Nagorno-Karabakh Liberation War: From Tragic Truce to Peaceful Votes

19 years ago, on May 12 1994, a ceasefire was finally declared to end the fighting in the terrible Nagorno-Karabakh Liberation War. Too many people had been killed, there was untold misery and suffering for millions of people throughout the South Caucasus, and hundreds of thousands had been displaced as life was becoming untenable in mixed communities. Although the formal military conflict had stopped, life was never going to be the same for many ordinary people left in limbo, suspended in a political vacuum, waiting for the final resolution that has never arrived. For the 150,000 people in Artsakh, it has meant the continuing unrecognised status, the on-going “passive” siege by Azerbaijan, the blockading by Turkey, and simmering sniping across the Line of Contact. For the many Armenians who had to leave their homes in Azerbaijan and fled to Artsakh, still remain caught, still residing in a fragile environment; the Azerbaijani politicians still threatening to cleanse them from their homes. For the many Azerbaijani people who left Armenia and Artsakh and are still living in temporary accommodation, who are still being used as political pawns, on the infinitesimally small chance that they may return back to their homes are being deprived of the investment to give them a sensible standard of living so the politicians can gain power through sympathy, and build up of obscene levels of military equipment.

21 years ago, on May 9 1992, the many months of planning were being executed to liberate Shushi from the Azeri forces and, as importantly, to finally free the people of Stepanakert from the continual bombing from the GRAD missiles. Arguably, the turning point in the war, as control over the powerful promontory of Shushi, and the gateway to the Lachin Corridor, was seized, and the Armenian forces could start influencing the outcome of this conflict.

After such a long time, the people of Stepanakert could get some relief from what seemed to them to be an eternal siege. A siege that has never made its way into the public consciousness outside of Artsakh. It may not have been as deadly as Stalingrad, or as long as Sarajevo –but a siege of one day is too long for innocent civilians who are trying to live a peaceful life in the place that they, and their family have lived in, for centuries.

22 years ago, on April 30 1991, the combined forces of the Azerbaijani OMON and the Soviet 4th Army entered Getashen and so started the intimidation of many men in the outlying villages of Artsakh as part of Operation Ring. Supposedly this offensive was to flush out the Fedayin fighters who had “infiltrated” the villages. As a result of the general intimidation by the Azerbaijani forces, the men of each of the villages were gathering together to defend their homes and families, and being resourceful in obtaining weaponry, however basic. Very few, if any of these men, had any formal military training – this activity just depended on their basic instinct and bravery.

The Azerbaijani tactics resulted in many men being kidnapped , flown to Khojaly, and then to the prison in Shushi, where they were tortured until either they agreed to lies about themselves, or neighbours, or paid ransom money for their release. This was not war under International conventions ; this was just gangsterism!

These inflammatory tactics led to an increase in animosity between the two sides and resulted in an inevitable decline into a more sustained conflict.

25 years ago, on February 28 1988, the established Armenian citizens of Sumgait in Azerbaijan were subjected to the pogroms by the local Azeris. Different communities living together in peace for decades beforehand were turned against each other for what reason? Had those individuals who were, previously, friendly neighbours now become fierce enemies for no reason? Had there been a brutal sectarian incident that had caused people to “take sides”….and that would subsequently lead to over 6 years of unnecessary conflict?

No! The Karabakhi Armenians had simply expressed a democratic wish.

25 years ago, on February 20 1988, the local Soviet of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of Azerbaijan passed a resolution:

“Welcoming the wishes of the workers of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to request the Supreme Soviets of the Azerbaijani SSR and Armenian SSR to display a feeling of deep understanding of the aspirations of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh and to resolve the question of transferring the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region from the Azerbaijani SSR to the Armenian SSR, at the same time to intercede with the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to reach a positive resolution on the issue of transferring the region from the Azerbaijani SSR to the Armenian SSR”

A polite and deferential resolution seeking approval from the Soviet hierarchy, but a request that was revolutionary and with fundamental implications to the Soviet Union. Whilst this activity must have been contemplated under the auspice of perestroika, were the Soviets still wedded to the notion of controlling the republics through disunity?

25 years ago, on February 13 1988, a few hundred gathered at a rally in Lenin Square in Stepanakert, following the return of a delegation of people who had been to Moscow to lobby for the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. The rally was unprecedented in Soviet times, so those who attended were risking arrest, but after the brief speeches, the crowd made their position clearly understood by chanting “Miatsum” (Unity). Through “Miatsum”, they would have security…and Peace.

The prevailing anti-Armenian rhetoric of the last 25 years has lost sight of this peaceful and entirely reasonable request for unification of the Armenian people. This was necessary to correct the act of sick cynicism carried out by Stalin in 1921. The response of Azerbaijan to the peaceful 1988 resolution is evidence enough, together with the Genocide of 1915, to tell the world that Armenians should never be controlled by Turks, again, -never again!

Letter to Lord Laird : Deceived by Propaganda from Azerbaijan

On 30 April, the new Azerbaijani film ‘Xoca’ (Khoja) was screened at the Soho Hotel to over 130 Londoners, representing many sections of the capital’s multicultural population. The audience included H.E. Fakhraddin Gurbanov, Azerbaijani Ambassador to the UK, Lord Laird of Artigarvan and Pavel Bobek, Second Secretary, Embassy of the Czech Republic to the UK and other members of the diplomatic community in London. The event was organised by The European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS) and the ANS Group. Before the screening Lord Laird spoke about Nagorno-Karabakh. This letter is in response to this screening, as well as other documented statements that he has made about the conflict.

