Azerbaijan, 2002

I should like first of

all to congratulate Mr. Jan Kavan on his assumption of

the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-

seventh session, and to express gratitude to Mr. Han

Seung-soo for his efforts as President during the fifty-

sixth session.

I also have pleasure in congratulating Switzerland

on becoming a Member State.

The United Nations, which is called upon to play

a leading role in ensuring international peace and

security, is currently undertaking a serious examination

of its ability to unify the efforts of Member States and

to organize efficient international cooperation in

confronting threats and risks that have a global

dimension.

The tragic events that occurred in New York one

year ago made all of us look at the world in a new way

and recognize the global interdependence of the

challenges of the new era. We must recognize that the

world itself has enabled the monster of terrorism to

develop by ignoring problems, turning a blind eye to

violations of the norms of international law, tolerating

aggression and failing to respond to threats caused by

the illegal actions of some States, by separatism and by

the proliferation of weapons. It is necessary for us to

learn lessons from the mistakes made and to launch a

broad offensive against terrorism on the basis of

common approaches.

Respect for a universal approach that does not

permit inconsistency, selectiveness or double standards

is an indispensable condition for global solidarity in

confronting terrorism. The legal basis of such an

approach must be set out in a comprehensive

convention to combat terrorism. No political, social,

ideological, religious or other reason can justify any of

the acts, methods or practices of terrorism. Effectively

counteracting terrorism and achieving its total

eradication demand the use of the broadest, most

complex approach, taking into consideration the

various aspects of the problem and its root causes.

It is obvious that terrorist groups recruit new

members and flourish most easily in an environment

characterized by economic and social degradation,

armed conflict, poverty, illiteracy and self-isolation.

The necessary resources should be mobilized to open

up new programmes of assistance to the developing

and less developed countries, and to expand existing

programmes. The implementation of United Nations

26

decisions on assistance for the sustainable development

and relaunching of economic growth in those countries

plays a major role. We need to take special note of the

need to render urgent international assistance to

Afghanistan.

Another important aspect in the eradication of

terrorism is the avoidance of inter-civilizational

tensions and the creation of a spirit of mutual respect

among religions and cultures. We support the trend

towards continuing and deepening the dialogue among

civilizations, and we stress its multifaceted nature. We

believe that the implementation of programmes in the

fields of education, information and cultural dialogue

among civilizations will facilitate the creation of

relations of mutual understanding and trust, which are

so greatly needed in order to resolve the common

problems faced by both the West and the East.

In this context, I would like to stress in particular

the importance of the international conference initiated

by Azerbaijan on “The Role of Religion and Belief in a

Democratic Society: Searching for Ways to Combat

Terrorism and Extremism”, to be held in cooperation

with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe (OSCE) on 10 and 11 October 2002 in Baku.

In the combat against international terrorism,

priority should be given to addressing militant

nationalism and aggressive separatism. Very often

terrorist groups of separatists and nationalists of

various kinds maintain close ties among each other and

are directly sponsored by States. The fight against

terrorism represents an extremely complex problem in

the so-called uncontrolled territories that have emerged

as a result of armed separatism and foreign aggression.

For 10 years now such an uncontrolled zone has

existed in that part of the territory of Azerbaijan

occupied by Armenia. Elevating the ideology of

aggressive nationalism, terrorism and territorial claims

to neighbours to the rank of State policy, the Republic

of Armenia, through direct interference in the internal

affairs of Azerbaijan, formed an armed separatist

terrorist group within the Nagorno-Karabakh region of

the Republic of Azerbaijan. This was followed by

open, armed aggression by Armenia against

Azerbaijan.

Armenia, which perpetrated ethnic cleansing

against the Azerbaijani people in their own territory in

1987 and 1988, in 1992 and 1993 occupied the entire

Nagorno-Karabakh region, expelling 60,000 native

Azerbaijani people. It has also occupied the territories

of another seven regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan,

thus bringing the total number of Azerbaijani refugees

to 1 million. Armenia now intends to consolidate the

results of its aggression and ethnic cleansing and to

tear away the Nagorno-Karabakh region from

Azerbaijan.

Armenia has tried to camouflage its annexationist

policy by appealing to the principle of the right of

peoples to self-determination. However, according to

international law, this principle can be realized only in

a peaceful way and in accordance with the principle of

territorial integrity. The right to self-determination

does not imply the unilateral right of secession and

should not lead to the disintegration of a sovereign and

independent State.

