Presentation of the “OSCE Call for Action: Reaffirming a Common Purpose”
A parliamentary contribution to strengthening the OSCE
December 3, 2020
Dear Mr. President,
Distinguished participants,
Taking into account the importance of today’s discussions touching upon the future work of the OSCE and its institutions being the most inclusive regional security organization , I would like to share my views on regarding the OSCE’s approach towards the conflict prevention and resolution.
The main question is that why the OSCE is not enough capable to resolve conflicts in its space and play predominant role in effectively addressing them?
Why does the diplomacy fail in the field of conflict resolution?
What are the reasons?
I am going to shortly explain 3 reasons of failure on the example of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and try to find some answer to these legitimate questions:
The first reason:
The OSCE and its Parliamentary Assembly on many occasions failed to address equally and fairly all illegal military occupation and aggression taken place in OSCE area by one participating country against another one as a matter of fact. In cases of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova we had always witnessed that the fact of occupation of their territories was reflected in all relevant documents and resolutions of OSCE and PA which is good and correct.
But when it came to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan which also deserved to be mentioned in all relevant documents, for some unjustified and unacceptable reasons the OSCE and the Assembly refrained from mentioning that obvious case, naming Armenia as occupant state, despite the relevant Resolutions of the UN Security Council, as well as norms and principles of international law.
I had a feeling that there is a sort of notion of “good” occupant and “bad” occupant for OSCE and its Assembly.
The second reason:
The OSCE and its Assembly in connection with Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict failed to properly demonstrate its adherence to the norms and principles of international law particularly the ones regarding the territorial integrity, sovereignty and inviolability of the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
I very well remember how much effort I spent to convince the bureau, president and secretary general of our Assembly to be impartial and to make due reference in our statements to the relevant UN resolutions unambiguously supporting Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and political sovereignty as basic principles on which conflict must be settled.
Until these double standards exist, OSCE will be far from being an effective mechanism for conflict prevention and resolution, no matter how often we pledge or adopt decisions to this end.
The third reason:
The impunity of aggressor country. If a country doesn't bear any responsibility and remain unpunished for its military aggression, war crimes and act of genocide, then it leads to some other serious consequences, paving the way for continuing such crimes. Armenia is a good example of joining impunity causing to unprecedented level of disrespect to all the norms and principles of international law. For the last two years Armenia not only undermined negotiations, but also threatened Azerbaijan to start “a new war for the new territories”.
But international community did nothing to stop Armenia according to the established practice while rightly imposing the economic and political sanctions on Russia for damaging territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Even though, not a single initiative was put forward by the OSCE and PA to condemn the war crimes of Armenia committed against Azerbaijani civilians located far away from the conflicting zone during the hot phase of the last military operations.
It is deplorable that France, co-chairing country against all international legal norms, its mandate and obligations unilaterally supports Armenia and its Senate went forward by adopting controversial and unlawful resolution calling on French government to recognize the illegal regime established by Armenia long ago in our already deoccupied lands.
So, how can we understand it ? How does it help to eliminate the acts of aggression of one state against another one?
Dear colleagues,
It is also interesting to note that despite the geopolitical disagreements, all the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group had a single approach towards the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
Regretfully, the Minsk Group co-chairs failed to be objective and fair mediator.
On contrary co-chairing countries rendered all possible support to Armenia including political protection, financing and arming to make it more capable in attacking Azerbaijani civilians.
Unfortunately, this is the real reasons why diplomacy is failed to find peaceful and negotiated solutions to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
Because of all the mentioned facts, Azerbaijan was left with no other choice except the military operations putting an end to a 3 decades-long occupation.
Dear colleagues,
From now the OSCE should give a proper assessment to this historical lesson.
I do sincerely hope that we will witness a more fair and decisive position of the OSCE and the PA on such issues, refraining from double standards and selective approaches.
The 1975 Helsinki Final Act, 1990 Paris Charter and the UN Charter should remain in the core of the OSCE’s work.
We have to make the OSCE and its Assembly a platform where all countries are treated equally and fairly, where all values, norms and principles are prevailed.
Thank you.
