The long-lasting conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Karabakh economic region of Azerbaijan has ended with a trilateral agreement signed on 10 November 2020, with the mediation of the Russian Federation. It has settled several conditions, and prerequisites for future negotiations, as well as unanswered questions on the issue of border demarcation and delimitation. Before mentioning that, we have to look back to the early 90s, when the first Karabakh war erupted, and resulted in the loss of thousands of lives on both sides. The cost of conflict and occupation, namely the economic and environmental damage hasn't been calculated, and officially scrutinized by the government of Azerbaijan before the international bodies.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Meanwhile, on 23 September 2021, the Republic of Azerbaijan filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Armenia concerning alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 before the International Court of Justice. The Court ordered a provisional measure and asked Armenia to prevent the incitement and promotion of racial hatred, including by organizations and private persons in its territory, targeted at persons of Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin.

However, the cost of lives, human tragedy, and crimes against civilians have not been properly addressed by international tribunals. And, one of the painful pages of the conflict is missing Azerbaijani people from the early 90s, with more than 4000 in total.

It is worth mentioning that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and elements of racial hatred have been committed not only in 2020 but in 1992-93s during the first Karabakh War. This fact has been documented both by international and national civil society groups (Memorial, etc), and respective international bodies, such as ICRC, etc.

According to official data, around 4000 Azeris missing in the first Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Despite the official request, public statements, and messages during the official trilateral meetings between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and European Union, the Armenian side has not delivered any concrete response, or official will to start the investigation, or ask for international support for the finding of missing people, or discover the place of mass graves of Azerbaijani soldiers, and civilians.

For the first time, it has been officially supported by the official persons of the European Union, as the President of the European Council Charles Michel has made a press statement on the outcomes of a trilateral meeting with the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan in Brussels on 31 August 2022. It was emphasized that a detailed discussion on humanitarian issues, including demining, detainees, and the fate of missing persons has been held.

On 4 October 2022, there have been discovered three sites of mass graves in the village of Edilli of Khojavand district. According to Forensic Exanimation and Pathological Anatomy Association, a total of 6 skeletons were discovered in the first and second sites and 12 skeletons were found in the third site. Based on forensic and anatomic expertise, it is proved that these are the skeletons of military servicemen with clothes and boots resembling black leather, knives, cigarette ends, and cartridge cases. As an example of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, most of them had their legs tied with wire and rope.

Under international humanitarian law, the prohibition of enforced disappearance was recognized as a rule of customary law. As an obligation, the government of Armenia is obliged to document the cases and inform the requesting country with proper information on the numbers and place of mass graves, personal data, and comprehensive information containing investigation and prosecution of war crimes.

Still, there are small efforts remaining for the government of Armenia for the sake of restoring justice, through disclosing the relevant data on missing persons, hoping for creating future peaceful neighborhoods and building confidence between the societies.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Time to find the missing from the Karabakh war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Indeed, the Helsinki Final Act (1975) reaffirms the people's rights to self-determination on the basis of the UN Charter, with relevant norms of international law, including those relating to the territorial integrity of the states. However, it is necessary to examine the current territorial conflicts in the light of increasing trends of separatist and nationalist conflicts in some post-soviet countries.

At the global level, the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted numerous resolutions that contained an implicit reference to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. These resolutions affirmed the principles of territorial integrity and political independence of the UN member states and sought full respect for the principles. Accordingly, the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by means of the resort to force shall be seen as a wrongful act and occupation in the global sphere.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, it is controversial to claim self-determination due to the existing nature of the international political system, as well as current global trends on advancing the state's sovereignty.  Going back before the conflict, until 1918, there was neither Armenia nor a sovereign state called Armenia in the South Caucasus.

In May 1918, when Armenia had been established in the South Caucasus, the Armenian people exercised their rights to self-determination in the territory of Azerbaijani city of Irevan, which historically belonged to Azeri people, such as Irevan khanate, and mainly constituted the current territory of Armenia. There were two 'people's of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani and Armenian community lived together over the decades during the Soviet times until the rise of provocation followed by an escalation in the early 1990s.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijani people living in the Soviet Republic of Armenia were forcefully deported and settled in Azerbaijan as a result of "Armenization" policy supported by Stalin's resolution dated of Dec. 23, 1947 (Resolution by the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the resettlement of Azerbaijani kolkhoz members and other Azerbaijanis from the Armenian SSR to the lowlands of the Kur and Araz river). Summarizing the historical background, it is worth noting that neither Armenian claim for self-determination nor the occupation shall lead to the violation of international law, as well as a demonstration of force against the international community.

