UN General Assembly reaffirms territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, demands withdrawal of Armenian Forces

Seriously concerned that the armed conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan continued to endanger international peace and security, the General Assembly today reaffirmed Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, expressing support for that country’s internationally recognized borders and demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories there.

By a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against (Angola, Armenia, France, India, Russian Federation, United States, Vanuatu), with 100 abstentions, the Assembly also reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Azerbaijani population to return to their homes, and reaffirmed that no State should recognize as lawful the situation resulting from the occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories, or render assistance in maintaining that situation. (See annex for voting details.)

At the same time, the Assembly recognized the need to provide secure and equal conditions of life for Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in the Nagorny Karabakh region, which would allow an effective democratic system of self-governance to be built up in the region within Azerbaijan.

Introducing the draft resolution, the representative of Azerbaijan said he did not accept the argument that the text was unilateral and untimely. It had been prepared in accordance with international law and was impartial. It had been prompted by unfolding circumstances, both regionally and internationally, which had heightened concerns over the status of the settlement process. It was, therefore, apropos and timely.

Meanwhile, he said, Azerbaijan was gravely concerned and alarmed at the lack of clear proposals from France, the Russian Federation and the United States, the co-chairs of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, under whose auspices talks had begun in 1992. The co-chairs had expressed in words their support for the objective of liberation for all the occupied territories and the return of the Azerbaijani population to Nagorny Karabakh, but by their deeds, they were trying to belittle that common endeavour.

The co-chairs had no right to deviate from the principle of territorial integrity for the sake of their “notorious neutrality”, he stressed. Neutrality was not a position; it was the lack of one. There could be no neutrality when the norms of international law were violated. Neutrality under such conditions meant total disregard for those norms. Four Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces from Azerbaijan, while the General Assembly’s dispatch of a fact-finding mission to the territories in early 2005 had confirmed Armenian settlement there.

Several delegates, speaking in explanation of position before the vote, expressed support for the text and for Azerbaijan’s just stance. They included the representative of Pakistan, who spoke on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), noting that the group had repeatedly called for the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from all the occupied territories, and for the peaceful resolution of the conflict on the basis of respect of territorial integrity and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders. OIC was deeply distressed by the plight of more than 1 million Azerbaijani displaced persons and refugees, and called for the creation of conditions for their safe return home.

Also speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States noted that the Minsk Group co-chairs had jointly proposed to the two sides last November a set of basic principles for the peaceful settlement of the conflict. The proposal comprised a balanced package of principles currently under negotiation. Today’s resolution did not consider the proposal in its balanced entirety. Because of that selective approach, the three co-chairs must oppose that unilateral text, which threatened to undermine the peace process.

However, he reaffirmed the negotiators’ support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and thus did not recognize the independence of Nagorny Karabakh. But, in light of serious clashes along the Line of Contact, which had occasioned loss of life, both sides must refrain from unilateral and excessive actions, whether at the negotiations table or in the field.

Calling the resolution a “wasted attempt” to predetermine the outcome of the peace talks, Armenia’s representative said that was not how responsible members of the international community conducted the difficult but rewarding mission of bringing peace and stability to peoples and regions. The co-chairs had found that the text did not help the peace talks; so had Armenia. Refugees and territories had been created by an Azerbaijan that had “unleashed a savage war against people it claims to be its own citizens”. Only when the initial cause was resolved would the fate of all the territories and refugees concerned be put right.

Others speaking before the vote were the representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), France, Uganda, Ukraine, China and Turkey.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote were the representatives of Indonesia, South Africa and Libya.

Azerbaijan’s representative also spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The General Assembly will meet again at a date and time to be announced.

Below please find the annex for information on countries that voted in favor or against this resolution.

ANNEX

Vote on Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan

The draft resolution on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan (document A/62/L.42) was adopted by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against, with 100 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Georgia, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

Against: Angola, Armenia, France, India, Russian Federation, United States, Vanuatu.

Abstain: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.

