LEGAL CONFERENCE SEEKS TO BOLSTER AZERBAIJAN'S

C O N F I D E N T I A L BAKU 000376

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/CARC AND L

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/18/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV PBTS AM AJ
SUBJECT: LEGAL CONFERENCE SEEKS TO BOLSTER AZERBAIJAN'S
POSITION ON FROZEN CONFLICTS

REF: 07 BAKU 1407

Classified By: POL/ECON CHIEF JOAN POLASCHIK PER 1.4(b,d).

1.(C) Summary: International legal experts at an April 14-15
conference on "Basic Principles for the Settlement of the
Conflicts
on the Territories of the GUAM States" overwhelmingly
endorsed the
GOAJ's position that NK and the other frozen conflicts should
be
solved on the principle of territorial integrity, rather than
self-determination. Although Deputy Foreign Minister Araz
Azimov
criticized the Co-Chairmanship's domination of the Minsk
group,
he made it clear that he did not endorse changing the
negotiation
format completely or replacing any of the Co-Chairs. Azimov
claimed
that the conference supported Azerbaijan's position that
military
action to retake its territory is a "just act," an idea that
also
is reflected in the GOAJ's draft military doctrine (reftel).
The GOAJ clearly organized this conference to bolster its
position
regarding the frozen conflicts. END SUMMARY

BACKGROUND ON THE CONFERENCE


2. (U) On April 14 and 15 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the
Republic of Azerbaijan hosted an international conference
titled "Basic Principles for the Settlement of the
Conflicts on the Territories of the GUAM States" in Baku.
Conference participants included officials from each of the
GUAM member states, diplomats from other countries,
think-tank experts, and a number of academics and
practitioners of international law. Azerbaijan's Foreign
Minister and the Chairman of the GUAM Council, Elmar
Mammadyarov, said in his opening statement that the main
focus of the conference would be on how to apply principles
of international law to the four so-called "frozen
conflicts" involving GUAM states - Transnistria, South
Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Mammadyarov
stressed that the international community can avoid
distrust and suspicions of double-standards in the
negotiating process if it adheres to a strict legal
framework.


3. (U) The conference featured discussions among
international law experts, focused on the
tension between the principle of maintaining territorial
integrity and the principle of self-determination. The
experts agreed that respect for territorial
integrity is paramount in international law, and that the
right to self-determination does not give a group the right
to secede except in special circumstances.


4. (U) The international experts also argued that
self-determination is an intra-state principle,
giving all people within a given state the right to
participate in governance. The right to secede belongs to
a group only if the government is denying that group the
right to participate in governance and oppressing that
group in other ways. Chingiz Askarov, Azerbaijan's agent
before the European Court of Human Rights, argued that, based
on this principle, the conflicts in the GUAM states have
nothing to do with self-determination. He
stated that since the populations in the separatist regions
all enjoyed economic and political rights prior to the
start of the conflicts, they had no right to secede.

ROLE OF RUSSIA AND ARMENIA


5. (U) A lengthy theoretical discussion on the role of
outside
powers prompted discussion of the roles of Armenia and
Russia in the conflicts. The legal experts concluded that
any outside state assisting or creating a secessionist
entity was committing an act of armed aggression. One
legal expert directly applied his principle to Armenia,
claiming that Armenia s an occupying power in
Nagorno-Karabakh and respnsible for all actions of that
region.



6. (U) Moscow's role in the conflicts in Georgia and
Moldova was also criticized. Vladimir Socor, a senior
research fellow for the Jamestown Foundation, argued that
Russia acts on the principle that international law does
not apply in the states of the former Soviet Union, at
least where Russian military and security services maintain
a strong presence. Socor claimed that Russia prevents
resolution of these conflicts as a means to maintain
military footholds, to keep political leverage over the
secessionist regions, and to make the countries of GUAM
unattractive for Euro-Atlantic integration.

