian requesting to evaluate the situation evolving after the adoption of the UN GA Resolution on the Karabakh Problem.

What are the objectives pursued in the statement by the Deputy Minister of the Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan claiming that “the status of Nagorno Karabakh is not a target of the OSCE Minsk Group and a topic of discussion with Armenia”? The Baku authorities undertook to address a task which is quite obviously beyond their sole competence. By their actions the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to persuade the international community that the application of common principle of respect towards the Armenians of Karabakh based on the human rights and freedoms registered in the UN Charter as a universal norm is purely their own internal business. They aim at disavowing the OSCE Minsk Group and removing Russia, the US and France from the group in connection with their systemic approaches to the application of the norms and principles of International law on the Karabakh Problem resolution. What is underlying suchlike position of Azerbaijan? The essence is that the Baku politicians are trying to impose their own opportunistic-local interpretation of the International law concerning the settlement and resolution of the Karabakh Problem. And they are doing it with presumption of “lawmakers and indisputable interpreters” of international law not only domestically but also before the international auditoria. The head of the neighboring state, as well as the Foreign Affairs Ministry officials in their statements on the Baku authorities’ commitments to the conflict resolution underline the “strict conformity with the international law”, persistently paralleling this very conformity with only one of the common norms of the International law-the principle of territorial integrity and ignoring the other norms applied when dealing with the problems like that of Karabakh. In this context the ignorance of the principle of peoples’ equality and their right to self-determination is of strictly manipulative nature. This unilateral approach by Baku to the norms of International law cannot be of serious influence upon the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs’ expert position. Let’s go back to the legal aspect of the problem. What are the commitments of the states, by example of Azerbaijan, in compliance with the norms and standards of the International law in the system of the national law? Azerbaijani official establishment announces that “the Karabakh status problem can be resolved only on the basis of the internal legislation of Azerbaijan” and the activities of the Minsk Group, in consultations with the conflict sides on the status, are allegedly an intrusion into the domestic affairs of Azerbaijan. A symptomatic illustration appears to be the incompatibility of the Republic of Azerbaijan’s Constitution with the essence of international legal norm on the principle and right of peoples to master their fate independently by means of free expression of popular will in conditions of complete freedom, stipulated by the UN Charter and International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. As it is known, these documents in the international relations system are treaties consolidating the states’ commitment to adhere to and respect universally recognized fundamental principles and norms of the International law, first and foremost – human rights and freedoms. It concerns those principles of the International law, which comprise its most stable kernel and are a universal criterion to evaluate legitimacy of states’ conduct. Applying the legitimacy criteria accepted in the international community, how would you evaluate the conformity of Azerbaijan’s conduct with its international commitments concerning the Karabakh settlement? The norm of the Azerbaijan’s Constitution “on change of territory by holding a referendum among all the Azerbaijani population” contradicts the other norm of the same document, defined in the article “The ultimate goal of the state”. In accordance with the given definition “human and citizen rights and freedoms, enumerated in the present Constitution are employed in conformity with the international treaties, which are supported by the Republic of Azerbaijan”. In this case the above mentioned international treaties should be touched upon. Thus the assertions of the Azerbaijani authorities on their adherence to the international law in the Karabakh conflict resolution don’t correspond to reality. The conduct of Azerbaijan in terms of consistent reflection of universally accepted principles and norms of the International law in the Constitution, as well as in the Karabakh conflict settlement practice, doesn’t correspond to the international legitimacy criterion. What is your take on the position of the Minsk Group which voted against the UN Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh proposed by Azerbaijan? Judging from the official statements made by Russia, the USA and France before and afterwards of the General Assembly, they voted against the resolution, because the Azerbaijan’s project contradicted, firstly, the common fundamental principles and norms of the International law, as well as the criterion of the international legitimacy of their application. Secondly, the conduct of Azerbaijan does not coincide with the balanced approach of the Minsk Group which endorses the solution of the Karabakh conflict within the system of the International relations. 100 abstained members of the UN virtually demonstrated their understanding of the balanced position of Russia, the USA and France. Being obsessed with the independence of Kosovo and exploiting the internal situation in Armenia, the authorities in Baku attempted to entrap the international community into an act that would put under doubt the legality of the future status of Nagorno Karabakh. But that was a flop. And just yesterday the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs re-confirmed that ‘the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiations between the parties’. How would you explain the driving force of those 39 members of the UN, which voted for the resolution? The mentioned states, mainly representing the Organization of Islamic Conference and the GUAM, backed the Azerbaijan’s initiative from the position, which was more characteristic to the period of the Cold War, i.e. on the principle of bloc solidarity. Unfortunately, some of the countries that supported Azerbaijan’s unilateral initiative are just the hotbed of international terrorism. Due to the results of the voting, Azerbaijan threatens to review her policy on Russia, the USA and France. How to elaborate the disrespectful position of Azerbaijan to the contribution of the Minsk Group in the process of the peaceful solution and the ferociousness of Baku vis-а-vis Russia, France and the USA? Azerbaijan perceives the designated to her role in the European Energy policy as a “historical” mission of geo-economic and geo-strategic importance to compete with Russia. Playing on the strategic interests of the EU, the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Central Asia, Baku is trying to at most bid for highest stakes in this way to use this resource for illegal forcing through its interests in the Karabakh settlement. In pursuit of these purposes Azerbaijan will now allow itself to blackmail Russia, the USA, France and the Minsk Group on the whole. According to many international observers Azerbaijan is losing the sense of reality.