Straight Talk from the Homeland #27: we normally love what Eric Hacopian from CivilNetTV has to say. However, in this disgraceful broadcast ([ Ссылка ]), Eric states that #Artsakh's people could never live under Baku's rule [true], yet he pushes 'primary points' that include 'local' democratic governance, without once mentioning their inalienable right to self-determination!

Eric then discusses with a straight face an impossible scenario whereby Yerevan wants white, Baku black, but somehow 'international mediation' is supposed to guarantee this nonsense non-solution!

Even worse, Eric then insinuates that the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan includes Artsakh; yet the NKAO was never part of a sovereign Azerbaijan when it was first de jure recognised in 1991, and is thus a disputed territory (like Timor-Leste was a disputed part of Indonesia before it became independent).

The fundamental feature of 'territorial integrity' in accordance with Article 2 of the UN Charter is the protection of sovereign states from political interference or invasion by another [external] state. Territorial Integrity has nothing to do with the self determination rights of a people either within a state (like Kosovo for Serbia), or a people NOT part of a state after the fall of a previously federal nation (like Artsakh for the USSR).

And all of this without a mention that Yerevan has no right to determine Artsakh's status - only the people of Artsakh can do that.

Only discussing options of different types of ethnic cleaning assists the genocidal Azerbaijanis! I challenge Eric Hacopian to a debate on CivilNetTV to discuss this if he disagrees!

NOTES
1. A nation can only claim ‛territorial integrity’ if it is recognised as sovereign (territorial integrity is only applicable for an EXTERNAL threat or political interference)!
2. The self-declared Azerbaijan DR 1918-1920 wasn’t internationally recognised as de jure [legally] sovereign by the League of Nations or any state, not even by the Ottoman Empire (it was only accepted as a non-sovereign de facto delegate to the Paris Peace Conference).
3. The Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) was a non-sovereign province of the USSR.
4. Artsakh (NKAO) exercised its legal rights under A72 of the Soviet Constitution to separate provincially from the Azerbaijan SSR in 1988, leading to the Azeri authorities in Baku commencing pogroms to murder Armenians, and an invasion of the NKAO.
5. Before the fall of the USSR on 26 December 1991, #Artsakh exercised its rights to full independence of the USSR using the same law as #Armenia and Azerbaijan to achieve self-determination – rights now enshrined within international law under A1 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is ratified by Azerbaijan. Democratic Artsakh has a stronger legal case to be recognised as independent than separatist examples like Kosovo.
6. If there can never be any changes to internationally recognised borders, then Azerbaijan would not exist, as it was part of a sovereign Persian Empire. Moreover, just because the former NKAO’s borders are within Azerbaijan’s borders, does NOT mean it must be part of Baku’s territory, as sovereign Lesotho within South Africa testifies.
7. As Artsakh was never part of a sovereign Azerbaijan, it isn’t part of its territorial integrity; therefore, there is no ‛separatism’ involved and no need for ‛remedial secession’, both of which would be unpalatable for the international community to consider, following events in Ukraine.
8. However, there is a need for remedial reparations, following the multiple bloody genocidal pogroms, and invasions of Artsakh by Azeris in 1920, 1988-1994 and 2020.
9. The 1993 UN Security Council resolutions did not address the status of NKAO or even determine the extent of the territory concerned, as the UN Security Council mandated the OSCE Minsk Group to facilitate a peaceful settlement of the conflict in this officially disputed territory.
10. When post-Soviet leaders agreed to the December 21, 1991 Alma-Ata Protocol’s [non-binding] Preamble that recognised the ‟…territorial integrity of each other and inviolability of the existing borders” the ‛existing borders’ must therefore include the legally established borders of the former NKAO.

REFERENCES
UN Charter: [ Ссылка ].

The status of Artsakh and the non-recognised nature of the 'Azerbaijan DR 1918-20' (Section 4): [ Ссылка ]

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: [ Ссылка ]

Proposed Peace Plan: [ Ссылка ]

Twitter: @OriginsD
Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Website: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть