Author: Harut Sassounian

Czech Republic Sells Weapons To Azerbaijan Illegally via Israel

While the Azerbaijani army was showcasing its weapons on a promotional video during exercises on Sept. 18-22, 2017, observers noticed Czech-made military hardware, including DANA howitzer artillery pieces (11-mile range) and Rm-70 rocket launchers (12-mile range).

Initially, it was not known how these weapons arrived in Baku, given the fact that the Czech Republic had not issued any permits to its manufacturers to sell such hardware to Azerbaijan. Under the laws of the Czech Republic, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Interior have to approve requests for weapon sales proposed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Also, the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had recommended that their member states not supply arms to Azerbaijan and Armenia due to the Artsakh conflict.

In addition, weapon sales to Azerbaijan would violate United Nations Security Council Resolution 853, adopted on July 29, 1993, which urged member states “to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to the intensification of the [Karabagh] conflict or the continued occupation of territory.” Already several countries had violated this Security Council resolution, including Israel, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, and Pakistan.

In response, Jan Pejsek, the Czech Defense Ministry spokesman stated that the “Ministry had not approved any military exports to Azerbaijan.” Meanwhile, Irena Valentova, spokeswoman for the Czech Foreign Ministry, told the Prague Daily Monitor that “no permits were issued for export of military materiel to Azerbaijan, while some licenses for the export of modernized self-propelled gun howitzers Dana-M1 and rocket launchers RM-70 were rejected in 2016-2017 and the EU partner countries were notified of the rejection.”

In 2016, “Azerbaijan purchased non-lethal weapons worth over one million euros from the Czech Republic, which is three times less than three years ago,” the Hospodarske Noviny reported.

In the past, when Azerbaijan had tried to import weapons from the Czech Republic, it was refused a permit for such military shipments.

The Prague Daily Monitor reported that the “Czech authorities and secret services are investigating how Czech arms … reached the Caucasus.”

In the meantime, The Slovak Spectator revealed on April 17, 2018 that “Bratislava [capital of Slovakia] airport is used as a transit point for smuggling Czech rocket launchers and howitzers to Azerbaijan…. The weapons are reportedly produced by the Czechoslovak Group Holding, owned by Czech Jaroslav Strnad, according to Czech Television…. An employee of the Slovak arms factory MSM spoke up and described how the old weapons are rebuilt in the Trenčín-based company and are then transported via Israel to Azerbaijan, the TASR newswire reported.”

The MSM employee further described to the reporters of the Czech Television, as quoted by TASR, according to The Slovak Spectator: “The whole process starts with bringing the old DANA howitzer that is disassembled directly in the company…. The new facilities, including navigation, camera and communication systems were sent from Israel, the employee added. He also revealed that they signed a contract for distributing 18 howitzers and 15 rocket launchers this year, and the same amount next year, as reported by TASR…. The company confirmed the delivery of DANA-M1 and RM-70 systems to Israel.”

The Slovak Spectator “even recorded one such transport on camera” confirming the delivery of the weapons to Israel and from there smuggled to Azerbaijan. “The transport of one rocket launcher started on December 27, 2017, and was carried by a truck from Trenčín to the Bratislava airport, where it was moved to the plane owned by Azerbaijani airlines, Silk Way. It then flew to Tel Aviv in Israel, where the company Elbit, which was described as the end customer, is located. The data then revealed that the plane continued to Baku in Azerbaijan. Nothing is unloaded in Israel; there is only a stop to make sure the papers are correct,” the employee of MSM told the Czech Television. “The plane flies directly from the Israeli airport to Azerbaijan,” The Slovak Spectator wrote.

I suggest that Armenian officials immediately file protests with the governments of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Israel for circumventing their export provisions and violating the bans recommended by the EU, OSCE and the UN Security Council regarding the sale of weapons to Azerbaijan.

If such complaints are not filed, these three countries and several others will be encouraged to ship more lethal weapons to Azerbaijan which will be used to kill and injure Armenian soldiers and civilians.

