Azerbaijani MP on country's newly-adopted Military Doctrine and reasons for Armenia's concerns over the document

Why Azerbaijan’s newly adopted Military Doctrine is a matter of great concern for the Armenian leadership?

Adopting a military doctrine is the sovereign right of any independent state and, from time to time, certain changes are made to it. There is a general procedure for developing such documents. They should not contradict international legal norms, international conventions, and, most importantly they should not pose a threat to other states.

Azerbaijan had long worked on this document before it was submitted to the Parliament in May so that the public could review it. The document takes into account international experience and national interests of Azerbaijan. Its main objective is to ensure system which could repel threats to territorial integrity and protect the state.

The doctrine lists all the moments that could create a military threat to Azerbaijan. These moments are possible territorial claims, breach of internal stability and thus weakening of the state from within. These are also illegal migration, illicit trafficking of radioactive, chemical and biological drugs.

The doctrine also reflects current violation of country’s territorial integrity. Usually a doctrine does not indicate specific countries, but there is fact of seizure of our lands and therefore Armenia is mentioned here. But it does not contain any hint of Azerbaijan's territorial claims to other states. There is no indication of hostility towards any state.

It is surprising that Azerbaijan’s military is a matter of great concern for Armenia. Even Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian spoke harshly and an in an inappropriate way. However, neither Azerbaijani government nor the Parliament commented on Armenia’s military doctrine when it was adopted.

Why Armenia has such an aggressive reaction to the document that deals with Azerbaijan’s internal affairs? What is the reason for concerns? After all, Armenia has been described as an aggressor four times by the UN Security Council in early 1990s. PACE, OIC, NATO PA and UN General Assembly have condemned Armenia as an aggressor and occupier country numerous times. Even the European Parliament, which usually adopts decision on EU’s internal affairs, very recently adopted a resolution urging Armenia to free Azerbaijan’s occupied lands. Except for occupier Armenia, Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is officially recognized by all states in the world.

How do you assess Nalbandian’s statement that this doctrine contradicts Azerbaijan’s constitution?

Well, actually I'm glad that the foreign minister of a neighboring state honors our Constitution so much. He is familiar with it and even acts as an advocate of its provisions. Similarly, let Nalbandian demand his government to comply with decisions of international organizations to liberate the occupied lands of Azerbaijan.

On the other hand, it is funny that a person who is not Azerbaijani national is concerned about doctrine’s compliance with the Constitution. Our military doctrine is fully consistent with the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic and discussions on its draft caused no objections in the parliament.

Perhaps, the Armenian side is afraid that the adoption of the doctrine would pave a way for Turkey’s military support to Azerbaijan?

Unlike Armenia, our country has not practiced stationing of foreign military bases on its territory. But Azerbaijan, because of the present military and political situation, may allow temporary deployment of foreign military bases. But this may take place if only it meets country’s national interests and secondly, if specific timeframe for deployment and powers of the military contingent is clearly indicated. As for the liberation of Armenia-occupied territories, Azerbaijan itself will do it through its own resources.

In a speech in country’s parliament, Edward Nalbandian said, among other things, that allegedly Armenia adopted the Madrid principles "two years ago." What did he mean actually?

Indeed, the Madrid principles were adopted both by Armenia and Azerbaijan at that time. But the thing is that the minister was referring not to the updated version of the Madrid principles. Armenia is trying to play a double game. On one hand, it claims that it has adopted the principles, on the other, its avoids clearly expressing its attitude on the document.

The last time presidents of our countries met on January 25 with the participation of President Medvedev. At that meeting, Armenia asked for two weeks for a response on an updated version of the Madrid principles. However, Armenia once again showed disrespect for diplomatic norms. A state should be responsible for its commitments. It has been almost 5 months, but no answer yet from the Armenian side.

The worthy of note is that for Armenia positive response means giving up its aggressor policies, short-sighted foreign policy and territorial claims to neighboring states. In case Armenia provides negative answer, it will act as an opponent of the international law and OSCE Minsk Group views. Armenia has fallen into that trap which it creates for other states.

Armenia's reaction to Azerbaijan’s military doctrine once again demonstrates the essence of this state. Raising his sword to a neighboring state, now Armenia it is afraid of Azerbaijan’s response. To accuse Azerbaijan of the disparity between its military doctrine and the Constitution is an interference in country’s internal affairs.

And most importantly, the doctrine does not have any hint to territorial claims or aggressive attitude toward neighboring countries. Azerbaijan intends to liberate its land, but not attack other states, as does Armenia. After all, Azerbaijan decides its internal affairs independently unlike Armenia. Steps we take today will lead to restoration Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.


/Day.Az/