Your trusted source

A number of resolutions were passed Wednesday and Thursday at the 37th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC), some of them including anti-Armenian colorings. Particularly, one of the resolutions labels Armenia as aggressor, according to Azerbaijan.

We find it necessary to state (especially Baku had better understand this) that ‘aggressor’ is a legal term, a notion in the modern international law which supposes illegal use of force by one state, in contravention of the UN Charter, against another state’s territorial integrity and political independence. Aggression always assumes initiative.

Can any of the OIC member states mention a date when Armenia implemented aggression against another state? Of course, they can’t. Had such a thing occurred, the UN Security Council would have raised the issue and would have adopted a corresponding resolution to be followed by corresponding actions. Such a thing has never occurred. UN Security Council has adopted 4 resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh and in all 4 it called on Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh to take certain actions.

That is to say, any document endorsed by the OIC does not practically cost a penny. We can understand that Azerbaijani authorities and official propaganda will use it for solving domestic conflicts (first of all, in the context of the upcoming parliamentary elections). A question arises here: why do the OIC member states, including a number of influential states with internationally serious mission, give in to Azerbaijan’s blackmailing?

In non-official talks representatives of the Islamic states explain that their passive stance over Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s similar projects is conditioned by the factor of the Islamic solidarity.

Note that this is not the first time and it does not come to be new at all, as the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem is trying to use “the factor of the Islamic solidarity” for its own interests. But if previously the “factor” could not have an impact on Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, today the situation has changed, namely, by the simple fact that Kazakhstan is chairing the OSCE currently.

It’s not a secret that the Minsk Group, conducting a mediating mission over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, has been established in the frames of the OSCE and it is this very organization that actually makes decisions on the conflict.

Since January, 2010, for the first time a post-Soviet state, Kazakhstan, has been trusted the OSCE chairmanship. Prior to this, as Kazakhstan’s chairmanship was being considered, official Ankara assured through diplomatic and non-formal ways that it will adopt a balanced and neutral position over all the disputed issues, including Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian side took these affirmations as a responsible stance (otherwise, only with Armenia being against would be enough for non-approval of Kazakhstan chairmanship). Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev promised to contribute to the settlement of the conflicts during Kazakhstan chairmanship, followed by FM Kanat Saudabayev’s regional visit, contacts with the sides and mediators.

However, after promising impartial, balanced and neutral stance, Kazakhstan not only neglected the circumstance of being an OSCE chair, but also its membership to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and being Armenia’s ally within the CSTO framework, and again yielded to Azerbaijan’s lie, veiled with “Islamic solidarity.”

One could wonder whether Kazakhstan is intent to reaffirm its neutral disposition and willingness to contribute to the Karabakh settlement. And if yes, how? We tried to find the answers to these questions at Kazakhstan’s Embassy in Armenia. Our interlocutor-diplomat first assured that he has no information on the voting and then expressed doubt that “Kazakhstan might have remained abstinent.” You should agree that the answers cannot serve as confirmation of neutrality and the efficiency of Kazakhstan’s OSCE chairmanship could henceforth be considered shady.

By the way, recently neighbor Iran had also offered mediation over Nagorno-Karabakh. Iran is also OIC member and it also avoids opposing the “Islamic solidarity.”

It’s beyond discussion that both Kazakhstan and Iran and the other Islamic states like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, could oppose, of course.