======================================================================================================================================================<

Dear Lord Laird

I read with interest the press release by the European Azerbaijan Society about the showing of the film, Xoca, in London on 30th April 2013. The film, a fictional story based on the events of 1992, which was directed by an Azerbaijani military journalist, presumably without any Armenian involvement, stated that it “reflects the reality and truth of the Khojaly Massacre”. Any impartial observer would know that the events around Khojaly are enshrouded in much controversy, and that there is evidence to question the sequence and location of events, the numbers involved and the direct role of the Azeri military in the deaths. There are questions with many of the photographs used in the Azeri propaganda some of which are clearly taken directly from conflicts and tragedies in other parts of the world. To state that something represents the “truth” on this subject only makes sense in the context of a partisan audience with no interest in seeking and understanding all sides of the story. In this context, I am disturbed that a member of the UK House of Lords and therefore a representative of this country is involved in such propaganda.

You are quoted as saying in the Press Release :

“I have personal experience of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and understand what has happened in Azerbaijan regarding territory. During my multiple visits to Azerbaijan in recent years, I have come to realise that the ongoing Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territory is a far greater issue than was the case in Northern Ireland. It must be remembered that four United Nations Security Council resolutions have been passed against the occupation, yet remain unimplemented.”

The only connection that I can see between Northern Ireland and Azerbaijan is that they both did not exist before 1920, and so, any long term claims to territorial rights are questionable for both countries. The over-arching philosophy that was applied to Northern Ireland, by the UK Government was the respect for the rights of self-determination; a philosophy that is not being applied to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. I am sure you will be well aware that in February 1988 that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh voted, democratically, under the laws of the Soviet Union and in line with Gorbachev’s policy of restructuring under perestroika to join with Armenia. This led, in a matter of weeks, to the killings of Armenians in Sumgait and their eventual forced evacuation in the following months and years.

The war in Nagorno-Karabakh was an act of aggression by Azerbaijan. The blockading of the Lachin corridor which prevented humanitarian aid getting from Armenia to the people was perpetrated by the Azeris. This resulted in a serious lack of food, water and medical supplies to the men, women and children who merely wanted to live peacefully in the place where they had lived for generations. The Azeris continuously bombed Stepanakert from Shushi and Khojaly for years, killing and wounding hundreds, if not thousands, and subjecting the citizens to daily misery. Together with the Russian military they carried out Operation Ring which resulted in the forced arrest of ordinary people in the outlying villages, subjected them to torture, beatings, and in most cases only released them after paying money. And in April 1992 there was the terrible massacre at Maragha, and your colleague, Baroness Cox, was one of the first people on the scene.

I know all of this, not because I have just read books, or listened to people representing the Government, or benefited from funded trips to Nagorno-Karabakh or because I’m an influential member of the UK establishment. I know this because I have spoken to ordinary people in Stepanakert, Shushi and the villages, and seen and heard it directly. I have listened to their stories, watched them cry, and seen their wounds.

You are reported in a Trend.az news article that “Armenia lies about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict”; and you believe that Azerbaijan doesn’t?!

The latest Freedom House Report condemns Azerbaijan’s record and explains the decline in their rating to “increased violence against journalists and also legal amendments that further limited access to information.” Transparency International, in their Corruption Perceptions Index for 2012 placed Azerbaijan at 139 out of 176 countries; this is lower than previous years. The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project awarded President Aliyev their “Person of the Year”:

“The President of Azerbaijan has been compared to a mafia crime boss in US diplomatic cables, and is referred to as a dictator by many analysts. What is clear is that the Aliyev family has been systematically grabbing shares of the most profitable businesses in the country. This year, investigative reports by OCCRP and Radio Free Europe revealed for the first time well-documented evidence that his family has secret ownership stakes in the country’s largest businesses including bank, construction companies, gold mines and phone companies. They also secretly amassed property abroad in places like the Czech Republic. The Azeri government has responded to these revelations with silence. Aliyev’s administration also failed to investigate the harassment and blackmail of OCCRP journalist Khadija Ismayilova earlier this year. While Azerbaijan has worked hard to improve its image worldwide, this year’s reporting paints a picture that looks more like a petty dictatorship”

In your opening speech in the House of Lords on 6th November 2012 on “Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus” you stated that “The president is genuinely popular, and people are optimistic about the future of the country.” How do you know that? Did he, or his representatives tell you that? It certainly would not have come about through independent journalism

You also state:

“However, there is one large cloud which hangs over the whole country. That cloud is the 20 year-old conflict with Armenia, which is the continuing illegal military occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding Azerbaijani regions. There are also the resultant 875,000 refugees and internally displaced persons who are still unable to return to their homes and lands.”

I assume you do not believe that those 875,000 people were displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh. In the 1979 Soviet survey there were about 40,000 Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh, out of a total of 160,000. If the 875,000 is a real figure then these people are refugees from Armenia. Do you think that it is likely that 800,000+ people will want to return to the Republic of Armenia? Given that Azerbaijan has a military budget in excess of Armenia’s GDP why do you think these refugees are still living in camps when, if the Government really cared about their welfare, they would divert some of their oil wealth to decent accommodation; that’s what a modern, caring country would do.

Tale Heydarov, the Chairman and Founder of The European Azerbaijan Society, was also at the film screening. Heydarov is the son of Kamaladdin Heydarov, the Minister of Emergency Situations (MES), and who is the head of the second most powerful commercial family in Azerbaijan. The MES is considered by some to be a para-military unit. He was also, at the age of 35, Chairmen of the State Customs Committee, an organisation that is considered corrupt even by Azerbaijani standards.

Given the patronage that you, and a number of other people give to The European Azerbaijan Society do you feel that you have done sufficient due diligence to ensure that representatives of the UK Parliament are adequately protected in their relationships with this regime?