April 24, 2018
Turkey is the Biggest Loser in the US, British & French Missile Strikes on Syria

While most commentators have focused on the reasons and consequences of the U.S., British, and French missile strikes on targets in Syria, very few realize that Turkey is the biggest loser as the result of this attack.

Two weeks ago, when Pres. Trump announced that the United States would “very soon,” withdraw its soldiers from Northern Syria, the Turkish government was elated. Turkey’s invasion of Afrin was intended to expand the occupation to Manbij and the entire Northern Syria to dislodge Kurdish fighters from that region. The only obstacle standing in the way of the Turkish troops was the U.S. military which has over 2,000 soldiers in the Manbij area. Repeated Turkish threats to attack the American troops did not scare the U.S. Commanders who stood steadfast in their defense of the local Kurdish population.

Within two weeks, Pres. Trump reversed his position on the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. The latest reports from Washington and Paris state that the Pentagon and French Pres. Emmanuel Macron “convinced” Pres. Trump to keep the U.S. military in Syria until the Syrian crisis is resolved or other Western and Arab countries replaced the American forces. Turkey’s leaders were also disappointed that due to his dismissal former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson could not keep his promise to Pres. Erdogan that the U.S. forces would withdraw shortly from Northern Syria.

With the American troops staying in Syria, the Turkish ability to attack Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria would be limited. Despite his crazy antics, Pres. Erdogan is not going to target the U.S. military or as he described, “deliver the Americans an Ottoman slap!” Thus, the unsubstantiated accusations of a chemical attack by the Syrian government on civilians in Douma near Damascus was most probably orchestrated by those who wanted to prevent American forces from leaving Northern Syria, to the great chagrin of Turkey! Interestingly, in his remarks shortly before the missile strike, Pres. Trump did not mention a single word as to what evidence he had about the responsibility of the Syrian regime for the chemical attack.

Incidentally, the missile strike on Syria generated conflicting reactions in Turkey. While President Erdogan was unhappy with the stay of the U.S. troops in Syria, he was delighted with the attacks by the United States, Great Britain and France, since Turkey wanted to undermine the Syrian regime and overthrow Pres. Bashar al-Assad. The missile strike, however, did not have such an objective, as Pres. Trump tweeted after the attack, “Mission Accomplished!” Everyone, except Erdogan, agrees that Pres. Assad had the upper hand in the Syrian conflict and his overthrow would worsen the situation in Syria and the region!

The other negative consequence of the Turkish praise of the missile attack on Syria was the souring of relations between Turkey, and Russia and Iran, staunch supporters of Pres. Assad and harsh critics of the strike. In addition, Pres. Erdogan alienated his domestic political opposition and a large segment of the Turkish public upset by the Western powers’ attack on a fellow Muslim country.

Turkey was also unhappy that Pres. Trump, in his remarks just before the missile strike, mentioned “Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, Qatar, and Egypt” as “our friends,” disregarding NATO ally Turkey due to its rapprochement with Russia and Iran.

Curiously, in his speech Pres. Trump criticized Russia and Iran stating: “what kind of a nation wants to be associated with a mass murder of innocent men, women and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.” It is unfortunate that on the eve of April 24, the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Pres. Trump would attack other countries for keeping company with a murderous nation, ignoring the fact that the United States is an ally of Turkey, a country that denies the murder of 1.5 million Armenians, and defends its predecessor criminal Ottoman regime that committed the Armenian Genocide. This reminds us of what Jesus said: “You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

As I wrote a year ago when Pres. Trump attacked Syria with Tomahawk missiles, he was simply hitting Syria to deviate the attention of the American public from his many infidelities, illegalities, and investigations of his covert relations with Russia.

Finally, Pres. Trump, UK Prime Minster Theresa May, and French Pres. Macron violated the constitutions of their respective countries, by going to war against another sovereign state without getting the consent of their legislative bodies.

