General Assembly Session 62 meeting 86

The President

Before turning to the item on our agenda, I would like to invite the attention of the General Assembly to document A/62/657/Add.4, in which the Secretary-General informs the President of the General Assembly that, since the issuance of his communication contained in documents A/62/657 and Add.1 through 3, the Dominican Republic has made the necessary payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter. May I take it that the General Assembly duly takes note of the information contained in this document?

The President

I give the floor to the representative of Azerbaijan to introduce draft resolution A/62/L.42.

Mr. Mehdiyev (Azerbaijan)

The conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan has a long history. Karabakh -- both its mountainous and lowland parts, which are economically and politically linked with each other -- has always been one of the historical provinces of Azerbaijan. In antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the region was a part of a State known as Caucasian Albania, which existed between the fourth century B.C. and eighth century in the territory of present-day Azerbaijan. In 313, Christianity was proclaimed as a State religion in Albania.

In the eighth century, the population of Azerbaijan, including the majority of Albanians, was converted to Islam. The Albanians, inhabiting the mountainous part of Karabakh, retained their own religion. From the ninth to nineteenth centuries, Karabakh was a part of different States ruled by the local Azerbaijani dynasties. The treaty of 14 May 1805 signed by the Azerbaijani khan, Ibrahim Khalil of Karabakh, brought Karabakh under Russian rule.

Thereafter, Armenians were massively settled in the mountainous part of Karabakh, where at a later stage they assimilated the indigenous Albanians, whose Orthodox Patriarchy was abolished by the Russian authorities in 1836 and its property transferred to the Armenian Gregorian Church. The descendants of the Albanians continue to live in other regions of Azerbaijan.

In 1918, Azerbaijan proclaimed independence and, guided by the principle of good neighbourliness, handed over the Azerbaijani Iravan -- Yerevan -- province to the Republic of Armenia. Nevertheless, the newly established Armenian Government raised claims to other Azerbaijani territories, including Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1919 the Armenian assembly formally accepted Azerbaijani rule over that territory.

During Soviet times, the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan enjoyed political, economic and cultural autonomy and developed faster than Azerbaijan and Armenia as a whole.

The present-day stage of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict dates back to the end of 1987. In the repression carried out in Armenia, 220 Azerbaijanis were killed, 1,154 were wounded and about 250,000 were expelled. That was the latest wave of deportation of Azerbaijanis, who for centuries have resided in the territory presently called Armenia.

In early 1988, the Armenian Government instigated a secessionist movement in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In 1989, the parliament of Armenia, in total contradiction to the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, adopted a decree entitled "On re-unification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh".

These actions continued when Armenia, with the support of foreign troops and with direct participation of international mercenaries and terrorist groups, unleashed a full-scale military operation, leading to the occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and seven adjacent districts. The occupation was accompanied by the policy of ethnic cleansing, and as a result more than one million Azerbaijanis became refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Responding to the occupation of the Azerbaijani territories and alarmed by the severe humanitarian catastrophe resulting from the expulsion of more than 1 million refugees and IDPs, the Security Council in 1993 adopted four resolutions -- 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) -- demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the creation of the necessary conditions for the return of IDPs to their homes in security and dignity. Those provisions have still not been implemented.

Negotiations under the auspices of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) started in 1992. At the OSCE Lisbon Summit in 1996, the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group and the OSCE Chairman-in-Office recommended the following principles as the basis for the settlement of the conflict: the territorial integrity of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the highest degree of self-rule for Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan, and guaranteed security for Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population. Armenia was the only one out of 54 OSCE participating States that did not accept those principles.

Moreover, Armenia tries to consolidate the occupation through illegal activities in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Armenia has launched an outrageous policy of exploiting natural resources in the occupied territories, in particular the gold mines in the Kalbajar district, aiming to engage overseas companies in the illegal business. In addition, Armenia falsifies the history and misappropriates the cultural and architectural heritage of all occupied territories. Religious and historical monuments, ancient manuscripts and other cultural properties have been destroyed, re-fashioned, plundered and removed.

Furthermore, Armenia has launched an outrageous policy of massive illegal settlement of Armenian populations in the occupied territories, which is another blatant violation of international law. As an expression of its serious concern about the massive settlement in the occupied territories, the item entitled "The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan" was included in the agenda of the General Assembly. As a result of the consideration of this item at the 60th plenary meeting of the Assembly's fifty-ninth session, on 23 November 2004, the first-ever OSCE fact-finding mission was dispatched to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, from 31 January through 6 February 2005.