RETHINKING THE NEGOTIATING FORMATS


7. (U) A few participants criticized the current negotiating
formats for the conflicts. Socor claimed that the
negotiating
formats in each of the four conflicts are relics from a
period when the West did not yet understand the importance
of the GUAM states, and therefore need to be transformed.
Socor believes that Russia has too much influence through
various veto mechanisms that it controls directly or
through its proxies in the secessionist entities. The
former Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan, Osman Faruk
Logoglu, argued that once a conflict is relegated to a
certain organization or negotiating format, it gets pushed
to the backburner and the rest of the international
community simply washes its hands of the problem.


8. (U) These general criticisms fed into a more specific
discussion of the Minsk Group, and particularly the
Co-Chairs. During his closing statements for the
conference, Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov said that the
issue of transforming the negotiating formats had to be
examined
on a case-by-case basis. He argued that the Co-Chairs had
monopolized the process to some degree, although the Minsk
Group as a whole contained a number of countries with
diverse experiences and backgrounds that could be
beneficial to the process. Azimov said that he does not see
a
need to change the format completely, but believes that if
the other members participated more actively in the
negotiations, it would put pressure on the Co-Chairs to
focus on the settlement itself as opposed to the
promotion of their interests during the settlement. In
response to a direct question on the issue, Azimov said
that he did not support the approach of replacing any of
the Co-Chairs but that his government had asked the OSCE
about the procedures for replacing members of the
co-chairmanship. He said that his government has yet to
receive a response.

DFM AZIMOV WEIGHS IN ON NK


9. (U) In his closing remarks, Azimov argued that there was a
need
to "defreeze" the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azimov
stressed that he was not advocating a resumption of
hostilities but urging that progress needed to be made in
resolving
the conflict. He believes that Armenia is in favor of
keeping
the situation in stasis by preventing Azerbaijanis from
returning to Karabakh and maintaining a military
face-off along the line of contact. This prevents contact
between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, which threatens
Armenia because Azerbaijan is becoming increasingly
attractive for the region, according to Azimov. Azimov
argued
that economic factors, international law, and the build-up of
military power will all have to be used to put pressure on
Armenia.
Azimov stressed that confidence-building measures are not a
serious suggestion at this time, given the heavy military
presence in the region.


10. (U) In assessing the conference, Azimov stated that the
legal
principles discussed had strengthened the positions of the
GUAM states. Referring to Nagorno-Karabakh, Azimov claimed
that based on the discussions from the conference he felt
that military action by Azerbaijan to retake control of its
territory would be a "just act." One legal expert
interrupted to suggest that international law favored

peaceful solutions, but when Azimov put forth the argument
that Armenia was engaged in an occupation and Azerbaijan
had the legitimate right to self-defense, the lawyer
replied that he could not argue with that claim.

COMMENT


11. (C) The Azerbaijani MFA clearly orchestrated this
conference in order to bolster its view that the principle
of territorial integrity trumps self-determination in the
GUAM conflicts. The international legal experts did not seem
to have much background or knowledge of the specifics of the
conflicts they were discussing, and mostly spoke at a
theoretical level. Their arguments clearly supported the
principle of territorial integrity over self-determination
and therefore favored the positions of the GUAM states.
Deputy Foreign Minister Azimov's conclusion that the
international law supports Azerbaijani military action to
retake control of its territory as a "just act" is somewhat
worrisome, and reflects the legal position the GOAJ has
staked out in its draft military doctrine (reftel).


12. (C) Overall, the tone of the conference was civil,
reflecting the collegial and largely theoretical
contributions of the international law experts who dominated
the discussions. Although Azimov's remarks demonstrated
frustration with the Minsk Group, he made it clear that he
did
not endorse changing the negotiations format or replacing the
members of the co-chairmanship. The Co-Chairs' vote against
Azerbaijan's UNGA resolution was mentioned in passing but
not discussed in any detail, suggesting that tension over
this issue is possibly subsiding.
DERSE