The lessons that Northern Ireland does tell us is that the vast majority of the ordinary people just want peace from whichever side. However it does rely on those who have influence putting their personal pride, lust for power and money, to one side, and representing the citizens of their country. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh never wanted war, they just wanted to be connected with their fellow Armenians ( just like the people of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK) – this was met with aggression from Azerbaijan. Many ordinary men and women from the towns and villages joined forces and defended their families against these attacks and to this day they are only concerned about defence. Only Azerbaijan will restart the war.

I am always concerned that people like yourself, and other members of the UK institution, unwittingly give credibility to the Azerbaijani propaganda which does nothing to move any peace talks further forwards, and actually reinforces an anti-Armenian position.

You said in the House of Lords debate in November 2012

“There has also been a blurring of the lines, with some Armenians unable to separate Nagorno-Karabakh from their campaign for recognition of the genocide”.

I’m sorry to say, but this highlights just how little you know about the plight of the Armenians. They were subjected to massacres at the hands of the Turks of the Ottoman Empire from the late 19th Century to well into the 1920’s; events which remain unrecognised for being Genocide. When something remains unrecognised, it can happen again. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh are wedged between Turkey and Azerbaijan who regularly publish anti-Armenian rhetoric, and promote the notion of ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh – and you think the Genocide is not relevant?

I have been to Nagorno-Karabakh on 7 occasions as an independent person, with no Armenian background, funded totally by myself, and with no invite whatsoever from any citizen of the Republic. I have been allowed free entry and have always been welcomed. I guarantee you that if you chose to go, then you would have no problem whatsoever and I could even help you with the arrangements. If I tried to go to Azerbaijan I would be surprised if they would let me in, and if they did, I would expect to be followed, with a high risk of being taken into custody.

Whilst I understand that the UK has to find ways to trade and engage with many different types of countries throughout the world, I do not understand why it is necessary for organisations to actively promote propaganda on behalf of questionable regimes, particularly where that effort is to the detriment of another group of people in an on-going conflict. I think we should avoid losing our moral compass at all costs.

I hope you will give due consideration to my perspective and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Russell Pollard

Armenians and the Genocide: An Englishman’s Perspective

The first time I saw Mount Ararat

On April 24th 2009 I was making the last preparations for my trip to Tbilisi in May of that year: the day was just like any other day – it meant nothing to me. A few weeks later as I was in the airport looking for my flight I noticed that we were making a brief stop in Yerevan; a place that I had never heard of before. I had to check the map to find out where it was.

Prior to visiting Georgia I had been to many of the old Eastern bloc countries including Bosnia, Kosovo, Romania, and also ex-Soviet countries of Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus. I always travelled alone, and on each occasion that I visited somewhere, I never returned. Having discovered that Armenia existed, I decided that my next trip, after Georgia, would be to Yerevan.

Although I was there as a tourist, I enjoyed just walking around and being mindful of a few key places; it was always the people and their history which was most important, not just the guide book “attractions”. During my first stay, it was Armenia’s Independence Day, and I joined a group of Army veterans who marched from the city centre, the long distance to the Yerablur Cemetery, to remember the many who fell in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. It was a solemn occasion. I couldn’t help but be affected by what I saw and was reminded of the many images that I had seen on the TV news from the early 1990’s. The following day I decided to walk to the Genocide Memorial and to pay my respects. The Armenian Genocide was not taught in British schools so my knowledge was very poor. Looking at the photographs, reading the transcripts, and listening to the audio was a very humbling experience. Words fail to describe my emotions; I was ashamed that I knew nothing about this tragedy. Outside I walked through the garden of plaques, many times, looking for the one from the People of the United Kingdom so I could take a photograph. After a while I stopped, as I couldn’t find it; I assumed that I was not being careful enough with my search. I later realised why there was not a plaque there.

All week I had seen many images of Mount Ararat on books, T-shirts, posters – everywhere, but I had never actually seen it myself. Perhaps it was further away than I thought, perhaps I was looking in the wrong direction, perhaps the weather wasn’t kind to me. On my last day as I was walking up the steep main road towards the statue of Mother Armenia, trying to avoid being hit by the cars, I finally reached a resting place, so I could catch my breath. I looked west, the clouds had parted, and there, rising magnificently in front of me, was Mount Ararat. I was overcome with emotion.
That first visit touched me greatly for many reasons, and I felt I had to return; there was so much unfinished business. I also wanted to go to Nagorno-Karabakh and I made my first journey there in May 2010. Since then I have visited Armenia and Artsakh twice per year and have developed a better understanding of the culture, the people, the language and the political issues (and write articles and display photographs regularly on my website http://www.Artsakh.Org.UK), and am fortunate, now, to know many Armenians who I consider great friends. The warmth that has been shown to me has drawn me much closer to the issues, and I feel that I have a personal responsibility to do whatever I can to become, and remain, engaged.

The notion of being an Armenian is a very curious concept and one that has intrigued me from those early days, and one which is completely alien to someone from a multi-cultural society. The common ancestry of all of the Armenians throughout the world provides a degree of cohesion to this disparate group of people which is only reinforced by the shared tragedy of the Armenian Genocide.

Outside of the Armenian community , and academics, my experience is that almost no one has heard of the Armenian Genocide in the UK, whereas with the Jewish Holocaust it would be very unusual for someone not to be aware of it. This is an indictment on our education system but is to be wholly expected of a country that does not recognise that a Genocide took place.

