(MENAFN- AzerNews)
Elnur Enveroglu
Read more
Pashinyan wants everything but peace. These views were reflected
in the interview of the Presidential Representative for Special
Assignments Elchin Amirbekov to the famous German newspaper Berline
Zeitung.
Now a new public opinion is being formed - What is the reason
for the delay of peace in the South Caucasus?
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's statement that "We are
ready to sign peace with Azerbaijan" is more like throwing dust in
someone's eyes than reality.
When asked by a journalist how Baku feels about the statement by
the Armenian ambassador to Germany that Armenia is ready to sign a
peace agreement with Azerbaijan "as early as next Monday",
Amirbekov responded that he very much doubts the sincerity of this
statement. The proposal to sign an unfinished, half-baked agreement
even tomorrow is not only unrealistic and unacceptable, but also
misleading. The parties still have to agree on several important
provisions of the draft agreement that remain open, without which
the document will be raw and incomplete.
Let's take a look at the elementary constitution of Armenia,
which reflects the territorial claim against Azerbaijan, and the
position of official Yerevan on it.
According to Armenia, the constitution is its internal issue and
this issue can be resolved only by the will of the people. In
addition, Pashinyan states that the amendment to the constitution
can be considered only when the next referendum is held in
2027.
Another issue is Pashinyan's approach to the implementation of
clause 9 of the November 10 agreement, which creates a new
atmosphere of tension between the next parties. Pashinyan claims
that the November 10 agreement was considered valid as long as
there were peacekeeping forces in Garabagh. However, since there
are neither peacekeeping forces nor Armenians in Garabagh,
according to Pashinyan, this agreement is considered void.
But what does international law say about it?
Territorial integrity refers to the territorial 'oneness' or
'wholeness' of the State. As a norm of international law, it
protects the territorial framework of the independent State and is
an essential foundation of the sovereignty of States. Moreover,
Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations provides –“All
Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
However, despite all these laws, Nakhchivan is still separate
from Azerbaijan and is still under blockade. According to the laws,
Armenia must open the Zangazur corridor, which unconditionally
connects the mainland with Nakhchivan. This does not reflect
Azerbaijan's territorial claim against Armenia, but instead
implements international laws.
Despite all this, Azerbaijan does not want to stop peace talks
with Armenia standing over Zangazur. Because, unlike Armenia,
Azerbaijan is loyal to the peace agreement.
“Azerbaijan still attaches great importance to its opening, but
by agreeing to its withdrawal from the framework of the peace
agreement, it proceeded from the desire not to give our ill-wishers
an extra reason to use the unresolved nature of this problem to
criticize the Azerbaijani side as undermining the overall progress
in the negotiations on the peace agreement,” Elchin Amirbekov added
in his answer to the journalist's question.
Thus, it can be concluded that the main problem preventing peace
is its constitution, which keeps Armenia's territorial claim
against Azerbaijan in permanent force. What is important for
Azerbaijan is for the Armenian side to give up these claims and
thereby make the peace long-lasting.
In response to a journalist's question about whether, in order to
speed up the achievement of results, the parties agreed to put the
issue of opening the Zangazur corridor outside the framework of the
peace agreement, and whether it is possible to similarly postpone
the amendment to the Armenian constitution until, after the signing
of the peace agreement, the President's representative responded
that it is absolutely wrong to draw a parallel between these two
issues, since they are completely different in their importance for
achieving lasting peace.
MENAFN20102024000195011045ID1108799256
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.