Both parties to the conflict have argued several options for the settlement in relation to the national minorities and local communities. The Armenian government has been a long time denied its participation during the first Karabakh war in 1991-94, and claimed that 'local' armed forces consisted of Armenians living in Karabakh.

However, in the case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (13216/05) the European Court of Human Rights noted that "it could not conclusively establish the composition of the armed forces that occupied NK during the conflict (Chiragov, para. 173), but the involvement of Armenian forces was nonetheless confirmed by a Human Rights Watch report and the statement of Armenian officials."

Therefore, it is obvious that the international community has accepted the state of Armenia as a party to the conflict, and explicitly underlined the importance of binding international legal documents that require a sharp definition and respect to the internationally recognized borders of the states.

In his previous statement, Armenian PM Pashinian stated that a resolution of this conflict should be acceptable for all people of the Karabakh.

Here, the term "acceptable" can be seen in various forms from the point of view of parties. However, in his later speeches, the prime minister called for the reunification of Armenia with Karabakh, which leads to explicit ignorance of peace processes and damaged the previous efforts made by the international mediators.

Meanwhile, he has recently pointed out that there is not any political option for the solution of this conflict.  Instead, Azerbaijan has clearly introduced its position by reaffirming its will for peaceful settlement upon satisfaction of the following conditions: Firstly, the conflict zone should be de-militarized by Armenia which means that Armenian troops must be withdrawn from the Nagorno-Karabakh and its adjunct seven regions; Secondly, IDPs should be back in their homes and live peacefully with the Armenian community; lastly, the further status for the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan can be defined by the equal participation of both communities.

In the meantime, the international community has already demonstrated its clear position. Based on the latest communications and messages from both Russia and the US officials, it is obvious that there is a commonly accepted position and compromise on the importance of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and confirming the peace-enforcement operations in Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to the interview with Kay Bailey Hutchison, a US Permanent Representative to NATO, the conflict "needs to be settled on the issues of the boundary lines and the sovereignty issues'. In addition to this, during the meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin with members of the Valdai Discussion Club, by stressing that 'they understand that a situation where Azerbaijan has lost a substantial part of its territory cannot continue' shall be understood as an admit for the peace-enforcement operations by Azerbaijani army in Karabakh.

Another rhetoric by the local actors, as well as regional powers, has to be formulated with the perception of territorial integrity. Why this is so important?

The Western community, especially the US and the EU might demonstrate a clear position and deliver a concrete message in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of full respect to territorial integrity in line with the binding treaty obligations. Such a position also would be beneficial in terms of contributing to the solution of similar territorial conflicts in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. Consequently, taking a positive role in the conflict resolution process would lead to fewer bloodshed outcomes in future escalations.

Without any doubt, it is clear that the line of contact in Karabakh can be considered as a line between geopolitical streamlines, as one side is represented by Russia, Iran, and Armenia, jointly ally with political and military means against another side, represented by Azerbaijan, Israel, and Turkey, which have been supporting a fair approach towards the settlement of the conflict. This line of interest also shares the common agenda on protecting allies from all kinds of threats, military occupation, and political challenges.

The EU's leverage on the EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Armenia relationship, especially in the recent Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Armenia defines the limits of partnership and security aspects of the region. These bilateral partnership tools demonstrate to what extent the EU can use its soft power, or support people-to-people contacts that might decrease the escalation in the future.  Despite the high level of bilateral and multilateral cooperation efforts and achievements with the Eastern Partnership countries, the main security dimension is lacking. The EU was not able to stabilize the neighborhood and to reduce Russia's increased pressure and hybrid threat in the region.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

A recent European Commission communication, and Joint Staff Working Document on Structured Consultation on the future of the Eastern Partnership calls for a stronger EU role in existing frameworks for unresolved conflicts. Apparently, the EU does intend to assist in a broad and effective way rather than leave a vacuum for third-party intervention in its neighborhood.

In spite of all efforts made by the EU institutions, Russia's involvement in frozen conflicts remains the main security challenge for the whole European Neighborhood Policy. In order to eliminate external threats, the EU should adopt a rapid and tangible approach without any political discrimination. The question here is whether the EU will use its leverage to pressure on Armenia for the immediate withdrawal of its troops from the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan or to allow Russia to establish a backyard in a conflict zone, as it made in the Donbas example. The international community has little time to think and decide!