I have heard people say that the Armenians should look forward, and not backwards and to let go of the Genocide question. Apart from being disrespectful, it shows a complete lack of understanding of basic human nature; it is about closure and justice. In the same way that individuals cannot rest if they have not been able to formally bury their lost loved ones, then the same condition applies at a national level. The post-war trials of the Nazi criminals, and the global recognition of the Jewish Holocaust leaves them in a state of relative peace as they have been able to achieve closure and justice and it has been seen to be done. The Armenians are the polar opposite, and the priorities of political expedience seem to have taken precedence over the torment of millions of people. This is not a long term solution and I fear that this diplomatic indifference is also an active ingredient in the lack of progress in recognising Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country. At some point, someone needs to take a stand and bring peace to the Armenian nation and to allow them to concentrate on the future.

Whilst I didn’t realise this at the time, but the fact that Mount Ararat, the iconic symbol of Armenians, is situated in present-day Turkey, signifies one thing only – the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians. Now I understand why I shed so many tears that day!

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Artsakh Youth Development Center – Seminar on Maragha Genocide, 1992

By Susanna Petrosyan President – AYDC ( Translation : Russell Pollard)

On April 10 – In the office of Artsakh Youth Developemt Center (AYDC), a discussion was held, with representatives from Youth Organisations, about the events of 1992. In Maragha village , in the Martakert region, crimes were carried out by the Turk-Azeris. During the meeting, the participants watched “Maragha : 10 April 1992″.

The film “Ordinary Genocide”, by Director and Author, Marina Grigorian, is the 3rd film in the series.

Video from Artsakh TV of the seminar at AYDC

Ապրիլի 10-ին ՙԱրցախի երիտասարդության զարգացման կենտրոն՚ ՀԿ գրասենյակում երիտասարդական կառույցների ներկայացուցիչների հետ կայացած հերթական քննարկումը վերաբերում էր 1992թ. Մարտակերտի շրջանի Մարաղա գյուղում թուրք ազերիների կողմից իրականացված ոճրագործություններին։ Հանդիպման ժամանակ ներկաները դիտեցին ՙՄարաղա, 10 ապրիլ, 1992թ.՚ ֆիլմը, որը ռեժիսոր և հեղինակ Մարինա Գրիգորյանի ՙՍովորական ցեղասպանություն՚ շարքի 3-րդ ֆիլմն է։

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Artsakh Youth Development Center Visit Mothers of Missing Soldiers on Motherhood and Beauty Day

By Susanna Petrosyan : President – AYDC

On April 7 2013, Motherhood and Beauty Day, AYDC (Artsakh Youth Development Center) members visited Mothers of Missing Soldiers in Stepanakert. After a short round table discussion with Mothers, AYDC members presented them with a nice literary performance of songs and poems. In the end the Mothers were given sweets, souvenirs and flowers with best wishes.

We express our deepest gratitude to the “Viaggio” Restaurant Complex  for sponsoring the event.

===============================================================================================================

Այցելություն անհայտ կորած ազատամարտիկների մայրերին` Մայրության և գեղեցկության տոն օրվա կապակցությամբ

Ապրիլի 7-ին Մայրության և գեղեցկության տոն օրվա կապակցությամբ “Արցախի երիտասարդության զարգացման կենտրոնի” (AYDC) անդամները Ստեփանակերտում այցելեցին անհայտ կորած ազատամարտիկների մայրերին:

Մայրերի հետ կլոր սեղանի շուրջ զրուցելուց հետո ԱԵԶԿ անդամները հանդես եկան գեղեցիկ գրական ներկայացմամբ`համեմված բանաստեղծություններով ու երգերով:
Հանդիպման վերջում մայրերին շնորհեցին հուշանվերներ, ծաղիկներ և քաղցրավենիք:

Մենք մեր խորին երախտագիտությունն ենք հայտնում “Viaggio” ռեստորանային համալիրին միջոցառմանը աջակցելու համար:

================================================================================================================

More information on the work of Vera Grigoryan and the issue of Missing Soldiers of Artsakh

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Turkey’s Press for lack of Freedom: What chance for Artsakh?

I was intrigued by an article in last week’s Economist which was reviewing the state of Press freedom in Turkey.

Many journalists have been sacked by their employers for crossing the line in the areas that they have investigated, however, Ercan Ipekci, president of the Turkish Journalists Union, referred to the sacked ones as “ the luckier ones”. According to Reporters without Borders, Turkey is at 154th in the Press Freedom table, out of 179 ( behind Afghanistan, Iraq and Zimbabwe – also note that Azerbaijan is 156th), and state:

“It (Turkey) is currently the world’s biggest prison for journalists, especially those who express views critical of the authorities on the Kurdish issue”

Freedom House describes Turkey as “Partly Free” and in their latest report, state:

“In Freedom House’s recently released Freedom in the World report, Turkey’s civil liberties rating declined this past year from 3 to 4 due to the pretrial detention of thousands of individuals—including Kurdish activists, journalists, union leaders, students, and military officers—in campaigns that many believe to be politically motivated. Most now know the figures gathered by the Committee to Protect Journalists regarding the high number of journalists imprisoned in Turkey – highest in the world. The issue of imprisoned journalists, however, in Turkey is a symptomatic issue – one that is representative of deeper issues.”

“…a cardinal problem is the attitude taken by the government and its leading figures towards journalists. For example, a quote – “There is no difference between the bullets fired and the articles written in Ankara,” Interior Minister Naim Idris Sahin said in a speech last September. Critics say this mentality lies at the heart of Turkey’s anti-terror laws and is why so many journalists are ending up behind bars. Critical journalism, or critical statements by journalists, are considered insults and are met with specific and pointed rhetorical attacks on the journalists in the statements of the country’s highest officials, or in some cases by lawsuits. In many cases, these have led to successful journalists being fired. And all other journalists know these cautionary tales. We also hear repeatedly about backchannel pressure on publishers and editors from the highest levels of the government to have controversial journalists taken off of sensitive subjects, or to have them fired. These incidents are attested by far too many journalists for them to simply be rumors. The conditions for this kind of backchannel pressure are reinforced by a media environment in which media ownership lacks diversity, and large holding companies with other economic interests control the media, making them highly vulnerable to political pressure.”

