The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought with it regional security concerns in several countries, especially in the current Eastern Partnership region. In this regard, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine have been dealing with separatism and security challenges, as well as trying to formulate policy with regard to the European integration dimension.
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!