The fact-finding mission confirmed the facts of the Armenian settlement of the occupied territories. The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group requested that any further settlement of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan be discouraged and urged that there be no changes in the demographic structure of the region, which would make difficult any further efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The fact-finding mission became feasible thanks to the General Assembly's just and right approach to the grave concern articulated by Azerbaijan. However, another dangerous development occurred in the occupied territories. In 2006, there were massive fires in the eastern part of the occupied territories. With a view to taking comprehensive measures to suppress the fires, eliminate the impact of this environmental disaster and rehabilitate the fire-affected territories of Azerbaijan, our delegation, during intensive consultations, acting in the spirit of compromise, demonstrated maximum flexibility to accommodate every concern. As a result, on 7 September 2006 the General Assembly adopted resolution 60/285 without a vote

Based on that resolution, the OSCE led an environmental assessment mission from 2 to 13 October 2006 to the fire-affected territories in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. The mission confirmed the fact of fires, the lack of proper fire-fighting equipment on both sides and the need for international assistance and proposed short-, medium- and long-term initiatives. However, those proposals, which, besides their ultimate goals were aimed at establishing confidence, have never been implemented in the occupied territories.

The most dangerous development in the occupied territories occurred on 4 March 2008, when the Armenian occupying forces grossly violated the ceasefire regime, leading to 5 casualties from the Azerbaijani side and 27 from the Armenian side. That provocation by Armenia is clearly intended to divert the attention of its citizens from the tense situation in the country. The use of force has unfortunately become the traditional method of both foreign and domestic policy of Armenia.

Azerbaijan has always conducted negotiations in good faith, whereas Armenia uses the negotiations as a cover for its illegal activities in the occupied territories. Contrary to the goals of negotiations, Armenia demonstrates its unchanged "fait accompli" policy through continued military occupation.

During his presidential campaign in the city of Mehry on 24 January, the newly elected President of Armenia, Serj Sarkisian, declared, among the basic principles of the resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, that Karabakh cannot be a part of Azerbaijan and Karabakh should be connected with Armenia. He stated that "out of these principles, we will not discuss the regulation of the conflict". That position of the Armenian leadership should ring another alarm about the real intentions of the Government of Armenia.

The talks are founded on the clear stance of the full restoration of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and sovereignty, which are indisputable and non-negotiable from both the legal and political points of view and which deserve support in the framework of the negotiations as well as during the action on the draft resolution.

In the final stage of the settlement, we envisage a peaceful and prosperous region, in which the Azerbaijani and Armenian populations of Nagorno-Karabakh would live in friendship and security within the Republic of Azerbaijan. To arrive at that point, we need to eliminate the consequences of the conflict: the occupying forces should leave all occupied territories, internally displaced people return to their places of origin, and transport and communication links be restored.

In spite of the negotiations that have continued for over a decade, the conflict is not settled, and this situation causes profound anxiety, frustration and disappointment on our part. The consideration of this agenda item at this plenary meeting of the General Assembly absolutely does not mean that we intend to change the format of the negotiations on the settlement of the conflict. The main reason for the discussion of the item and for taking action on the draft resolution is to reconfirm the basic principles of the settlement of the conflict; to express support for the mediators and to encourage them to intensify efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in accordance with the norms and principles of international law, in particular those related to sovereignty and territorial integrity; and to give additional impetus to the peace process in order to prevent any possible impasse or stagnation in the negotiations. The international community should send a clear message that the acquisition of the territory of a sovereign State by force and the situation resulting from it will never be recognized as legal.

We hear a lot of advice stating that an agreement suitable to both parties must be negotiated. We would very much welcome a solution that would suit both parties. However, in order to achieve it, the parties must share the same ground, the same basis in the negotiations. Azerbaijan adheres to the norms and principles of international law and intends to negotiate on that very basis.

International law has determined a common denominator in the resolution of conflicts such as the one in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. That denominator is the principle of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and the inadmissibility of unilateral secession from a State. Self-determination must not violate territorial integrity and must not be considered as an invitation to separation. Unfortunately, we cannot draw the same conclusions from the actions by Armenia, which is trying to solidify the results of aggression and ethnic cleansing.

On the other hand, we do not see any prospects for continuing negotiations in an environment of legal uncertainty, in which so-called accomplished facts and circumstances are proposed as reference points. We are gravely concerned and alarmed at the lack of clear proposals from the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group with regard to the resolution of vital issues regarding the liberation of all of the occupied territories and the return of the Azerbaijani population to Nagorno-Karabakh, which are indispensable steps in the restoration of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The Co-Chairs have no right to deviate from the principle of territorial integrity for the sake of their notorious neutrality.

Speaking of neutrality, that position is widely used when it comes to this issue. But this neutrality is not a position but a lack of one. Rather, it is an attempt to hide a complete political will to take a position that would not mean taking the side of one party or the other, but taking the side of international law. There cannot be neutrality when the norms of international law are violated. Neutrality under such conditions means total disregard for those norms.