The recently issued report by Amnesty International sums up the position, excellently, and highlights some of the areas that are most-taboo:

“Freedom of expression is under attack in Turkey. Hundreds of abusive criminal prosecutions are brought every year against political activists,human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers and others. These prosecutions represent one of the most deeply entrenched human rights problems in Turkey today. Such cases are generally instigated against individuals who criticize the state or who express opinions contraryto official positions on sensitive issues. While there has been progress in allowing previously taboo subjects to be discussed more freely, such as criticism of the army, discussion of the position of minorities in Turkey and whether the massacres of Armenians in 1915 constitute genocide, a number of inherently problematic laws continue to be used to protect public officials from legitimate criticism and prosecute dissenting opinions on controversial issues in Turkish politics, most notably the conflict between the armed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Turkish Armed Forces and the Kurdish question more broadly. The most negative development in recent years has been the increasingly arbitrary use of anti-terrorism laws to prosecute legitimate activities including political speeches, critical writing, attendance of demonstrations and association with recognised political groups and organizations -in violation of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.”

As well as not being able to discuss the Armenian Genocide, journalists steer clear of alleged Government corruption scandals, and Turkey’s covert support for the Syrian “rebels”/”terrorists” ( according to the New York Times – Ankara’s airport has become a hub for the trafficking of arms from Qatar and Saudi Arabia).

This provides a continuing source of embarrassment for the “western” nations, which they carefully mask by employing a convenient “blind spot”. Turkey tries to be “all things to all men”, and “friends to all men”…and most recently has re-ignited its relationship with Israel, which was brokered through the offices of President Obama. They are becoming the fulcrum point between the “West and Israel” the Arabic Sunni-Muslim nations of the Middle East, and the Pan-Turkic nations; a potentially dangerous situation for everyone if not competently discharged. How such a cosmopolitan nation, with these grand aspirations, can have such an antipathy towards its Alevi population ( ~25% ), as well as archaic views on press freedom and an immature response to the difficulties of its own history (Armenian Genocide) does raise many questions about the usefulness and sustainability of their presence.

….and they want to be part of the conflict resolution in Artsakh?

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Official response from UK Foreign Office to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Despite being given an assurance that I would be granted an interview with a Foreign Office official to discuss the UK position on Nagorno-Karabakh, this was subsequently revoked, and I was offered this statement. I shall continue to pursue them, regardless. I am curious as to how they would recommend that someone resolves the inevitable conflict between territorial integrity and self-determination. I will invite them to comment.

The UK is concerned that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unresolved and is a source of regional instability. Resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh and conflicts in Georgia would bring economic benefits to the wider region.  The longer the conflict remains unresolved, the greater the loss of life on the Line of Contact. There is also a risk that both sides become more entrenched in their positions and a settlement becomes more difficult.

The British Government continues to support the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group Co Chairs to mediate talks on peace settlement. We encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to accelerate efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement, based on the Principles of refraining from the threat or use of force, territorial integrity and people’s right to self-determination. It is in all of our interests that a sustainable, agreed settlement is reached. Both sides can do more to reduce tension through increased dialogue and reducing public criticism of each other’s position.

Over the past ten years, we have funded projects which give  people from Armenia and Azerbaijan a chance to meet, work on joint projects and break down stereotypes.  For financial year 2012/13 alone we have funded approximately £1.25 million on projects focusing on Nagorno-Karabakh and wider South Caucasus issues. Given the difficulties people from the two countries have to meet an engage, we hope that our projects have made a difference in countering stereotypes and hate speech. 

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Artsakh : Recognition through Common Consent

At a meeting with Franco-Armenian investors in Paris, Arayik Harutyunyan, the Prime Minister of Artsakh was reported to have said:

“If we manage to end the year peacefully then that will be constructive, but in terms of concrete accords to resolve the conflict, I’m not optimistic for this year,”

This is certainly a very pragmatic and realistic expectation for this year; as it was for last year, and probably will be for next year, and for several years thereafter. It is very difficult to see how, with the impasse that has lasted for nearly 20 years after the ceasefire was agreed , there is any reason for the two sides to move. There is no logic for Azerbaijan to offer an “olive branch” to Artsakh which will give Artsakhians the necessary security assurances in the context of an arrangement which would revert its territorial status back to that of the 1980’s; firmly located, politically, within the borders of Azerbaijan. If this happened then there would be significant movements of Azeris back into Artsakh to even the balance of the populations. For the people of Artsakh, they could never accept an outcome which involved Azerbaijan having any political governance over the territory, at all, and particularly the land bridge of Kashatagh /Lachin which secures the route back to Armenia. Azerbaijan will never accept Armenia having an involvement within Artsakh to assure the protection of its fellow people. Without resolution of these issues there is no formal peace agreement, no referendum and therefore no formal recognition by the international community.

This might sound like a depressing future for Artsakh but the most important issue is that this is accepted for what it is; it can’t be considered as the only option. Artsakh is at a disadvantage to other unrecognised countries in that it has no sea border, and the only route to other economic regions is via a six hour road journey through the mountains to Yerevan. Little surprise that Azerbaijan does not want Stepanakert airport to open with the obvious improvement in connections with external trade. Artsakh has to consider more subtle and humanitarian routes to recognition than the stark, clinical, legal option which necessarily involves the unlikely co-operation with Azerbaijan.

Artsakh should take the option of the dignified “under-dog” – the person who can never beat the “big guy” with “brute force”. For as long as oil is pumped via Baku, Artsakh will never outrival Azerbaijan on sheer global popularity however inequitable that is. It has to win by completely different means, through tactics that are within its control and which are, in themselves, influential.