April 17, 2018
Why Turkey Accepted Jordan’s Demand To Revise Their Free Trade Agreement?

Before the recent turmoil in relations between Turkey and several countries in the Middle East, Europe and the United States, Syria and Jordan had signed a Free Trade Agreement and visa-free travel with Turkey hoping to benefit from its growing economy.

Relations between Syria and Turkey quickly deteriorated starting in 2011 when Turkey supported Islamic Jihadists undermining the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Earlier this year, going a step further, Turkey brazenly invaded Northern Syria, occupying the town of Afrin and announcing the intention to expand its invasion.

Consequently, the mutual trade agreement and visa-free travel between Turkey and Syria were cancelled. Recently, Jordan suspended its own trade agreement with Turkey, after warning repeatedly that it was one-sided and benefited Turkey much more than Jordan. Turkish exports to Jordan in 2016 amounted to $710 million, whereas Jordan’s exports to Turkey totaled only $102 million.

Jordan pledged to reactivate the agreement if Turkey agreed to certain revisions, including “the Turkish side’s consent to protection measures Jordan will design to protect local industries, increasing Turkish technical assistance to Jordan as stipulated by the FTA [Free Trade Agreement], and reconsidering the ‘strict’ rules of origin specifications applied by Turkey,” according to The Jordan Times.

Surprisingly, Turkey consented to renegotiate the Free Trade Agreement which was signed in 2011. This was a departure from Turkey’s usual aggressive tactic to threaten and bully both friends and opponents to submit to its wishes.

The government of Jordan should be commended for its tough stand in defense of its interests, despite the fact that, in recent months, several developments had strengthened Turkey-Jordan relations. Both countries vehemently criticized Pres. Trump’s recent decision to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. On Feb. 21, the two countries also signed a military cooperation agreement. Furthermore, Turkey had agreed to “exempt 500 Jordanian goods from customs duties,” according to the Al-Monitor news website.

Prof. Pinar Tremblay, in an Al-Monitor article analyzed the four factors that would impact the renegotiation of the Turkish-Jordanian trade agreement.

The first obstacle is the displeasure of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt with Turkey for supporting their antagonist Qatar. Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman went as far as calling Turkey a member of the “Triangle of Evil” along with Islamic militants and Iran! The anti-Turkish posture of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt puts pressure on Jordan to be more cautious in its relations with Turkey. The reason Turkey is trying to accommodate Jordan is to break out of its isolation from major Sunni Arab countries.

The second obstacle is most Sunni leaders’ hostility towards Iran. This antagonism spills over the resentment of Turkey by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt due to persistent Turkish relations with Iran. Turkey is trying to boost its relations with Jordan, because of its need for allies in the Arab world. In recent years, Turkish President Erdogan has aspired to become the leader of Sunni Muslims rivaling Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s two holy sanctuaries: Mecca and Medina.

The third obstacle is Saudi Arabia’s desire to spread its influence over the Arab world opposing Turkish expansionist policies. That is why Saudi Arabia and Turkey are competing for the friendship of the Kingdom of Jordan, among others. Tremblay reported that “at the end of December, Turkey acquired a 99-year lease from Sudan for Suakin Island, increasing Turkey’s presence in the Red Sea. This move has unnerved the countries that identify themselves as ‘the Arab Anti-Terror Quartet’ (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain). Turkey’s relations with African nations are flourishing. Not everyone is happy about such developments, and this could cause problems for Turkish-Jordanian relations.”

Prof. Tremblay described the fourth challenge as financial: “Turkey wants Jordanian markets but faces roadblocks posed by Gulf countries. Since March 2016, Turkey and Jordan have been trying to plan, without success, a maritime route between Turkish ports (Iskenderun) and Jordan’s port of Aqaba to reach out to Gulf markets. Yet without political compromises, economic cooperation does not seem sustainable in the region. Turkish Airlines restarted direct flights March 19 between Istanbul and Aqaba. Intriguingly, also in March, the Saudi crown prince was in Cairo discussing the proposed multibillion-dollar King Salman Bridge to link Egypt and Saudi Arabia through the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba; some see this as a reaction to the Aqaba flights and the maritime route project. During his March 12 visit to the Jordanian capital of Amman, the UAE foreign minister reportedly promised to help Jordan with its various economic challenges and establish stronger regional ties. Turkey believes these developments are behind Jordan’s suspension of the free trade agreement. Jordanian business people and analysts concur that the UAE and Saudi Arabia had a hand in the suspension decision.”