We have never made and could never make it our task to elaborate a draft resolution acceptable to Armenia, which does not demonstrate even a whisper of readiness to abandon illegitimate and meaningless territorial claims to Azerbaijan. We based our draft on the norms and principles of international law and in accordance with the concept of the settlement that has repeatedly been supported by the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group and that provides for the return of the population to their land and a determination of the legal status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region within Azerbaijan, with direct and equal participation of the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities residing there.

We cannot accept the proposition that the draft resolution will lead to a deterioration in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, simply because it is impossible for something that does not exist to deteriorate.

The argument that the draft resolution is unilateral and untimely cannot be accepted either. It is not and it cannot be so, because it was prepared in accordance with international law and, as such, is impartial. This draft resolution was prompted by the prevailing circumstances on both the regional and international levels, which have heightened our concern regarding the status of the settlement process. Therefore, the draft resolution is apropos and timely.

The draft resolution will play an important role in awakening Armenia, which still retains impunity and has become accustomed to this permissive environment. It is aimed at persuading Armenia towards the will and position of the international community. It would be counter-productive for Member States to reject support for the draft resolution; that would be interpreted in Yerevan as a sign that it can continue its destructive policy.

Azerbaijan values the position of the international community, which has unequivocally supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan strongly believes that at this crucial juncture in the United Nations reform process, the General Assembly, as the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations, will again prove its relevance and validity in dealing with any question relating to the maintenance of international peace and security and will articulate its position and address the issue of concern.

The consideration of the item is not only about voting for the draft resolution. It is not even about expressing political support for Azerbaijan's concerns. It is about boosting the principles and norms of international law. It is about supporting all Member States whose sovereignty and territorial integrity may be in danger at any time at this crucial and difficult period in international relations.

By supporting the draft resolution, Member States will confirm in deed their stated position with regard to adhering to the norms and principles of international law as the basis of the world order and inter-State relations. By taking this step, Member States will show their due respect for the foundations of and basis for friendly relations among States.

Today, approximately one million Azerbaijani refugees are desperately waiting for the position of the United Nations. I urge Member States, before taking action on the draft resolution, to think of the tens of thousands of refugees who have lived for more than a decade in tents under the open air. They are deprived of fresh water and hot food. Women give birth in passenger cars. A whole generation is growing up in the refugee camps. Infants are deprived of cradles, and women are deprived of maternity. These people, living in miserable conditions, are deprived of routine human happiness. Think of them before taking action.

Ms. Stiglic (Slovenia)

The European Union recognizes the right of Member States to bring issues to the attention of the General Assembly for consideration, subject to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the rules and procedures of the General Assembly.

However, the European Union believes that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group should retain the lead in settling the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. The EU fully supports the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group towards a peaceful, just and lasting settlement. The EU reiterates its support for all the principles, without exception, established within the Minsk Group and values the views of the Group's Co-Chairs.

The settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh issue is an important element of the European Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union and features prominently in the related action plans. In that context, we remain ready to support all steps which contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The European Union calls on the parties concerned to avoid any actions that could lead to heightened tensions and undermine the ongoing mediation efforts.

Mr. Wolff (United States)

The political-level representatives of France, the Russian Federation and the United States, as Co-Chairs of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group dealing with the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, jointly proposed a set of basic principles for the peaceful settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict to the sides in November 2007 on the margins of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Madrid. Those basic principles are founded on the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, including those related to refraining from the threat or use of force, the territorial integrity of States and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The proposal transmitted to the sides in Madrid comprises a balanced package of principles that are currently under negotiation. The sides have agreed that no single element is agreed until all elements are agreed by the parties.

Unfortunately, the draft resolution before us today selectively propagates only certain of those principles, to the exclusion of others, without considering the Co-Chairs' proposal in its balanced entirety. Because of this selective approach, the three OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries must oppose this unilateral draft resolution. They reiterate that a peaceful, equitable and lasting settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict will require unavoidable compromises among the parties that reflect the principles of territorial integrity, non-use of force and equal rights of peoples, as well as other principles of international law.

While the three Minsk Group Co-Chair countries will vote against this unilateral draft resolution, which threatens to undermine the peace process, they reaffirm their support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and thus do not recognize the independence of Nagorny Karabakh. At a time when serious clashes with loss of life have occurred along the line of contact, both sides must refrain from unilateral and maximalist actions either at the negotiating table or in the field.

Mr. Ripert (France)

As just stated by the representative of the United States of America on behalf of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, France, along with the other two Co-Chairs, will vote against the draft resolution that has been unilaterally presented by Azerbaijan. Our country would reaffirm at the same time our full support for the Common Position of the European Union on the question of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, as presented by Slovenia.

Mr. Akram (Pakistan)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe0' in position 1839: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg005-bk04-pa01">I have the honour to s...gnty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.</p>', 1839, 1840, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 1840
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg005-bk04-pa01">I have the honour to s...gnty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 1839