Evidence of meeting #45 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was region.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Does it have to be done with weapons?
The presidents had met a few weeks earlier to try to reach an agreement. Now, once again, Azerbaijan is taking up arms against Armenia.
Is this the way to reach a peace agreement?
Chairman of the Board, Network of Azerbaijani Canadians
I think we've seen it a number of times in the past, Mr. Bergeron. In 1992, when the Azerbaijan and Armenian presidents were in talks, the Azerbaijan town of Shusha was occupied during the time when the peace talks were going on—
Bloc
Chairman of the Board, Network of Azerbaijani Canadians
No. Absolutely not. That's not what I'm saying. However, we're not fully privy to what happened on the ground and what affected Azerbaijan security perceptions at that point. Therefore, the fact that the state acted to prevent an imminent attack.... This is what the Azerbaijani government has stated. I have no reason to believe that it's otherwise.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
All right.
A few moments ago, you said in your statement that the government of Azerbaijan was ready to welcome its Armenian citizens.
Why then let them go, but prevent them from returning?
Chairman of the Board, Network of Azerbaijani Canadians
That's a very good question, Mr. Bergeron.
I think there is a misunderstanding there. It's not true that the Azerbaijani government is letting people out and not letting people in. I think the statement by the President of Azerbaijan was different. It was that we want to welcome the Armenian community as our citizens of the country, but if anyone is not content with the situation, we can't keep them.
That's the essence of the statement. It is not that people leave and they cannot come back. For the last two years, Mr. Bergeron, there have been people going back and forth without any problem.
I want to touch quickly on another issue. According to the November 2020 agreement, Armenia undertook to guarantee the passage and unobstructed access between the western Azerbaijani regions and Nakhchivan region. It hasn't happened. For two years Azerbaijan has been negotiating to get that access, but it hasn't been happening.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Does this authorize Azerbaijan to block the corridor and starve the population of Nagorno-Karabakh?
Chairman of the Board, Network of Azerbaijani Canadians
Absolutely I don't think that is being done as a retaliation for that, and I don't think there is an imminent starvation that we're seeing on the ground. I think we've seen from the media that there is access for supplies and food to the region.
But the situation is serious. It has to be resolved. It cannot stay like this. There are serious concerns for the people living there, but there are serious concerns for the Azerbaijani side as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
Now we go to Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies, you have six minutes.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To Professor Waters, you have commented in the past on problems with Canada's arms export regime and the cancelled export permit for components sold to Turkey and transferred on to Azerbaijan. Can you tell us more about your concerns about Canada's arms export regime and what you think needs to be done to ensure that we're not contributing to this or other conflicts?
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
You know, the work of this committee on those transfers was very important in having the suspensions put in place. To my knowledge, Canadian-made sensors or other weapons are not being used by Azerbaijan's forces in current skirmishes in the current very fraught version of peace that we're seeing in Azerbaijan today.
I have other concerns about Canada's arms exports, including those to Saudi Arabia and other countries, and I'd be happy to get into those if that would be of interest to the committee. I'm not sure the arms exports are an issue for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict today, but they certainly are, in broader scope, something that I think brings Canada into disrepute in terms of its international obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Moving then to humanitarian law, can you explain what the parties in this conflict need to do in order to respect humanitarian law? In other words, are there violations right now of international human law? What are they, and what do you think ought to be done to remediate those?
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, As an Individual
Mr. Davies, through the chair, I think there are three legal frameworks, if you will.
The first is the trilateral ceasefire obligations being breached. I'm not even going to point fingers and say that they're being breached by only one party. My particular concern is with respect to the humanitarian access. For me, that breaches both international humanitarian law—or the law of armed conflict—and international human rights. When we're thinking about international human rights—for example, the rights of the child—the fact that several thousand schoolchildren in Nagorno-Karabakh can't go to school right now because their schools don't have electricity or heat raises human rights issues such as children's right to education.
With respect to international humanitarian law, given the fact that there remains an armed conflict, issues such as the killing of Armenian prisoners of war, which is being identified by Human Rights Watch amongst other international humanitarian law issues, are an ongoing concern.
There may or may not be the full return of prisoners. It seems to me that there are credible reports that prisoners have not been returned from Azerbaijan to Armenia. In the fall there was a video recording, apparently, of five Armenian prisoners of war being killed, and Human Rights Watch has reported on this.
The failure to provide the humanitarian corridor or to allow relief supplies to pass freely and unhindered is also a breach of international humanitarian law.
There might be some quibble about whether there is still an international armed conflict, but I would argue, given that there were attacks by Azerbaijan on Armenia proper in the fall, that the state of international armed conflict remains, so the obligation to allow international humanitarian relief supplies to flow freely and unhindered remains an issue.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
It strikes me—and I'm wondering if you could provide what the international law regime would tell us about this—that one of the underlying bases of the problem here is that you have a strong and mainly Armenian population enclave within the territory of Azerbaijan.
I have read before about the principle of self-determination. I'm just wondering what the international law tells us about a potential solution that might see the people of that region democratically select what the future for them as a people will be. Do they have that right? Do they not have that right? Does it require Azerbaijan or Armenia's agreement? What can you tell us?
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, As an Individual
In some ways, Azerbaijan's actions over recent months since the ceasefire was put in place have promoted the ethnic Armenian population's right to self-determination. Our Supreme Court, for example, said in the Quebec secession case that the self-determination right applies in “colonial” or colonial-like situations, or where an ethnic minority is unable to find self-determination internally and where rights are being abused. We've seen those kinds of rights being abused over the last couple of years, so, if anything, the right to self-determination is stronger now.
What I would argue is, let's get away from a binary territorial integrity versus self-determination issue. It has got us absolutely nowhere in terms of this conflict, as well as other conflicts in the former Soviet Union. There are literally dozens of ways in which territory can be understood to be shared, and it's important to be creative here.
Both sides should be pressured. This is where pressure is needed. Both sides should be pressured into making the concessions necessary to find a lasting and durable solution. It's not impossible to imagine a situation where Armenians and Azeris flourish in the South Caucasus together in friendship. Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps I'm unduly optimistic, but I think it's possible.
There are numerous situations where creative solutions have been found, and what's needed here is compromise. I'm not sure a kind of black and white, binary, self-determination versus territorial integrity approach will get us very far.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
Now we go to the second round of questions.
Mr. Epp, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
January 25th, 2023 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming here today.
This is one of a series of emergency meetings dealing with the humanitarian crisis. We all recognize that this is nestled within a much broader and more protracted conflict, but what we've heard today is some conflicting testimony. That's where I'd like to begin my questions.
Mr. Jahangirli, you cited the President of Azerbaijan's statement that people were free to move back and forth if they were content with the situation. This is a study to deal with the humanitarian situation. Can you describe the humanitarian situation right now in the Nagorno-Karabakh?
Chairman of the Board, Network of Azerbaijani Canadians
I'm not privy to the humanitarian situation in that region.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Okay.
We've heard some testimony that it is dire. We've heard that medicine is not getting through and that there's not enough food. Some aid is getting through, but not nearly enough.
We heard testimony in an earlier panel that the Lachin corridor was open and free to movement. You're saying that it has been a more controlled movement.
What objective criteria would you suggest that this committee evaluate so we can collectively determine Canada's position on the present crisis, or would you not describe it as a crisis?