Tremblay concluded that “Turkey desperately needs to diversify its opportunities in foreign policy. Repeated mistakes and costly failures have significantly limited Turkish foreign policy options in the past. In the past decade, Turkey’s ambitions and rhetoric have not matched its capabilities and achievements. Yet in regard to the free trade agreement with Jordan, Ankara is not only determined but also well-organized. If Turkey can overcome the obstacles outlined, a free trade agreement revision would indeed be a win for Ankara.”

April 10, 2018
Turkey is Most Frequent Violator ofEuropean Convention on Human Rights

Veteran Turkish journalist Sedat Ergin wrote in Hurriyet newspaper that “Turkey is the champion of rights violations at the European Court of Human Rights” (ECHR). The European Court rules on cases when signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights violate its provisions.

Even though Turkey joined the Court in 1986, 27 years after its founding, it had more violations than all other member countries between 1959 and 2016.

The European Court had a total of 3,270 judgments on Turkey. Only in 73 cases, Turkey was found by the Court not to have made any violations. The remaining cases were settled in other ways. Since more than one article was violated in most cases, Turkey’s violations total 4,514.

The 2016 Annual Report of the European Court of Human Rights indicated that:

— The highest number of Turkish violations (832) was in the area of “right to a fair trial.”

— The 2nd highest category (707 violations) was “the right to freedom and security.” This latter category means that “Turkish citizens are frequently arrested using unlawful methods and that those arrests can easily turn into sentences,” according to Ergin.

— The 3rd highest category of violations (653) is the “right to property protection,” which means that many Turkish citizens are deprived of ownership of their properties.

— The 4th highest category (586) is the violation of “length of proceedings.”

— “Lack of effective investigation” comes in 5th place with 412 violations.

— “Inhuman or degrading treatment” is in 6th place with 314 violations.

— In 7th place is the “right to an effective remedy” (268 violations).

— “Freedom of Expression” comes in 8th place (265 violations).

— In 9th place are 133 violations of the “right to life — deprivation of life.”

— In 10th place are 100 violations of the “right to respect private and family life.”

Regarding Azerbaijan, from 2002 to 2016, the European Court of Human Rights had 122 judgments, of which 118 were found to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, far fewer than Turkey, since Baku joined the ECHR much later, in 2002. The remaining 4 cases were settled in other ways. Since some cases had more than one violation, Azerbaijan had a total of 224 rights violations.

— The highest number of violations (44) was the “right to a fair trial.”

— The 2nd highest violation (34) was the “right to liberty and security.”

— The 3rd highest violation (30) was the “protection of property.”

— The 4th highest violation (21) was the “right to free elections.”

— “Lack of effective investigation” was the 5th highest violation (17).

Armenia, on the other hand, which joined the European Convention on Human Rights at the same time as Azerbaijan (2002), had fewer violations. There were 75 judgments by the ECHR against Armenia between 2002 and 2016, of which 68 were violations. The remaining 7 cases were settled in other ways. Since some of cases had more than one violation, Armenia had a total of 119 violations.

— The highest number of violations (32) was the “right to a fair trial.”

— The 2nd highest number of violations (27) was the “right to liberty and security.”

— The 3rd highest number of violations (16) was the “protection of property.”

Neighboring Georgia had a slightly fewer violations than Armenia. It joined the European Convention on Human Rights in 1999. Between 1999 and 2016 the ECHR had 68 judgments on Georgia, of which 52 were violations. The remaining 16 cases were settled in other ways. Since some of the cases had more than one violation, Georgia had a total of 99 violations.

— The highest number of violations (20) was the “right to liberty and security.”

— The 2nd highest number of violations (17) was “inhuman or degrading treatment.”

— There was a tie for the 3rd highest violation (12 each) for “lack of effective investigation” and “right to a fair trial.”

In addition to the above-mentioned violations, Turkey and Azerbaijan have much more serious problems with the ECHR. Turkey decided to suspend the European Convention on Human Rights following the attempted coup of July 2016. However, some parts of the Convention cannot be suspended, such as the right to life, and the ban on torture and the inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.

Azerbaijan faces another serious problem with the ECHR which had ruled that prominent Azeri opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov should be released from jail. Azerbaijan has refused to comply with ECHR’s decision since 2014. The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have adopted several resolutions urging Azerbaijan to release Mammadov. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has initiated an unprecedented judicial review of Azerbaijan’s lack of compliance with the ECHR ruling. Further non-compliance by Azerbaijan could result in its expulsion from the Council of Europe!

April 3, 2018
How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

(Part 2)

Last week, I described Azerbaijan’s distortions of two of the four UN Security Council Resolutions adopted in 1993. I will now present the remaining two Resolutions:

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 874, adopted October 14, 1993:

“Calls upon the parties concerned to make effective and permanent the cease-fire established as a result of the direct contacts undertaken with the assistance of the Government of the Russian Federation in support of the CSCE Minsk Group.”

“Expresses the conviction that all other pending questions arising from the conflict… should be settled expeditiously through peaceful negotiations in the context of the CSCE Minsk process.”

“Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group’s “Adjusted timetable”, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation.”

“Calls on all parties to refrain from all violations of international humanitarian law and renews its call in resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in all areas affected by the conflict.”

“Urges all States in the region to refrain from any hostile acts and from any interference or intervention which would lead to the widening of the conflict and undermine peace and security in the region.”

Azerbaijan has violated every one of the above clauses. In addition to the frequent violations of the mandated cease-fire, the Azerbaijani forces attacked Artsakh in April 2016, causing major damage to border towns and killing civilians. By cutting off the ears of elderly Armenian villagers and decapitating several Armenian soldiers, Azerbaijan’s armed forces committed a barbaric act and a war crime!

Excerpt from UN Security Council Resolution 884, adopted November 12, 1993:

“Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993), and to ensure that the forces involved are not provided with the means to extend their military campaign further.”

Armenian officials usually neither respond to the Azeri accusations regarding the UN Security Council Resolutions nor try to set the record straight. The only exception was Pres. Serzh Sargsyan’s comprehensive speech at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014.

Pres. Sargsyan stated: “While discussing the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement I cannot but address the four UN Security Council Resolutions, which were adopted during the war, that every so often are being exploited by the Azerbaijani authorities in order to justify their obstructive policy.”

“It is about those four Resolutions that demanded unconditionally as a matter of priority cessation of all military hostilities. Azerbaijan failed to comply. Azerbaijan’s own noncompliance with the fundamental demands of these Resolutions made impossible their full implementation. The Resolutions contained calls upon the parties to cease bombardments and air strikes targeting the peaceful civilian population, to refrain from violating the principles of the international humanitarian law but instead Azerbaijan continued its indiscriminate bombardments of the civilian population. Azerbaijan did not spare children, women and old persons thus gravely violating all legal and moral norms of the international humanitarian law.”

“Now Azerbaijan cynically refers to these Resolutions — refers selectively, pulling them out of context as a prerequisite for the settlement of the problem. The adequate interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolutions is not possible without correct understanding of the hierarchy of the demands set therein.”

“The Resolutions inter alia request the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region (UN SC Resolution 853) and removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation (UN SC Resolution 874). It is no secret that Azerbaijan and Turkey imposed blockade on Nagorno Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia from the outset of the conflict. The Azerbaijani President in his statements even takes pride in this fact promising his own public that direction would remain the priority of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy.”