The post The importance of territorial integrity versus 'self-determination' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Despite the lack of political will and poor economic conditions, the majority of citizens of these countries are keen on advancing their reforms for better political development and economic welfare.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

It is worth mentioning that Azerbaijan has been suffering from separatism and occupation of 20% of its internationally recognized territories since 1991, when the first Karabakh war erupted. This war gave way to as an increased role by external actors in domestic policy, especially as a direct result of the support of separatist groups by the Armenian government and Russian-backed military forces.

The same scenario was tested in Georgia in 2008, in the so-called "Pridnestrovie Republic of Moldova" and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Indeed, the establishment and presence of Russian-backed separatist regimes in these countries bred regional terrorist violence which has become a major threat to international security.

The Eastern Partnership region needs sustainable security conditions and a more adequate response from the global governance actors, such as the United Nations, the European Union, and the G20. However, there are several conditions that need to be taken into consideration.

Within the international community, the OSCE Mink Group was created to mediate the negotiation between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh region and surrounding seven districts during 1991-94. Unfortunately, France, the US and Russia as co-chairs of the Minsk Group could not deliver sustainable negotiations based on the norms and principles of the international law, as well as the law prescribed by the UN Security Council.

This aspect can be elaborated in the context of nonbinding effect of soft power in the mediation and absence of political will for prospective long-lasting peace. All attempts to solve the conflict ended up with securing the current status-quo – continuous occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding districts – which is not in the interest of Azerbaijan in terms of having real outcomes. In the meantime, Armenia has been receiving military support from Russia, with intensifying transport of arms and equipment since July 2020, which caused a massive militarization of the region and preparation for war.

Russian presence in Armenia also creates another security challenge for both Azerbaijan and Georgia, which the latter also having continued territorial conflict with Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Meanwhile, several social media sources reported that the Russian has been transporting arm and military vehicles through Iran for delivering to Armenia since the start of anti-terror operations.

EU's toxic differentiation position

The European Union remains the main regional actor in terms of political leverage and economic partner for Azerbaijan, as it is the country's leading foreign trade partner. However, the difference in the political approach to the several conflict zones in the Eastern Partnership region needs to be on the same page and treated equally. For example, the EU has been openly calling Russia an aggressor in relation to Ukraine, Georgia, and somehow blaming in the case of Transnistria in the Republic of Moldova.

However, the same rhetoric lacks in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh. The major challenge here is to adopt and implement multilateral policies and programs on the basis of equal treatment. The EU needs to name and shame the aggressor in all partner countries, which is the only way to attract more stakeholders for the integration. Therefore, the whole society and government in Azerbaijan expect the united, clarified, and intensified efforts by the EU for meaningful settlement of the conflict on the basis of the territorial integrity of sovereign partners and adherence to the global security order.

The negotiation process under the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group has been going on for over 25 years, without any concrete steps for further defining the settlement process. These hollow efforts have triggered a mistrust between parties. All global governance actors, including the UN and the EU's efforts on this matter, had failed due to lack of political will in Armenia, and later on, Pashinian's nationalist and militarist messages left no room for the negotiations in further steps.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that an "occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The problem here is related that ethnic Armenians from other countries who are not deemed to be Armenia's own civilian population. While they are obviously trying to bend the rules, ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991) should not be forgotten in the interpretation of the actions and rules which its Article 22(2)(b) considers "the establishment of settlers in occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory" as an "exceptionally serious war crime."

So, the main element is the intention to make a demographic change with the transfer and settlement of the population in the occupied territories. If Armenia wants to achieve peace in the region, this long-lasting practice should stop immediately.

As a result of civilian shelling by the Armenian armed troops on Sept. 27, dozens of civilians were killed and injured. This can be seen as an ultimate attack on international law, and a breach of the Geneva Convention.

Such attacks by Armenia have been observed since escalation along the contact line intensified. Azerbaijan decided to respond accordingly, based on the UN Charter, and exercise its right for the use of force in anticipation of armed attack. Based on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which stipulates an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense as the victim of continuous occupation, Azerbaijan now realizes self-defense measures.

This time, military operations aimed to liberate the Azerbaijani lands under occupation are accepted as an integral part within its recognized sovereign borders and affirmed by UN Security Council resolutions. Thus, the current military operations shall be seen as a legitimate aim for establishing the regional security order, respect to countries' sovereign borders, and one seeking to avoid future ethnic cleansing.

In conclusion, resolution of the conflict should be seen as a means for the future democratic development and Euro-integration and as well as respect to international law and enforcement of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Time to advance global security in Nagorno-Karabakh appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.