The developed world respects and places significant credence on proven democracy; where there is no oil, this is essential ( an abundance of oil or economic power can cover for any amount of human rights abuses). This is an absolute priority for Artsakh, as well as the complete eradication of any implication of corruption in the political system, or by politicians; it needs to be seen to be beyond criticism. It needs to act, strongly, on the political stage, positively, in its role as a democratically elected independent state. The Government and the people need to talk, act, believe, engage on the basis that there will never be a return to war, that they have a right to exist and occupy a place in the global society, and that they have a right to connect with other communities and people and that the sole objective is peace, freedom and prosperity.

Artsakh should completely shun and ignore the notion of being a transient, short-lived, temporary phenomena run by “separatists” based on a raw “Nationalist” agenda; a myth perpetrated by the Azerbaijani propaganda machine. It should publicise its breadth of qualities on the educational, cultural, technological and political front and show that it can operate as a fully-functioning mature state that needs to be supported and not suppressed, or subjugated.

The more that people hear about Artsakh, see it appear in many guises, in many different “theatres”, and behave responsibly as a 21st Century entity which is concerned entirely about the future, and not dwelling on the past, the more that eventually other states will recognise it. Formal recognition is not the only end point, it is an end point. Recognition by Common Consent and respect may seem like a long hard road but it will be the most sustainable and secure option for the People of Artsakh in the long term.

In order to achieve this outcome, the People and Government of Artsakh, as well as the people in the Diaspora, must work together and believe that such an approach can make the difference. This requires strong focussed leadership, and sheer force of will of everybody.

For the sake of Artsakh – this must happen.

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

RELATED ARTICLES:

COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON SELF-DETERMINATION – ARTSAKH

Artsakh issues : Diplomatic perspectives and sobering thoughts

It is well understood that the UK government has significant connections with Azerbaijan through the British Petroleum company and many years of investment in the oil industry in Baku, and therefore has a strong bias towards protecting that alliance. This inevitably means that diplomacy around the issues with Artsakh is particularly difficult in London. I took the opportunity to meet with Ara Margarian, the Charge d’Affaire for the Armenian Embassy in the UK, to discuss this, and other related diplomatic issues.

It came as no surprise that the UK government has no direct involvement in any issues to do with the resolution of the conflict in Artsakh, and any direct questioning just results in political platitudes around supporting the established peace process. However, the last debate in the House of Commons ( elected chamber in the UK Parliament) prior to Christmas 2012 was on the subject of Azerbaijan. Mr Margarian commented:

“It was not encouraging for Azerbaijan. Despite their lobbyists and friends who are influenced by petrol dollars, and other gifts, the discussion was very critical of Azerbaijan….it is an important ally and an important player for Europe’s energy independence but at the same time they understood that a “blind eye” was being turned to developments in democracy and the horrible situation with human rights – at times even your Government cannot help but criticise Azerbaijan….but in general there is a visible bias towards Azerbaijan”

In the UK Parliament, there is the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group whose prime objective is to promote relations between the 2 countries, and to give some balance to the inherent pro-Azeri bias. This group is comprised of 20 Members of Parliament and 5 representatives from the House of Lords and is chaired by Baroness Cox – a well-known friend, champion and advocate of Artsakh.

Our discussion moved on to the Safarov affair from 2012 and he provided an interesting perspective. He saw that it was a “clever move by Aliyev” – but that was not meant as a compliment more a comment on its multi-faceted objectives. The prime driver for his actions, Margarian felt, was “ .. to test the mood of the international community in case of war”. The other objectives, he speculated, were to boost popularity internally, and to provoke Armenia.

But there was a transparent message for Aliyev:

“Safarov’s pardon clearly told him that the international community would not accept that, and all of the countries involved basically criticised that move, …so if it was that harsh in the case of Safarov’s release then if they become the one that starts the war then it’s going to be quite tough for them”

I then moved onto the subject of Stepanakert airport and the policy by Azerbaijan to shoot down civilian planes that attempt to fly in to it. His response was forthright:

“It’s unacceptable to keep people in a blockade for that time and it’s the right of the people of Karabakh to have their chosen means of transportation” and it is “…an inalienable right of the people of Karabakh to have freedom of movement”

He explored the comparison with Kosovo, where Serbia does not accept its independence and it still considers Kosovo to be its sovereign territory.

“Kosovo is recognised by a few countries, but not by Serbia…but Serbia does not try to shoot down all the planes that fly into Pristina. This is the difference between a civilised way of handling the situation and a brutal dictatorial way”

We then turned to the key subject of the recognition of Artsakh, and the final path towards peace in the area. The UK’s motivation was simple to understand.

“Your Government is very interested in peace and stability in the region because the first thing to be in danger will be the oil supply where you have invested all these billions which is a direct threat to the British economic interest”

The UK has to walk the delicate tightrope between not losing the source of the oil from Baku, or the means of transportation which passes close to Artsakh; an inevitable strategic target if there was war.

Mr Margarian confirmed that the route to Artsakh’s recognition was by having another referendum ; the last one being in 1991. The only block to this happening is that Azerbaijan will not agree to it without the return of the 7 outlying territories; an impossible impasse given the status of these regions as being Artsakh’s guarantee for its future. He described, bluntly, the conditions of the referendum and the notion of a “package deal”:

“ You (Azerbaijan) give us the date of the referendum, we give you the territories back. By that date , the referendum is conducted, and the outcome is final. Every single clause in the agreement has to have the backing of the international community – serious backing from the major powers. EU, Russia and the United States, and they are the ones that have to be the guarantors.”