Furthermore, the Armenians residing in the

Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of

Azerbaijan can in no way be regarded as independent

subjects with the right to self-determination.

The assertion of the Armenian side that the

Nagorno-Karabakh region has never belonged to

Azerbaijan is equally groundless, as is its reference to

international law. Aside from the fact that appealing to

history in the context of the settlement of inter-State

conflicts is wrong, extremely dangerous and calls into

question the universality of the norms of the

international law, it must be noted that these statements

by Armenia are refuted by numerous historical official

documents.

Armenia, which often refers to the League of

Nations to justify its territorial claims, must remember

that, in its official documents, the League of Nations

expressed doubt as to the existence of a stable

government capable of representing Armenia and, what

is most important, certified Armenia's lack of clearly

defined borders.

The decisions of Armenia's Parliament on the

reunification of the Nagorno-Karabakh region with

Armenia and on the non-recognition of any

international document which mentions this region as

an integral part of Azerbaijan are illegal. Likewise, the

decisions taken by the illegal separatist regime in the

Nagorno-Karabakh region, the so-called referendums

and elections it held in a situation of war and the

forcible expulsion of the entire Azerbaijani population

cannot have any international legal validity.

27

Furthermore, Armenia itself has violated the right

of the Azerbaijani people to self-determination. In

accordance with the universally recognized

international legal doctrine uti possidetis juris, former

Union republics are recognized as new independent

States within borders previously existing within the

federations. These were the exact borders within which

the United Nations recognized Azerbaijan in March

1992, when it accepted our country as a fully fledged

Member of this universal Organization.

In 1993 the Security Council adopted resolutions

822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) on

the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. These resolutions

were adopted following each new stage of Armenian

aggression against Azerbaijan. The Council

unambiguously supported the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan,

confirmed its recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as an

integral part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and

resolutely demanded the immediate, full and

unconditional withdrawal of the Armenian forces from

the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the creation

of conditions for the return of refugees and displaced

persons. However, these demands by the Security

Council have so far not been implemented.

Those resolutions also contained a request to the

Secretary-General, the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and

the Chairman of the Minsk Group, to submit, in

implementing the mandate for the settlement of

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, reports on the situation

in the region to the Security Council. The last decision

stressed the request to provide information on the

process of the implementation of all four resolutions.

Regrettably, this request still remains on paper only.

Such a state of affairs cannot be beneficial for us; it

leads to the “discharging” of the settlement process

and, eventually, to a freezing of the situation at a

dangerous point of fait accompli of the occupation. The

non-implementation of Security Council resolutions

undermines its authority as well as people's belief in

justice and in the possibility of a peaceful political

settlement.

As is well known, in the annual resolution of the

General Assembly on cooperation with the OSCE, the

United Nations expresses its support for the efforts of

the regional organization and its Minsk Group, which

mediates the settlement of the conflict in and around

the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of

Azerbaijan.

How can we evaluate these decade-long efforts,

which have been under way since the establishment of

the Minsk Group at the Conference on Security and

Cooperation (CSCE) Ministerial Council held in

Helsinki in March 1992? While at the early stages of

the mediation the Minsk Group was putting forward

proposals on the elimination of the consequences of the

conflict, its present activities can be characterized as

following a “wait-and-see” policy against the

background of the negotiations, until the victimized

party accepts the conditions of the aggressor.

Such a position on the part of the mediators can

be regarded only as passive support for Armenia's fait-

accompli policy, which is unacceptable to us.

Azerbaijan, which remains committed to a

peaceful settlement of the conflict and to interaction

with the OSCE and its Minsk Group, sees an urgent

need for a new and resolute intervention by the

Security Council, which so far has not used its

potential effectively to contribute to the settlement of

the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

The current situation is explosive. Yes, the

ceasefire has been observed for eight years and

mediation activity is being maintained, but a real

peaceful settlement of the conflict has not occurred.

Azerbaijan will never agree to the legalization of

territorial seizures. Azerbaijan will never accept the

loss of a single inch of its territory and preserves its

right to undertake all the necessary measures stipulated

by the United Nations Charter to protect its sovereignty

and territorial integrity.