Absent: Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Source: UN.org

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “UN General Assembly reaffirms territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, demands withdrawal of Armenian Forces

  1. I believe that this is something of a defeat for Azerbaijan, since most voting for the resolution had a clearly subjective political agenda (either being in the OIC, or having territorial integrity problems of their own), and the fact that three of the seven voting against are the United States, Russia and France (besides being influential states, these are the chairs of the Minsk Group). Add to that a hundred abstentions, and forty-six absentees, and we end up with a document without much political clout, in my opinion.

  2. there’s no political clout but its a good document to use retroactively after a hypothetical “war of self defense against Armenian Aggression.”

  3. Nareg, do you work at the foreign ministry? Only they can call this a defeat for Azerbaijan.

    Seriously, though. How can it be a defeat if they got what they wanted? Had the resolution not passed, wouldn’t Armenia claimed a victory?

  4. Uhm, this thing is very symbolic, does nothing. Armenia is not required to do what they asked it to do, besides, the countries that were PRO were all Muslim states except Serbia, Ukraine and few other. As Nareg Said, US, Russia, India, France, DID not accept this, and this is a defeat for azerbaijan, since now they are looking for worsening their relationships with them. The fact is, THis document is NOTHING, its good for retarded Azeris who are being brainwashed there and will now say WE WON. yah right, they won, who cares tho?

  5. Careful Nazarian…if you make fun of the foreign ministry workers now, then they defect (after picking up their paycheck, trips to Tufts, and all the other perks), then you have to call them heroes and dance with them in the opera again. Embarrassing.

  6. This was clearly and surely a success for Azerbaijan. They mobilized effectively their 2 networks (OIC & GUAM). They also took the initiative when in a post-Kosovo period one could expect that kind of dynamism on the Armenian side.
    What networks can Armenia mobilize in general? Is our diplomatic corps really focused & effective? Aren’t they too much involved in the internal affairs? Didn’t they recently loose several high-ranking staff? Isn’t the time to change the Minister and restructure the Ministry?

  7. Sure this document is good for Azeris, but seriously was there anybody who doubted that such a resolution wouldn’t be passed by UN at this time. That is all they do, they pass resolutions like these, and then the job of the others is to ignore them. We shouldn’t classify this as a victory or defeat for any of the sides involved. In reality, the document doesn’t help in finding a peaceful solution to the problem, and if our side’s only hope was that such a resolution wouldn’t be passed then we should all packed our stuff and get out from Karabach long long time ago. The fact that we are still there and fighting means that our side did anticipate it coming, and there is really nothing unexpected in this resolution.

    The only thing that bothers me in that resolution is the historical lies that Azeri side included in the text of the resolution.

  8. Guys – on the international arena, this document might be insignificant, etc. However – this document serves more internal political purposes of Azerbaijan authorities. Now they will use it as a propaganda tool to further toughen the public stance in Azerbaijan, which means – they will become even less flexible at the discussion table. I guess at this point any attempts from the Armenian side to negotiate will be lost… unless we offer them Artsakh and the surrounding regions on a plate. With raging anti-Karabakhci moods here in Armenia, I’m very concerned about the future of Artsakh…

  9. I agree, they have already started the propaganda, just look at their newspapers.

  10. 1. Nareg are you serious? if yes, I suppose that the only thing you’ve read so far was Oskanian’s response. Look, no one cares who voted and how, the problem is there is now an official document approved by the UN, in a year nobody will remember who voted and how, but the document will be there
    2. May be the document doesn’t have lagally binding force, but it’s very useful for Azerbaijan, if it needs to justify lack of concessions on its side, and even using violence against Armenians
    3. Combined with the crackdown on democracy in Armenia and the international reactions to it, this can be a step on the way of Armenia getting a new statis as a rogue state.
    4. this once again shows that the current regime is incapable of dealing with the Karabakh issue, and without a major change in Armenia the future of Karabakh is endagnered

  11. ok I am not sure your logic is ok.