“It has to be a compromise deal. Compromise means giving up something that you like , but that giving it up is painful – I think that, God willing, when we come to that point, and there is an agreement reached, and we have to make painful concessions regarding our position…maybe Kashatagh could be that painful loss for us?”

These concessions would be in the context of a preserved Lachin Corridor and a de-militarised zone between Artsakh and Armenia. This approach is based around the Madrid Principles and the exact outcome is in the hands of the appointed negotiators. It is difficult to see how the people of Artsakh would ever trust having Azeri controlled territory between them and Armenia – this may have some sound negotiating logic but is not considerate of the natural anxieties of the people of Artsakh.

I had always been intrigued as to why Armenia didn’t recognise Artsakh as that seemed to be quite anomalous. Mr Margarian explained how this position was important to ensure the continuation of the bilateral negotiations.

“Since we are negotiating the status of Karabakh, with Azerbaijan – if we recognise Karabakh then it means that we have to stop negotiations because if we recognise Karabakh there is nothing for us to discuss. There is no logic”

“If we (Armenia) recognise, then we will condemn Artsakh to be never recognised”

The delicate links between a referendum, compromises, and lasting peace for Artsakh are intertwined with Armenia’s status in the negotiations, and no one part of this complex jigsaw can be moved without calculating the many possible outcomes. Mr Margarian’s last comment to me on the impact of Armenia recognising Artsakh was profoundly thought-provoking, and very concerning:

“In that case (Armenia recognising Artsakh) then that is the end of the peace talks, and the end of any hopes that the international community can one day be more constructively engaged in the process, and it means that ….basically it’s war – to determine the final winner.”

A sobering thought!

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

The ‘Khojaly Accusation’ of Thomas Goltz

I was intrigued by  Shaunt Oozoonian’s report  from the presentation at University of California, Irvine (UCI) called the “Khojaly Accusation of 1992”. This presentation included a viewing of the film by Thomas Goltz called “Azerbaijan through Foreign Eyes”. During the Karabakh war Goltz was a journalist working from the Azeri side, and now he is a professor at Montana State University. In his book, “Azerbaijan Diary”  he comes across as a very brash self-assured individual and proclaims himself as being the journalist who  “broke the Khojaly story” to the US media in February 1992. Given this accolade  I was surprised to read that his performance at this meeting was unconvincing and disappointing.

“During the question and answer period, frustration arose from the questioners as Mr. Goltz failed to correctly and sufficiently answer the questions posed and instead put on a charade.”

“Seeming as though Mr. Goltz was flustered by the simple questions raised, Huseynov (general director of the Azerbaijani-American Council)  had to answer on his behalf while Mr. Goltz sat down, leaving those who attended confused on why the guest speaker was not capable of answering simple questions in regards to Khojaly, himself. I can assure you that Mr. Goltz lost his credibility by the end of the night.”

Although I have read his book “Azerabijan Diary” I had forgotten that he was not actually a witness to the Khojaly event – he was in Aghdam at the time. I began to wonder how much of a reliable “witness” he actually was and was inspired to re-read the relevant sections of his book  in the context of what I now know about Khojaly.  I was surprised how much of what he wrote now seems to be  counter to the prevailing Azerbaijani propaganda, despite his clear pro-Azeri stance.

I have summarised key quotes from his book, and their context.

The military advantage of Khojaly, to the Armenians, was obvious. They had surrounded the town from 3 sides to facilitate the evacuation of the civilians from the 4^th side back to Aghdam . The Azerbaijani government could have given humanitarian assistance to its people to avoid unnecessary deaths but chose to ignore the inevitable Armenian offensive and recklessly left people in a place of certain danger.

Azeri woman in Aghdam, talking to Goltz,  trying to return to Khojali…

“Why can’t the Government open the road? Why are they making us fly in like ducks, waiting to be shot?”

Reported speech from Alef Khadjiev (Commander airport security) to Goltz….

Baku could open the road to Aghdam in a day if the Government wanted to, he said. He now believed the Government actually wanted the Karabakh business to simmer on, to distract public attention while the elite continued to plunder the country.

The sixty men under his command lacked both the weapons and training to defend the straggling perimeter, he told me. The only Azeri soldiers worth their salt were four veterans from the war in Afghanistan. The rest were greenhorns. If the Armenians shot off one round, they would answer with a barrage of fire and waste half their precious ammunition.

So it was that night: I was awakened from sleep by a distant burst of fire coming from the direction of a neighbouring Armenian town called Laraguk. The Armenian sniper fire was returned with at least 100 rounds from the Azeri side.

From a distance of 21 years it is easy for outsiders to think that there were 2 professional armies fighting each other – this was not the case. This reckless gunfire activities could be hitting people, randomly, of all nationalities. This was not a co-ordinated army with a common focus and goal.

….and then the rescue and aid helicopters stopped…

The last helicopter flight into the surrounded town was February 13^th….

Goltz then returned to Aghdam (before February 25^th) after escaping from Khojaly…

At first we found it hard to believe what the survivors were saying: the Armenians had surrounded Khojaly and delivered an ultimatum – get out or die. Then came a babble of details of the last days, many concerning Commander Alef Khadjiev

Sensing doom, Alef had begged the government to bring in choppers to save at least some of the non-combatants, but Baku had done nothing. Then, on the night of February 25^th, Armenian Fedayeen hit the town from three sides. The fourth had been left open, creating a funnel through which refugees might flee. Alef gave the order to evacuate…..Groping their way through the night under fire, by the morning of February 26^th, the refugees made it to the outskirts of a village called Naxjivanli, on the cusp of Karabakh. They crossed a road and began working their way downhill toward the forward lines and the city of Aghdam, only some six miles away, via the Azeri outpost at Shelli. It was there, in the hillocks and within sight of safety, that something horrible awaited them: a gauntlet of lead and fire.

