ACTUAL QUOTE
US Department of State:
“USA congratulated Azerbaijan on election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council on 2012-2013. The United States hopes to work closely with Azerbaijan for supporting the principles shown in the UN Charter, contributing to the efficiency of the Council and increasing its role in maintaining international peace and stability.”
From the statement of US Department of State, October 26, 2011
Russian MFA:
“The election of five new permanent members of UN Security Council has become a testament to their active role in international affairs and the high authority of the Member States of the organization. We believe that participating in the activities of one of the principal organs of the UN, these countries will actively contribute to the consolidation of central role in world affairs and enhance its effectiveness and credibility in the global agenda, as well as search for collective responses to the threats and challenges on a wide range of issues”.
From the statement by Russian MFA, Moscow, October 25, 2011
Matthew BRYZA,
US Ambassador to Azerbaijan:
“Neither U.S. nor any other country does not recognize independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. U.S. policy toward Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unchanged”
From the statement to press in Baku, October 8, 2011
Vladimir SOCOR,
Expert of Jamestown Foundation:
“Armenia pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing by expelling 800 thousand Azerbaijanis from their homes. The positions of the international union to these conflicts are unjust. Russia was a side in all 3 conflicts. Just for this reason, Russia’s mediatory role in these conflicts is mistake and the international union made a serious mistake by involving Moscow in these processes. The world union left Azerbaijan face to face with a great tragedy and injustice. For correction of this injustice, it needs to organize international conference larger than present one to eliminate this injustice and to make serious decisions to solve the problems”.
From the statement at the session of PA of NATO, Brussels, October 10, 2011
Justin McCARTHY,
Professor of the University of Louisville, US:
“I feel sorry for the Azerbaijani people, who were forced to leave their home as a result of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenians. But I do not see Russia, Europe or the US trying to exert pressure on Armenia to put an end to the occupation… The Ottoman Empire did not commit the genocide, it defended its population. That’s why, settlement of Armenians in Syria and Iraq can be justified by the happenings during the World War I. Besides it, the majority of them were not killed by Turks, but died of famine and disease. During this period, with the support of the Russian Empire Armenians settled in Nagorno Karabakh, which was populated only by Azerbaijanis. Therefore, the occupation of historical Azerbaijani territory can not be justified”.
From the speech in Stockholm, October 18, 2011
Armenians about Armenians
Robert ARAKELOV
KARABAKH DIARY
(beginning in the previous issues)
“KARABAKH” AND THE IRRESISTIBLE MARKET: THE SIAM TWINS
So, increase of free-market economics in any country contains of the following steps:
1. Formation of a special group of people who, concentrating definite things (initial capital), dedicate themselves to owner activity (business).
2. Appropriation of single market by the national business that intends the separation of this market from foreign owners and superiority of separatist views inside the country.
From the day of adoption of the decision of Caubureau on 4 July the text and political meaning of this document was changed and even falsified. Analyzing this decision, academic T. Kocharli wrote that “Armenian authors made a “little” operation on this decision: they changed the word “include” with “keep”” (T. Kocharli, “Karabakh. Lie and truth”. Baku, 1998, p. 172). The statement of N. Narimanov requiring making a look over Karabakh problem at the final decision of CC RCP put the participants before the facts. His statement was sounded so: “Considering the importance of Karabakh problem for Azerbaijan, I consider as necessary to put it at the final decision of CC RCP” (Protocol N11 of the night-meeting of the plenum of Caubureau of CC RCP. 04.07.1921).
Only thanks to the immediate protest of Narimanov the meeting made the final decision in the next formulation: “As Karabakh problem caused serious contradiction, Caubureau of CC RCP considers as necessary to bring it to the final decision of CC RCP”. As we see, “Karabakh problem” was discussed as the fifth problem, and the statement of N. Narimanov as the sixth problem at that meeting. The decision made over the sixth problem shattered the results of the next voting. In all cases, the decision over Narimanov’s statement was adopted for that the majority of participants of plenum voted for him. And also the problem was brought into discussion of CC RCP. Because, at first, G. Orjonikidze refused the false position which he had in the eve of the meeting and raised the problem about looking over the decision of the previous plenum about Karabakh. As the result of resistance of N. Narimanov and G. Orjonikidze’s refusal from his previous position, Caubureau discussed and made the following decision at the meeting of Plenum of 5 July as the second problem:
“a) considering the necessity of national peace between Muslims and Armenians and the economic relations of Upper and Lower Karabakh, its permanent relation with Azerbaijan, to put Nagorno-Karabakh in the boundary of Azerbaijan SSR, giving wide regional autonomy it with administrative center in Shusha city where enters the structure of the autonomy;
b) to charge CC of Azerbaijan with defining the borders of the autonomy province and give it to Caubureau of CC RCP for affirmation;
c) to charge the Presidium of Caubureau of CC with negotiating with CC of Armenia and CC of Azerbaijan about the candidate for extraordinary commissar of Nagorno-Karabakh;
d) to give the volume of Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy to CC of Azerbaijan and introduce to Caubureau of CC for affirmation”.
(to be continued)