    I think it is important who voted and how. In as much as the passing of the non-binding resolution is a precedent, so is the voting on either side, and good diplomacy can make use of it.

    Hopefully one of the upshots of the recent and sad events in Armenia will be a final death to the politics predicated on the Great Karabakh Giveaway (aka Levon-led HHSh). Following the crackdown on the rioting and associated defection of now financially-fattened former MFA users (employees), hopefully Armenia can focus on the true enemy, ie outside its borders. Whether on not either of the “sides” acknowledge it, Armenia is technically in a state of war, blockaded by Az and Turkey. The sooner we are able to address this reality the better.

  12. About the UN Resolution:

    Let’s not make a big fuss about it. This was predictable and not worth fighting. All the Great Powers rejected it. Guuam and OIC have for a long time advocated this. They just made their presence known in the UN, voting for a non-binding resolution

    A united Armenian nation is the solution of the Karabagh problem.

    For that you need:

    Justice equality and gradually eradicating corruption.
    Destroying the cancer called Levon Ter Perosyan and making sure he and his ideas will not represent any danger in the next 100 years.

    The pro-Amenian solution of the Karabagh problem lies in those points. We have 80 per cent of Armenia on our side as demonstrated in the election. It is time to get the other 20% MOLORIALNER on board.

    I am very optimistic that this shock had to happen for a brilliant future to come in Armenia.

  13. Actually, a well written piece that should give everyone reason to pause and reconsider, regardless of the differences in our political flavors.

  14. I am not sure why bravo. Do you honestly believe that 70% percent of Armenia is behind these two idiots? Now they are trying to popularize this lie?

    True, they are better, much better, than Levon, but common, it cannot be that 70% voted for these two. Common, it is just unbelievable, I mean, it is more believable that there is a unicorn than that these two got 70%. You know, Bush hasn’t congratulated this guy yet, right? So I guess even he isn’t buying the numbers, though he is slow at everything, so maybe that is what he is doing.

    You know, it is just disgusting how this Serj thing is being portrait by the authorities. They basically saying he is a good guy and a lot of bad guys don’t like him. Common this is not a kindergarten. At any rate, I still have some shred of hope, that this guy might try to become at least a little bit likable.

  15. I think it’s worth pointing out that everybody is probably right. ;-)

    It’s a “success” in terms of publicity and internal politics for Azerbaijan, but it remains to be seen whether this affects Armenia’s position in the negotiations. Probably this and the state of emergency hasn’t helped much, but in October Azerbaijan will have its own election and so one guesses that it will also have enough to worry about in terms of international criticism.

    It should also be remembered that the UN Security Council has already passed resolutions demanding the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces yet nothing has been done to enforce them. To be honest, stability is the most important thing and not setting the basis for the resumption of hostilities and threatening economic and geopolitical interests in the region.

    Still, with this resolution and recent events in Yerevan, it gives Azerbaijan the ammunition it needs to attack Armenia — until October at least and if it has the ability. As others have commented, the most important countries (U.S., Europe etc) didn’t vote in favor. If and when they do, that’s the time to get worried. Also, if the international media start to focus on it.

    If they did that, as well as using Ter-Petrossian and the state of emergency, and Armenia – Karabakh is really in trouble. However, if Georgia and Armenia have had to declare state of emergency’s this year, I suppose we can expect something similar in Baku by the end of the year. Seems that the game is not one of who succeeds in democratization any more, but who can hold elections with the least amount of bloodshed.

    Regardless, I don’t think that focusing on Levon is going to help matters. With or without him, the Foreign Ministry has not been doing the greatest of jobs, and Azerbaijan has started to work harder in terms of lobbying and using international structures. Nevertheless, I agree, it seems to only be 39 countries out of 192 member states who supported Azerbaijan. Even the fact that 100 stayed neutral says a lot.

    BTW: Just to point out to avoid any confusion that the “ok” who comments above is not me (OK are my initials, but anyway, that’s not me — I always go by my name when blogging and commenting).