“The above mentioned UN Security Council Resolutions called upon Azerbaijan to establish direct contacts with Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan refused to establish any direct contacts with Nagorno Karabakh, which was a legally equal party to the Cease-fire Agreement concluded in 1994 as well as a number of other international Agreements; moreover, Azerbaijan preaches hatred towards people it claims it wants to see as a part of their State.”

“None of the UN Security Council Resolutions identifies Armenia as a conflicting party. Our country is called upon only ‘to continue to exert its influence’ over the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians (UNSC Resolutions 853, 884) in order to cease the conflict. Armenia has fully complied, and due to its efforts a Cease-fire Agreement was concluded in 1994. All UN Security Council Resolutions recognize Nagorno Karabakh as a party to the conflict.”

“Azerbaijani authorities have failed to implement the fundamental demands of the Security Council Resolutions, including abiding and sticking by the humanitarian norms.”

“Incidentally, Azerbaijan has been gravely violating this demand every now and then. Azerbaijan’s cruel and inhumane treatment of the Armenian civilian prisoners of war regularly results in their deaths. Although, I think, one shall not be surprised about it because it is the same State that suppresses and exercises the most inhumane treatment of its own people. A clear proof of it was the decision of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to suspend its visit to Azerbaijan due to obstructions it encountered in the conduct of official Baku.”

“The Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group is the only specialized structure that has been dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh issue according to the mandate granted by the international community. While Azerbaijan is very well aware that it could not possibly deceive or misinform the Minsk Group, which is very-well immersed in the essence of the problem, it attempts to transpose the conflict settlement to other platforms trying to depict it as a territorial dispute or exploiting the factor of religious solidarity. That is ironic, since Armenia traditionally enjoys very warm relations with the Islamic nations both in the Arabic world or, for instance, with our immediate neighbor Iran.”

I would like to summarize my key points regarding Azerbaijan’s distortions of the four UN Security Resolutions:

1)    The UN Security Council Resolutions were adopted in 1993 during the height of the war between Artsakh/Armenia and Azerbaijan. These Resolutions reflect the conditions on the ground at the time. Since then, the situation has dramatically changed.
2)    Despite the cease-fire that was signed in 1994 between Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan, the latter keeps violating both the ceasefire and the UN Security Council Resolutions by its frequent attacks on both Artsakh and Armenia.
3)    Azerbaijan opposes Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations, thus violating the UN Security Council Resolutions.
4)    The Minsk Group co-chairs, composed of the United States, France, and Russia, are the official mediators of the Artsakh conflict, not the UN Security Council and not the UN General Assembly.
5)    In fact, when Azerbaijan brought the Artsakh issue to the UN General Assembly in 2008, all three Minsk Group co-chairs voted against it. Azerbaijan’s proposal was adopted by a small number of States. The overwhelming majority abstained.
6)    By blockading Artsakh, Azerbaijan is violating the four UN Security Council Resolutions.
7)    Importantly, Armenia is mentioned in the UN Security Council Resolutions, not as a party to the conflict, but only as an intermediary to persuade Artsakh Armenians to comply with these Resolutions. Azerbaijan’s President Heydar Aliyev acknowledged this fact during his speech to the Parliament on February 23, 2001: “Four resolutions have been adopted in the United Nations Security Council…. It is written in these four resolutions that the occupational army should leave occupied lands of Azerbaijan. But there is not a word “Armenia”, that is, there are no words “the Armenian armed forces”. But in one of resolutions it is written to demand from Armenia to exert influence on Mountainous Garabagh (Nagorno-Karabakh). In reality, it is an Armenian-Azerbaijan war. In reality, Armenia has made aggression against Azerbaijan. However, nobody recognizes Armenia as an aggressor in a document of any international organization….”

Azeris who continue to distort the four UN Security Council Resolutions should follow former President Heydar Aliyev’s statement and refrain from accusing Armenia of violating these Resolutions when in fact Azerbaijan is the one not complying with them.

