Column of editor
Next failure of “Heritage”
The chronic illness of an opposition Armenian party “Heritage” on imposing to the Armenian parliament of the bill “About Recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” again progresses. Recently, the project has once again presented to Parliament by the Secretary of the parliamentary faction called Zarui Postandzhyan party.
Let’s mark that the commission of the National Council (NC) on the international relations didn’t draw the positive inference for including of this question on the agenda of plenary sessions. However importunate insistence of the author of the project caused its discussion as extraordinary question. But, as expected, it was rejected once again, in other words, there was the next failure of “Heritage”.
Main “responsible” for a failure were deputies from ruling party who didn’t take part in vote. Also authorities that at present consider “NKR” recognition inexpedient justified the behavior. In particular, the deputy minister of foreign affairs of Armenia Shavarsh Kocharyan considers that “to change rules of the international game is currently inexpedient”. The member of fraction of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) Ovannes Saakian declared that this project about recognition of independence of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia not simply disputable, but dangerous. Having marked “irrelevance of the bill of populism inherent in the author”, O. Saakian declared: “Already again it is used for the statement represented by the author of the bill of political force. The similar manner, to put it mildly, is unacceptable, moreover, contradicts interests of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Armenia”.
The prevailing majority of the Armenian parliamentarians suppose that if Armenia recognizes today independence of “NKR”, it will mean that it quits the negotiation process which is carried within OSCE, and it is equivalent to ignoring by this country of efforts of the international organizations on settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict that, of course, anything good Armenia doesn’t promise. Besides, as opponents of the above-named project consider, it can give a reason to Azerbaijan to restart military operations on release of the territories occupied with Armenia that absolutely not favorably by the last. At the same time, not only oppositionists, but also almost all pro-imperious officials, in principle, support recognition by Armenia so-called “the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”.
In a word, the separatist bill “Heritage” which is carried out on reviewing of NA of Armenia since 2007 (then it was made by the leader of the called batch well-known Raffi Ovannisyan), is again thrown into a garbage box.
Yes, Armenia and didn’t go this time on a lead at “Heritage”. Also couldn’t go. Because, it would manage it too expensive.
The interesting part here is another. Why the UN, OSCE and other international organizations have repeatedly documented to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, still didn’t give a political and legal assessment to similar actions of Armenia? Owing to what special factors and to what pores they will suffer whims of this country aggressor?
As for Armenia occupied of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven regions round it, they are the primordial lands of Azerbaijan and will be by all means released from any Armenian evil spirits.
ACTUAL QUOTE
Raymond BENJAMIN,
Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO):
“Unpermitted flights over the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, territorial integrity of which is recognized by the UN and confirmed by the UN Security Council’s four resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh, is unacceptable”.
From the statement at the 38th session of the ICAO, Montreal, October 14, 2013
Claudiu-Ciprian TANASESCU,
Member of the European Parliament:
“The security policy of the European Union is based upon international law. Therefore, the UN resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven occupied regions are, from a European perspective, binding and must be implemented. Territorial integrity is a basic component of state sovereignty. 20% of its territory is occupied by the regular army of a neighboring state. In order to stabilize the Southern Caucasus region, Azerbaijan has to be granted the rights of the aforementioned Security Council Resolutions. The European Union must assist with resolving this conflict. In the center is still the Minsk Group lead unanimously by Russia, the U.S.A., and France. Here the peace process should be revived with the help of the European Union.
From the answer to a question of the European Azerbaijan Society, October, 8, 2013
Suleyman DEMIREL:
Former President of Turkey:
“The Nagorno Karabakh conflict impedes the region to possess its potential. The problem should be solved fairly and urgently within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Armenian should apprehend that this conflict impedes the regional development. Armenia should also understand that this step must be taken towards normalizing the relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey”.
From the statement at the 3rd Baku International Humanitarian Forum, Baku, October 31, 2013
Abdulaziz bin Othman ALTWAIJRI,
ISESCO Director General:
“Today, the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan is a regrettable matter. National cultural monuments of Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabakh region had been destroyed. The resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council on the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan are not implemented. The Security Council shows its failure to fulfill the duties. Conflicts and confrontations are going on in different parts of the world, especially in Muslim countries. This is a threat to human development and international security”.
From the statement at the 3rd Baku International Humanitarian Forum, Baku, October 31, 2013
Ehmeleddin IHSANOGLU,
Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC):
“Non-implementation of the Security Council resolutions undermines its authority and people’s belief in justice and possibility of peaceful political settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, said while addressing at the UN Security Council. We call for the resolution of the conflict on the basis of respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and in line with the Security Council resolutions in this regard”.