  16. Pingback: Global Voices Online » Azerbaijan: Karabakh Resolution

  17. The propaganda piece by Serzh and his lackey Baghdasaryan is just another laughable attempt by the regime to put the best face on the situation for the international community and those organizations who are presently taking a closer second look at the state of governance, or should we say mis-governance, in Armenia, where foreign per-capita foreign assistance ranks it among the top countries in the world.

    Again, it’s all about stability and the continuance of our government…and oh yes, we might listen to what the people have to say…they make so much fuss… How noble a gesture on your part Messrs Sargsyan & Baghdasaryan.

    The Karabakh issue remains no closer to a resolution because it plays into the hands of the regime not to be. Just read Sargsyan’s article to the Washington Post where he uses the Karabakh issue as a scapegoat. What fools……

  18. Ramik,

    Iam sure you too are realizing that your Fuhrer is running out of choices.This was his last chance to enter Armenian politics, but slowly and surely the international community is realizing that he is NOT for democracy, NOT for equality. He is a criminal who wants instability.

    All of us are Karabakhtsees! All of us are Armenians. But if you’d like to live as a slave of the Fuhrer you don’t have much time to decide.

    Bravo Serge bravo Artur. You showed the world that government and opposition are united.LTP is not opposition. He is a terrorist.

  19. GREAT NEWS:

    The parliament just approved a very good law concerning demonstrations, rallies and meetings:

    Any demonstration which calls for the destruction of constitutional order,promotes hatred against color, race, and nationality , or causes danger to the national security, health of citizens and and and… WILL BE FORBIDDEN from now on. ALSO:

    If demostrations organized by the same person/organizations and have caused riots and deaths previously WILL BE FORBIDDEN.

    The question remains:When and where will Kor Levon Efendi hold his next demo? In Georgia? In Azerbaijan? This law, which is nt undemocratic at all (many countries in Europe have a similar law) was the last nail in the coffin of the LTP mafia. No money, no demonstrations. Next meeting/demo ON THE INTERNET! Levon as president of Internet Armenians!

  20. This is the end of Armenian lie nd occupation. God damned you and damns you. It helped to kill the killers of Azerbaijanis; Demirchian, Vazgen, etc who went to hell. God did with the disgusting hands of terrorist armenians. Have you seen how they killed your prime minister? Let me describe it. By stabbing him at least 10 times on his head by Kalashnikov. Thanks God. You killed the terrorist with the hand of terrorist. The same will happen to son of a beach, Kocharian, Sergh Sarkissian, Bagdarasian and others.

    Armenians, actually I have good news for you. In Azerbijan we always used to say that Karabakh Armenians are actually Azerbijanis, i.e., children of Azeri men from armenian women.

    WHat happened in early March in Yerevan once more proved that, Kocharian and Sarkissian and Karabakh Armenians were indeed true Azerbaijanis dispatched to Armenia to kill real Armenians. :-))

    I am so happy.

    Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha, Atilla Raman

  21. Entertaining post, but sorry no one gets too incited by your racist, baseless, phony diatribe. Have a good one!

  22. Where did this Pasha idiot come from?

    His surname from his email (he left a comment on my blog a week or so ago) suggests Azerbaijan as does his comment.

  23. I love these azeri posts. They describe the situation in Azerbaijan so well. What a primitive people they are.

    I am just puzzled how can one be a son of a BEACH. It gives the impression that Kocharian is some kind of mythical figure.

  24. I called them son of a beach, becuase they were made from affairs on the Caspian sea beaches. :-))

    Grigor and others, don’t worry. Karabakh armenians, oh sorry I meant Azerbaijanis Kocharian and Sarkissian will reach the end of armenia (this is a Turkish words, apologies) I meant hayastan.

    Enver Pasha Atilla Raman

  25. Enver Pasha, Levon Pasha what’s the difference?

    But if what your’e doing is comedy , then you are really not funny and pretty boring.

    Payqar Levoni dem!

Comments are closed.