Minsk subtext

The visit of foreign ambassadors in Baku to Fizuli and Shusha and the absence of ambassadors of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries once again reflected their approach to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Their exceptional role in the deepening of the occupation over the years as a result of the "policy of caressing Armenia's head" has already been accepted by the Azerbaijani society as an undeniable fact.

From this point of view, the statement made by the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, in recent days in Shusha is absolutely true and it is also directly reflected by the behaviors of the co-chairing countries before the war, during the war, and after the war. "The course of current events, the period of the Second Karabakh War, and the actions of international forces show that this issue could never be resolved through negotiations. Because they wanted us, the Azerbaijanis, to live with this situation. They tried to present this situation, that is, the frozen conflict, as an option without an alternative," I. Aliyev said.

The approach of the co-chairs in the talks is not based on international law, but on the ways to implement the Armenian demands. From this point of view, the co-chairs acted as lawyers for the Armenian side. The co-chairs, which are in an antagonistic position on deep-rooted international issues, including on separatist forces in Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, have reached a full consensus on the Armenian issue. The basis of the consensus was to prevent the formation of any international coalition against Armenia and to ensure maximum Armenian demands. International law or the resolutions of the UN Security Council were two things they did not want to see or hear. When we talked about the resolutions of the UN Security Council, they said "these resolutions were adopted in 1993 at the height of the war" (??? surely, it should not have been accepted in peacetime...) and thus questioned their importance… The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of one of the co-chairing countries, which used this expression more often, distorted the resolutions, saying "these resolutions were aimed at stopping military operations." When another argument was put forward, the other co-chair said, "Go and let the UN liberate your lands." Since the provisions of existing international law do not allow the occupier and the co-chairs to carry out their projects, they have taken a futile approach to the "peace plan" by making vague statements that provoke conflict and controversy rather than a solution.

For example, the principle of self-determination included in the Madrid Principles by them was an attempt to create a legal basis for the Armenian side to legitimize the occupation. They probably knew that no national or international law, convention, or declaration gives an ethnic group or national minority within an existing sovereign state the right to self-determination, which is aimed at secession. If any law gave such a right, they would not have asked it from Azerbaijan. The Minsk Group co-chairs signed the dismemberment of Azerbaijan with the "peace process" by writing the principle of self-determination in the peace plan. If this were not the case, then it would be written as internal self-determination. Writing the term in this form has been intended for negotiation and deadlock for hundreds of years. All this was clearly stated by Turkish President Erdoğan: "The co-chairs did everything they could to deadlock the issue." It follows from this approach that according to the co-chairs, after ethnic cleansing, occupation, war crimes, Khojaly and Garadaghli events, Armenians gained the right to self-determination. (???) Did they gain the right to self-determination by destroying cities and villages, removing the dead from cemeteries, and throwing their bones?

Even now, one of the former co-chairs still shouts from afar every day that Azerbaijan's position that "the conflict is over, there will be no so-called status" will never be accepted by the international union. Still, he considers himself the international union and speaks on its behalf. If this continues like that, the former and current co-chairs will become spokesmen for Armenia's territorial claims or separatist elements.

I would like to convey to the readers what they have served in the end by providing many details of the interview given by a co-chair, whom I do not want to name, a few years ago about the achievements of the co-chairs over the last 20 years. In his interview, he highlighted three important achievements of the co-chairs and a number of results.

As the first important achievement, he showed that the Minsk Group had become a factor of stability in the region, reducing tensions between the parties to the conflict and preventing war.

As the second important achievement, he asserted that the parties did not have the ability to communicate with each other, that they did not speak to each other, and that the Minsk Group conveyed their words to each other.

As the third important achievement, he said that a framework document had been prepared but he also admitted that it was not accepted.

The most important result was that "all three co-chairs worked together and speak with one voice, and there was close cooperation between the three co-chairs."

The second important result, according to him, was that 20 years later, the Co-Chairs realized that everything depended on the parties. At that time, in response to the journalist’s question about the loss of legitimacy of the OSCE, our co-chair friend claimed that the problem was not related to the Minsk Group or the co-chairs, and in his opinion, "the Nagorno-Karabakh issue was very complicated."

In response to a reporter's question, "Despite all this, the issue is not resolved," the co-chair said, "It is important for us that the peace process continues, not the result," and "We are now in a better situation between the parties than we were in 1992." Then he expressed doubts that the Armenians would leave the districts around Nagorno-Karabakh.