From the statement at the meeting of the UN Security Council, October 29, 2013
Ivo VAJGL,
Slovenian Member of the European Parliament:
“And United Nations and the greater majority of the countries all around the world did not recognize any right of Armenia as occupying power in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia roughly is violating international law and has to withdraw its troops from Nagorno-Karabakh. Unfortunately, Armenia is supported by Russia who has its troops stationed in this country. Actions of Armenia and Russia are inadmissible. They break regional stability. The principle of territorial integrity of countries, within their internationally recognized borders, is a core principle of peace and stability in the world. If a country, a partner within the “Eastern Partnership” is in breach of these principles, this certainly represents a problem for all the countries. Therefore, to solve the problem should be in a short time”.
From the answer of the European Azerbaijan Society, October 30, 2013
Armenians about Armenians
Robert ARAKELOV
Karabakh Diary
(see the previous editions)
“TOP PRIORITY CASES”
This was the third year of “Karabakh” in Stepanakert , but the memory of that episode helped me at that very moment to understand the reason why Gdlyan was not interested in the corruption tricks of the Moscow Mayor’s Office. No wonder that he is not interested in them since the same mayor’s office is on friendly terms with Yerevan. Gavriil Kharitonovich himself traveled to Yerevan to show his respect. In short, the Democrats are friends, and let them be so. It’s all clear.
However, it is still not clear to me what was the reason for Yakovlev not to quell hotheaded representatives from Yerevan, not pull them back or to get angry at them and simply slam the door in protest. On the contrary, he expressed his understanding. After all, that means that in the large blood of “Karabakh” there was his fault as well. And the guilt was not small at all. Anyway, after all he is a ‘Democrat …’
I cannot speak for others, but I personally cannot call long-standing member of the Political Bureau Yakovlev’s behavior anything but criminal. Both his and his boss’ behavior.
Without putting out the still smoldering fire of “Karabakh” during those years, and doing that they had given a terrible flare to that fire, which has already burnt so much.
One would wonder what for. But all are silent as Yakovlev himself is silent as a mastermind of the so-called ‘perestroyka.’
HAPPY BROADCAST OF “ARMENIAN RADIO”
Jokes… It is said they are as old as the human society. And it is well researched that they were in great favor of young patrician families in Ancient Rome. But, perhaps, at no time or any place in the world the process of their creation had been as numerous as in the former USSR.
In that funny (usually urban) folklore with squeezed in revelations reminding almost the Aesopian language, almost every aspect of our lives has been played upon. And those jokes playfully depicting ‘Chapayev’, having a ‘northern’ type or anything alike, flew throughout towns and villages of the huge country amusing people.
By the way, among those jokes the ones about the so-called “Armenian radio” had earned a great popularity” and had a definite political overtones hiding under their outer shell. It is not that difficult to understand such a nature of the anecdotes of the past years. However, now when transparency and pluralism of opinions seem to have got the opportunity of having an open context of all opinions and thoughts, I believe that political jokes of the “Chapayev” and all other series would have become a thing of the past. Alas, I was wrong, because, at least in the case of the “Armenian Radio jokes” the situation today is just the opposite. Saying opposite, I mean that the jokes of that particular genre of the “literary work” happened to be the most preferred ones in the programs of the “Armenian Radio” covering political issues.
Is there any need for facts? Certainly, and I can provide them. Here is the one, which leaves no doubt as being a relevant anecdote in the message of “Radio of Armenia” from December 11, 1991, “Armenia joined the 1948 UN International Covenant on the Prevention of genocide of ethnic minorities throughout its territory.” A natural desire to cry overwhelmed me at that moment – well done, lads, as your ingenuity causes ‘envy!’ Well, what other Covenant of all other humanitarian ones might be accepted here if not that one? Though, in fact, what national minorities can we speak about in regard to Armenia when it has become almost completely mono-ethnic state after the expulsion of all Azerbaijanis? And where else, in which other republic of the former Soviet Union there is a chance to find only three percent of non-indigenous inhabitants out of the total population of the country? The answer is nowhere.
So, those gentlemen Armenian parliamentarians, basically, had no risk for themselves while making decisions on those things, and only gave birth to a new anecdote. By the way, once we have started talking about the Armenian parliament I cannot resist not to tell one more juicy case from the same session, when the aforementioned pact was discussed. And once again the opportunity to tell the story belongs to the ubiquitous Armenian radio.