The massacres that are referred to took place in the hills near to the Azeri occupied territories. Surely if they were that close, then the Azeris could have assured their safety? If they were in “sight of safety” then they were nearer to the Azeri military than the Armenian.

Scores, hundreds, possibly a thousand were slaughtered in a turkey shoot of civilians and their handful of defenders. Aside from counting every body, there was no way to tell how many were dead – and most of the bodies remained out of reach, in the no-man’s land between the lines that had become a killing zone and a picnic site for crows.

…bodies stiffened by rigor mortis, seemed to speak of execution: arms were thrown up, as if in permanent surrender. A number of heads lacked hair, as if the corpses had been scalped. It was not a pretty sight.

..one corpse was identified as that of a young veterinarian who had been shot through the eye point-blank.

If these were all in sight of Azeri posts how could this have been perpetrated by the Armenians.

In discussion with other journalists, Goltz was questioned with some incredulity…

“You are suggesting that more people have died in one attack in Karabakh than the total number we have reported killed over the past four years?” said the BBC’s Moscow correspondent when I tipped him on the slaughter “That’s impossible!”

To be fair, the government and press in Baku didn’t exactly support our reporting. While we were off in Aghdam to get out the news, the presidential spokesman was claiming that Khojaly’s scrappy defenders had beaten back an Armenian attack and suffered only 2 dead. Just a regular night in Mountainous Karabakh.

We knew differently, but it was the 3 of us against the Azerbaijani state lie machine.

Goltz was then reporting back through to the Washington Post, and was asked many questions for verification of the story:

Where did I get this number from, when Baku was still reporting that only 2 had died? Had I seen all the bodies? What about a little balance? The Armenians were reporting a “massive Azeri offensive”. Why wasn’t that in my report?

Days later Goltz then reports that the Azerbaijan government have changed their mind on the event; no doubt recognising a propaganda opportunity.

The government of Azerbaijan meanwhile has performed a complete about face on the issue. The same people who had remained unavailable during the early days of the crisis were suddenly asking me to provide the phone numbers of foreign correspondents in Moscow whom they could invite down, at government expense, to report on the massacre [Note:  The government also began churning out pamphlets and picture books on Khojaly, replete with the most gruesome images imaginable to use as “press packs” for visiting dignitaries. The publications were so badly produced that they became counter-productive]

Later in Baku at the funeral of Khadjiev…

There weren’t too many bodies. Most were still in the hills, waiting for the higher temperatures of spring and for rot to set in. Some, the few, were being spaded into the shallow ground of the growing Martyr’s Cemetery across from the Parliament building in Baku. One of those was Alef Khadjiev…..He had bought a bullet through the brain and after rotting for a week in the mountains of the Black Garden his body was bought for 100 litres of gasoline and then to be brought back to Baku to be buried with military honours.

Despite the proximity of the parliament across the street, no one from the government came to the funeral, and maybe that was out of good taste, because had they been there, whispering eulogies about courage and fortitude, Alef, the hero and then martyr of Khojali, might have broken free of the bonds of death and climbed out of his grave and strangled the hypocrites with his own cold hands. He was that sort of guy.

Goltz is very ambiguous about the number and location of the bodies. Earlier on he states that there were “truckloads of bodies being brought in for identification” then he suggests that “most were still in the hills”.

In doing further research on Goltz I found that he made a similar embarrassing show of himself in 2009 in Canada, when he made derogatory remarks about Armenians.

ANCC: American professor made racist and derogatory remarks about Armenians.

Quote from the article…

“At the Newsmaker Breakfast lecture, Aris Babikian, executive director of the ANCC, confronted Goltz and mocked him for his “command performance of misrepresentation and revisionism.” Babikian exposed Goltz’ hypocrisy by pointing out that the American journalist had “conveniently forgotten to mention the Sumgait, Baku and Maragha massacres of Armenians by Azeris… and that had it not been for the Russian Navy 230,000 Armenian inhabitants of Baku would have not survived.”

In further questioning, Babikian asked Goltz to explain why the bodies of Azeri victims were found 11 km from Khojaly and 2 km from the most heavily fortified Azeri military town of Aghdam. “Is it logical for Armenians to follow Azeri 11 km, risking their own lives to eliminate the enemy around Aghdam, instead of killing them in Khojaly?” Babikian asked.

The ANCC executive said that he found it strange that Goltz praised his “old friend” the late “great” Aliyev as an “extraordinary guy” when everyone in Azerbaijan knows that he was a despot and a man who stifled democracy while his son, the current president, follows in his father’s infamous steps. Babikian said it was obvious that for Goltz “the lure of the petro-dollar is much stronger than the lure of truth and impartiality.”

Goltz did not answer any of Babikian’s questions and skirted around them.

Goltz is, undeniably pro-Azeri, and cannot be defined as an independent journalist ( ref Justice for Khojaly website). His associations have biased his judgement and credibility. A journalist who “broke the story of Khojaly” should be able to communicate a convincing and robust account of events and be capable of being challenged and questioned by anyone. The fact that he seems weak under some level of interrogation, particularly from Armenian interviewers, does start raising some questions about why this might be.

His greatest legacy to the people who seek some clarity around Khojaly is “between the lines” in his book, “Azerbaijan Diary” and in that text one may find the “Accusation of Mr Goltz”.

HOME PAGE : www.Artsakh.Org.UK
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH / ARMENIA
MORE INFORMATION on ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IMAGES of ARTSAKH / NAGORNO-KARABAKH

RELATED ARTICLES:

Do Azerbaijanis in London really understand about Khojaly and Karabakh?
Khojaly Issue : Letter to Chris Heaton-Harris ( UK MP for Daventry)