Last year RA Ambassador to UN Armen Martirosyan was in the center of attention connected with including the GUAM “issue of frozen conflicts” in the UN GA agenda. In fact, the Ambassador did not have an opportunity to describe several core principals, due to which both the society and Media were confused, as well as the foreign affairs ministry was criticized. To note, the UN GA sessions start on September 15 and last one year. During the first two weeks only presidents, prime ministers or foreign affairs ministers can have speeches. This part is called “General Debates”. The general part of the session lasts till December; however the session continues its work after January too. The current ongoing UN session is the 61st one. The UN has 193 members. Each of the represented countries has one vote, but there are four big political units, which always are trying to have the same policy standing, almost always are voting alike; in a word, they do like our factions are doing.
Now briefly about the mentioned four units.
The movement of disunited countries was formed during the cold war period. This group of countries consisted of countries that were neither communistic nor pro-western. This movement was initiated by former dictator of Yugoslavia Tito, but now this movement exists due to the fact that it gives an opportunity to many countries to maneuver and by uniting the powers implement their foreign policy.
The next biggest bloc is the “Organization of Islamic Countries”, which has 57 Islamic countries, included Azerbaijan.
“Western Europe and other countries” bloc consists of EU countries and countries that advocate European values (USA, Canada, etc.).
“G 77” bloc is like the “Movement of disunited countries” and consists of developing countries, included China.
We started our conversation with Mr. Armen Martirosyan from discussing Armenia’s positions in he UN.
– Mr. Martorosyan, how does Armenia vote and with which group?
– You should have concrete policy in the UN to vote; you can’t maneuver there since you can’t tell them that one day you can change your policy positions. If you do that, you will lose as they will ask you whether you are keeping with them or not.
– In consideration of the fact that almost each 10th statement of the UN is targeted against Russia we may say that…
-…There are problems here. The legal background of the relationship between Armenia and UN allows us to join the EU group in the UN too; however it is better for us not to put frames on our opportunities to maneuver since we have many problems such as the Karabakh conflict and other challenges. As we have problems we need votes from all the political groups. Thus, if you advocate all the policy positions of the EU, in the UN you may appear on the other side of the wall connected with some issues. This point concerns 40-50% of the issues, i.e. you can’t always expect support during their voting sessions.
– How does Georgia vote?
– Despite Ukraine and Moldova, Georgia does not vote with EU. Definitely the reason is Russia’s factor. Notwithstanding, Ukraine and Moldova keep with EU despite the fact that they have many problems with Russia. However, Georgia has left some space for maneuvering because its two neighbors, Armenia and Azerbaijan, have place for maneuvering too and that is why they don’t want to become marginal.
– Does this mean that they want to have “reserved space” for maneuvering?
– Yes, they do. As for Moldova and Ukraine, they don’t want it; they openly say that they have made their choice; they have applied to the EU and got a right, thus they can use it. This is the reason why during voting sessions these countries say that they associate themselves with the position of EU. I don’t know what they mean… The fact that they keep with EU and vote with them does not mean yet that they have become a part of Europe. I think that they have taken too many responsibilities and put frames on their space for maneuvering.
– Has the Armenian government discussed the issue of joining any blocs in the UN?
– Yes, of course. We have discussed that issue and also prepared recommendations. Besides that, as we have taken a number of responsibilities connected with human rights, about 85-90% of our policy positions are almost the same as EU has. We have taken those responsibilities voluntarily and are doing them. The other 15% consists of resolutions, where we can’t vote together with EU.
– Are these issues like the issues concerning Iran?
– Yes, these are the issues concerning Iran. We have leaved some free space for us here.
– How do you act in cases such as the Iran case? Do you abstain?
– No, last time we supported Iran, i.e. we voted against the resolution. We explained everyone that Iran is a neighboring country, we are in blockade due to Turkey and Azerbaijan, and very often the Georgian border passing points are closed and if we don’t keep good relations with Iran, Armenia will be isolated. That is why we tell them that we understand their concerns, but due to these reasons and the fact that there are over 150 thousand Armenians in Iran and “on the ground” we can’t vote with them.
– Do you agree with the view that since Ilham Aliev became the Azeri president their foreign policy has become active and they started cooperating with international organizations? How is this policy implemented in the UN?
– Yes, of course. For example, the Ambassadors of other Islamic countries say that Azerbaijan actively works with them, which was not done before. During summits both Aliev and Mamediarov go there and meet with the ministers. Also they have their Ambassador there. They are actively using their opportunities provided by the OIC. Furthermore, most of the member countries of that organization feel responsibility for helping Azerbaijan, which they call as “Muslim solidarity”. This means that Azerbaijan is aggressively using 1/3 part of the votes, except of the votes of some Arabic countries.
Azerbaijan has started to implement its policy in the UN more actively as Armenia is success in the OSCE negotiations. This is the reason why Azerbaijan is trying to move the process from OSCE to UN. As the experience has shown they always have 40-45 votes in UN since 1994, thus they are trying to create a political file to influence on OSCE. This is the game that Azerbaijan is playing. OSCE is a consensus organization and all the decisions are made in consideration of the consensus principle. Each of the member countries has one vote and a right for veto. All the countries can use that right whenever they want. As Azerbaijan has always been active in OSCE, has always worked well there the issue is discussed there. However, they are not satisfied with OSCE and say that Russia and France are with Armenia, thus they want to move that issue to UN in order to press on OSCE. As a result of this policy the issue was included in the agenda once in 2004 and once in 2006.
– What are those resolutions?