March 27, 2018
How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

The Armenian National Committee of America, San Fernando Valley West chapter, held an all-day conference on March 17 on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Artsakh (Karabagh) liberation struggle. The conference was held at the Ferrahian Armenian High School in Encino, California. The speakers were: historian Garo Moumdjian, Ph.D, California Courier publisher Harut Sassounian, ANCA National Board Member Steven Dadaian, Esq., A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Levon Kirakosian, Esq., and A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Vache Thomassian, Esq.

Here are excerpts from Harut Sassounian’s remarks at the conference:

The United Nations Security Council adopted four Resolutions during the Artsakh (Karabagh) war in 1993 calling for the withdrawal of Armenian forces, cessation of all hostilities and urging a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

These four Resolutions are often cited by the Azerbaijani media which is under the strict control of the government of Azerbaijan. In the past 25 years, the Azeris have repeatedly condemned Armenia for not abiding by these UN Security Council Resolutions, and have made them a part of their continued propaganda war against Armenia.

However, Azerbaijan has distorted the contents and context of these Resolutions, trying to deceive the international public opinion. Azerbaijan itself has not complied with these Resolutions. When one side (Azerbaijan) violates these Resolutions, it cannot accuse the other side (Armenia) of not complying with them.

The UN Security Council is composed of 15 States: Five of them are permanent members who have a veto power (United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France) and 10 of them are rotating members. The UN Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. UN member states are obligated to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

It is particularly hypocritical of the Turkish government to blame Armenia for not complying with the four UN Security Council Resolutions, when Turkey itself has violated over 60 UN Security Resolutions adopted since Turkey’s invasion of Northern Cyprus in 1974.

Let us now review each of the four UN Security Council Resolutions which were adopted unanimously by all 15 member states. I have added my comments in bold letters at the end of some of the clauses of these four Resolutions:

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 822, adopted April 30, 1993:

“Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan.” Azerbaijan has violated the cease-fire for 25 years on a regular basis by continuously shooting across the borders of Artsakh and Armenia.

“Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem.” The Minsk Group of CSCE, subsequently renamed OSCE, is composed of three co-chairs: the United States, France and Russia which are the official mediators to help resolve the Artsakh conflict, not the United Nations Security Council!

“Calls for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in the region, in particular in all areas affected by the conflict in order to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population and reaffirms that all parties are bound to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” Despite this clause, Azerbaijan has tried to undermine the delivery of international humanitarian aid to the people of Artsakh.

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 853, adopted July 29, 1993:

“Expressing once again its grave concern at the displacement of large numbers of civilians in the Azerbaijani Republic and at the serious humanitarian emergency in the region.” The reference to “the serious humanitarian emergency in the region” also applies to Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan.

“Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and all other States in the region.” This clause applies to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

“Reaffirming also the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.” Artsakh Armenians have the right to self-determination under international law and UN Protocols.

“Reiterates in the context of paragraphs 3 and 4 above its earlier calls for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region.” This clause is violated by Azerbaijan and Turkey by their blockades of Armenia and Artsakh.

“Urges the parties concerned to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution to the conflict, and pursue negotiations within the Minsk Group of the CSCE, as well as through direct contact between them, towards a final settlement.” The reference to “the parties concerned” and “direct contact between them,” implies Artsakh’s inclusion in the negotiations, as was the case earlier. Azerbaijan blocked Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations.

“Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposal of the Minsk Group of the CSCE.” Armenia coordinates its negotiating position with the government of the Republic of Artsakh. However, Artsakh’s exclusion from the negotiations makes the task of coordination more difficult. Furthermore, Artsakh not being a recognized state and not a member of the UN is under no obligation to comply with any of these Resolutions.

“Urges States to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to the intensification of the conflict or the continued occupation of territory.” This clause is violated by Turkey, Russia, Israel, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Pakistan, and several others, which have supplied billions of dollars of weaponry to Azerbaijan.

(Continued next week)

March 20, 2018