We call upon the Security Council to review the

existing situation, to make Armenia immediately

withdraw its armed forces from the occupied territories

of Azerbaijan and to engage in negotiations on defining

the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region within

Azerbaijan on the basis of the norms and principles of

international law. We call upon the Republic of

Armenia to heed the voice of reason and abandon its

pernicious policy of territorial claims against

Azerbaijan. The continuation of the occupation of

Azerbaijani lands and confrontation with Azerbaijan

will yield the Armenian people nothing but misfortune

and suffering.

The conflict not only substantially undermines

security in the South Caucasus region, but also

constitutes a major obstacle to establishing bilateral

and regional cooperation. This cooperation would have

28

provided benefits to all States in the region and played

a crucial role in strengthening their positions and

prestige in the international arena.

Making use of its natural resources and

favourable geographic location, Azerbaijan contributes

immensely to the development of the South Caucasus

region and in fact plays the role of engine in its

integration into the world system. According to data

released last year by the Statistical Office of the

European Communities, 52 per cent of the gross

product of the countries of the South Caucasus was

produced in Azerbaijan. A significant event, reaching

far beyond the South Caucasus borders, will take place

in three days: the ground-breaking ceremony of the

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the construction of

which will give rise to a vast investment flow into the

economies of the countries.

Armenia, by its actions against Azerbaijan, has

isolated itself from participation in this kind of

economic project. Yes, at every level Armenia declares

its willingness to cooperate with Azerbaijan, but in

Armenia's understanding, Azerbaijan must turn a blind

eye to the occupation of its territories and establish

economic relations with Armenia. I think members will

agree that hardly anyone could accept such a

suggestion, which in fact would represent appeasement

of the aggressor.

Seeking ways out of the present situation and to

unblock the process of conflict resolution, Azerbaijan,

demonstrating a constructive approach, has proposed to

Armenia that it withdraw its occupation forces from the

four occupied districts and that it subsequently restore

the main-line railway interlinking Azerbaijan, Armenia

and other countries of the region. Conceived as a

gesture of goodwill, this unique package of measures

for the partial elimination of the consequences of the

conflict and for the revitalization of cooperation would

significantly improve the negotiating environment and

public opinion in both countries. This proposal of

Azerbaijan, promising benefits for both parties to the

conflict and other countries of the region, enjoyed the

widest support of the OSCE and its Minsk Group, the

European Union and the Council of Europe. However,

when it came to taking practical measures, Armenia,

diligently demonstrating its commitment to peace and

cooperation, rejected this step towards confidence.

The situation of “no peace, no war” in the

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a time bomb and a

cause of despair for the people, first and foremost

refugees and internally displaced persons, who have

been violently deprived of their homes, left to bear the

most heavy burden of the consequences of the

aggression and are now losing patience and hope for

the restoration of their legal rights. As a result of

Armenia's aggressive actions, Azerbaijan currently

gives shelter to more than 1 million refugees and

internally displaced persons. In years past, great work

has been carried out to solve the refugees' problems,

with the assistance of international humanitarian

organizations, the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) above all.

At present, we feel that the urgent necessities for

targeted assistance are to provide medical institutions

with the necessary medical preparations and

equipment, to implement agricultural programmes, to

create jobs and to develop small-scale

entrepreneurship. We call upon UNHCR, other

international institutions and donor States to respond to

our problems and to mobilize resources for facilitating

their solution on the required scale.

Let me briefly touch upon the issue of United

Nations reform aimed at increasing the effectiveness

and practical results of the Organization's activities.

We have to determine a number of possible reforms,

among which the expansion of the Security Council

deserves particular mention. I would like to express the

hope that the broadest possible consensus on every

aspect of this issue will be reached. Greater balance

within the Council could have been provided with the

inclusion in its composition of influential developing

countries along with the developed ones. An increase

in representation within one of the United Nations

leading bodies — within rational limits — would have

reflected the realities of the time and the consideration

of broader interests in the solution of crucial issues

related to the maintenance of international peace and

security. With regard to the reform, we would wish

more democracy, action and compatibility with the

challenges of change.

I would like to believe that the reforms will

enable the United Nations to confirm its role as a

universal Organization capable of maintaining

international peace and security, preventing and

resolving regional conflicts, and confronting global

threats and risks under the new conditions of

globalization.

29