– There was only one resolution concerning Karabakh till 2004. It was in 1994. The UN document sent to OSCE wrote: “UN welcomes the efforts of OSCE to achieve a peaceful solution of Nagorno Karabagh conflict”. This definition was accepted by OSCE, after which the draft reached the UN office, where after the word “Karabakh” Azerbaijan added “the region of Azerbaijan”, thus trying influence on the process. This is the only resolution that has been adopted due to the OIC since 1994. Also, in 2004 they prepared a document on “the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan” and later in 2006 GUAM (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova) proposed an issue on “the situation of frozen conflicts”. These two factors made it more difficult for us.
– Couldn’t you prevent it?
– No, we couldn’t.
– Why?
– They had 45 votes, but we had only one. This is the political reality. This is not a place for demagogy where you can lie. In UN all resolutions are adopted simply by voting.
– Wasn’t it possible to change anything in the document since it concerns both of the parties?
– Including issues in the agenda is one thing, discussing them and changing is another thing. Definitely this is what people don’t understand well in Yerevan. If they see the resolution of 2004, it will be clear to them what Azerbaijan proposed and what we have now…
– What is the difference?
– They were quite different. Azerbaijan proposed a political draft on the status of Karabakh, returning territories and refugees, i.e. Azerbaijan was trying to open the same process of Minsk in UN too, but the result of that work is a document about fire and forest burnings. This text did not have any political content; it just petitioned to collaborate to prevent future cases of fire.
– This resolution was accepted in Yerevan as a diplomatic loss. Even Vardan Oskanyan urgently left for New York.
– No, Vardan Oskanyan did not come here for that issue. He visited New York only at the end of September in connection with the opening of the General Assembly. Mamediarov came here in November to represent that issue. I talked to Oskanyan by phone, he said that he wanted to come, but I said that it would not help and advised him not to come. I told him that I would inform him if I saw any danger there. The minister did not come here only connected with the Karabakh conflict issue.
– In two years GUAM made a resolution. This organization has become a political unit. Is it serious?
– The issue does not concern the conflict of Karabakh only, but other conflicts too. It is more difficult to struggle against a draft proposed by four countries than by one country. GUAM tends to become a serious political unit in UN and have its own political concept and activities.
– Azerbaijan and Georgia are using their opportunities well…
– Also Ukraine and Moldova…
– Does this mean that we may have problems again?
– We do have problems already.
– Already?
– Yes, there is a draft in the agenda. This year we have to discuss the draft on frozen conflicts presented by GUAM. In fact, this document has not been accepted officially. However, they have distributed draft sheets to some countries.
– So why did the noise of last year mean? Why was Russia confused?
– GUAM had just presented the draft for discussion. It included the four conflicts, but there were no documents. They just suggested to discuss the issue.
– But people were concerned about the text.
– There weren’t any resolutions. This is the problem. Including issues in the agenda is one thing, discussing is another thing. When issues are included it does not mean yet that they will also adopt a resolution on regulating the issue.
– So why do they include them in the agenda?
– For discussing, expressing their points; documents can be adopted only after discussions. This is the first time that journalists are asking me the details. They asked me from Yerevan what had happened with the GUAM draft, and I explained to them that they hadn’t developed any drafts and that GUAM had only included an issue in the agenda.
– Which is the aim of including that issue in the agenda?
– Their goal is to influence on Armenia and Russia politically. It was targeted against us for the purpose of ignoring the ongoing negotiations. We are against moving the issue of Karabakh conflict to UN since it is going on in OSCE. This was our main argument. This issue was proposed last year, but it can be discussed till the middle of September of this year (i.e. till the 62nd General Assembly). The initiators say that the issue will be discussed soon in spring.
– Why in spring?
– Because no one wants to have bad relations with Russia in winter. Besides that, big countries are busy with the issue of Kosovo.
– Does this mean that the outcome of the GUAM draft on frozen conflicts depends on Russia and whether the draft will be brought up or not?
– It is a very interesting question. I think it is not so important. On the one hand, it is worth mentioning that we initiated a meeting with the Ambassadors, where they reminded them about resolution of coordinating the foreign policies of the member countries, due to which they were petitioned not to support the GUAM draft and vote against it. On the other hand, some of the new members don’t hide the fact that their support to this draft is conditioned by anti-Russian sentiments. I said that it doesn’t influence on Russia directly and it could harm the conflict of Karabakh and recommended to exclude the part concerning Azerbaijan. They said that they couldn’t and thus I asked them not to support it. As a result, the EU had a very constructive policy standing and told GUAM that the conflicts of Near Dnestr and Abkhazia differ from the Karabakh conflict. Things should be discussed in consideration of the existing political reality. In this framework once the Russian Ambassador said that if Armenia did not exist, it would be much more difficult for them.
– Besides that UN has lost its reputation as an international institution after the war in Iraq. It doesn’t implement any programs effectively than humanitarian aids. Should we pay so much attention to that issue proposed by GUAM?
– You can always say that. This is a political process and does not happen once only. People often ask me why I am afraid since this organization brings up such drafts concerning Israel many times a year. Note that Israel is backed by the U.S. and it can use its right for veto at the Security Council. It is backed well; we are not backed like that.
– What about Russia?
– You never know. I can’t say that Russia backs us and is just a neighbor for Azerbaijan. Both these countries are important neighbors for it. Being a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia has always implemented a balanced policy. They will never sacrifice Azerbaijan for Armenia. Furthermore, they openly say that.
– What is the danger? The draft?
– As we know, the UN GA decisions are not binding and thus are not dangerous for any countries even if they are against their interests. Accordingly, all the countries are doing their best so that UN does not adopt any decisions contradicting their interests.