Then let the readers answer. When the Minsk Group was established in 1992, all the lands of Azerbaijan, including Shusha and Lachin, were in place. He indifferently said that the current situation was better than in 1992, that there was stability, that there was no war, that the parties were talking through them; however, "the issue was very complicated," and the process was important, not the result...

The unified position of this trio was expressed by the covert policy of the Armenian occupation and the "peace process", which is its umbrella. An open demonstration of this did not raise any questions after the March 2008 vote in the UN General Assembly...

Second, for 28 years, the co-chairs have been hiding the houses, villages, cities, infrastructures, religious and cultural facilities, and cemeteries destroyed by the Armenians from the world community under the guise of a "peace process" and angrily preventing any international organization from intervening in the region. It is well known that they voted against Azerbaijan in the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly, reacted angrily to the decisions of the Council of Europe and did their best to prevent a decision, tried to separate Azerbaijan in the documents on the territorial integrity of the countries of the region at NATO Summits, and blocked the efforts of the European Union.

Now the Azerbaijani soldiers have exposed all these atrocities to the world, and we and the whole world are facing a real hell. From this point of view, to visit Shusha was to witness the life destroyed on the way to Shusha, war crimes, to witness Fuzuli, which was wiped off the face of the earth. By concealing all this and preventing the involvement of international organizations, the co-chairs concealed the actions of Armenian war criminals and indirectly demonstrated their solidarity with the Armenians. Therefore, their non-participation in this visit also serves to reveal their cooperation with the Armenians. The scene they knew and hid is now in front of everyone's eyes... Only the Armenian side and the co-chairs were fully acquainted with the situation in the occupied territories, and in this regard, they did not want other international organizations to see it because their corrupt policies were exposed.

All this is confirmed by the report of their two fact-finding missions in 2005 and 2010. Because at that time, the issue raised by the Azerbaijani state in the UN General Assembly in connection with the UN fact-finding mission on the settlement and destruction of the occupied territories was taken with the intervention of the co-chairs and given to the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. A large sum of money was allocated for this mission under their leadership, and they spent the night in Stepanakert in the evenings, traveled to the occupied territories in the morning, collected "facts" and, six months later, prepared a report on complete lies and cover-ups.

What facts did the fact-finding mission reveal? Where is the list or report of cities and villages, religious and cultural objects, infrastructure that have been wiped off the face of the earth? Is at least 1% of this catastrophe now seen by the whole world reflected there? No, it did not. Although the 2005 report insignificantly stated that there was a settlement in the occupied territories, albeit in vague language, the 2010 report did not address the issue at all and has completely covered up the issue and infrastructure in the language of "no radical change" since then. Then it turned out that the Armenians had built only 34 HPPs in the occupied territories. War crimes in the area - the destruction of all civilian objects - did not occupy any place in any report. The four-word, half-sentence vague statements about the demolition of houses in the 36-page report of the mission that prepared the report did not take place in the report submitted by the Co-Chairs, who had the last word. When I asked one of the co-chairs I invited to the conference in Istanbul in 2013 why such a report was written, he said among other things, "It is impossible to include what we see in the report, and if it is done, Azerbaijan will have privileges in the talks." False reports were their method of work.

Another issue is that in the summer of 2006, Armenians set fire to areas along the line of contact and demolished half-destroyed houses. They themselves openly stated that they were doing this for military purposes so that Azerbaijan could not use these territories and houses against us. The OSCE fact-finding mission, set up in September at Azerbaijan's request, went there and released a report in 2007: "In winter, the weather was very rainy, and in summer, there was a favorable environment for fires, and fires broke out, and the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh could not put out the fires due to lack of modern equipment." According to the report, the rain fell only along the Armenian side of the 160-kilometer line of contact, and the weather was warm along the line controlled by them. If this report had been written by the Armenians, it would have been more objective.

The fact-finding missions led by the co-chairs are the biggest international fraud of the last century. Because before their eyes, all civilian infrastructure, religious and cultural facilities, cemeteries, of which area was almost equal to the territory of the Lebanese state, were destroyed as a war crime. And they covered it all up. In this regard, their activities are the biggest political corruption and bear legal responsibility. We must now demand that the co-chairs respond directly to the 2005 and 2010 reports. The results of the report show that they somehow collaborated with the aggressor and prepared false reports that concealed the consequences of the occupation. We must raise this issue in the international political arena and find legal ways to hold them accountable.