It turned out that someone in the heat of fever and ‘open-mindedness’ suggested the Parliament adopts the Bill of Rights at the same time. It caused a great uproar. ‘Sober-minded’ parliamentarians explained to the hapless follower of “Volterian” philosophy that even though there are no national minorities in Armenia, there are some people still remaining in the country in spite of intense emigration. And what happens if they rush to claim their rights? What then if it becomes a reality and, God forbid, a serious need of becoming a democratic state arises? Saying democratic inevitably means these days becoming peaceful as well. Then what it can have as a possible implication for the situation with Karabakh? A horror!
Briefly, the follower of “Volterian” was hastily shushed and the Bill of Rights was not discussed at all, and the Parliament continued successfully being engaged with “the world’s problems.” What a pity! After all, the Armenian parliamentarians had had an opportunity to produce two anecdotes at once in just one day.
However, no need to be sorry as series of anecdotes by the Armenian radio is getting updated day by day.
(to be continued)
Elchin AHMEDOV, doctor of philosophy in political science
Historic, political and military-strategic value of Shusha
(beginning in the previous issues)
On January 12, 1989 the government of former USSR in order to stabilize the situation a special governing committee was created in DGAR under the supervision of A.Volski. Despite that this committee was created in order to prevent deterioration of ethnic relations and stabilization of situation, the situation in DGAR became worse during the period of rule of the special governing committee. A.Volski, committee chairman, instead of stabilization of situation inflated the tension. As a result of his active “efforts” through a short period of time almost all enterprises and organizations were conveyed from subordination of Azerbaijan to that of the center. In all documentation DGAR was erased from composition of Azerbaijan.
Through the period of its activity the special governing committee failed to provide return of Azerbaijani fled from Khankendi to their homes. On the contrary, several other Azerbaijani villages were emptied by “assistance” of the committee. A part of withdrawn Azerbaijani population came to Shusha. In general, due to “serious care” of A.Volski the province went out of control of Azerbaijan government.
Starting from 1991 the tension in mountain portion of Garabagh was gradually increasing. Social and political situation evidenced incoming of large tragedy. At the end of October of 1991 and during November the villages in mountain portion of Garabagh, including Tug, Khodjavend, Garadagly, Imaret-Gervend and other strategically important villages were put on fire, destroyed and looted by Armenians.
Telephone communication lines of Shusha passed from Khankendi were cut on November 24 and population of Shusha and surrounding villages were absolutely isolated. As a result Khodjaly and Shusha turned out to be under the siege. On December 2, Armenian army, equipped by Russian armaments and armored machines driven mostly by Russian servicemen attacked from Khankendi the Kerkidjahan settlement. It was impossible to send army units from Shusha for support, because Russian forces closed the road from Shusha to Kerkidjahan. At the same time, Shusha itself was the target of everyday intensive shelling.
Starting from 1992 Armenian army occupied other remained Azerbaijani villages in mountains of Garabagh. Thus, on February 12 Malybeyli and Gushchular villages of Shusha were occupied by Armenian armed forces.
On February 25-26, 1992 at night Armenian forces by support of 366th regiment of Russian army deployed in Khankendi attacked Khodjaly and killed about thousand civilians.
After occupation of Khodjaly by united forces of Armenian and Russian armies it became clear that the next target will be Shusha. Armenians did not hide this and openly prepared to capture the city and Lachyn in order to make a corridor. Strategic position of Shusha almost zeroed probability of its easy capture. But in aim to reach Shusha, Armenians occupied our territories with unbelievable atrocity and step-by-step moved towards Shusha. What was the loss of Shusha for Azerbaijan? If one will look through the history, the political and strategic importance of Shusha will become clear.
(to be continued)
Tragedy of Morgenthau
(see the beginning in previous editions)
Chapter 7. Curved Arithmetic
And yet, how many Armenians were killed as a result of deportation? In order to answer this question, we have to consider a lot of different numbers. First of all we shall look into the Armenian counting method, which was published in the well-known Russian-language translation of “The Tragedy of Armenian people” by Morgenthau. Open page 235, chapter 23 which is called “Revolution at Van”. Somehow the word “revolution” is in quotes, as if hinting that there was no revolution at all. The given figures make it clear whether there was a revolution or not. Quotation marks, in that case, lose any meaning. It reads, “In the fall of 1914, its population of about 30,000 people represented one of the most peaceful and happy and prosperous communities in the Turkish Empire. Though Van, like practically every other section where Armenians lived, had had its periods of oppression and massacre, yet the Moslem yoke, comparatively speaking, rested upon its people rather lightly. Its Turkish governor, Tahsin Pasha, was one of the more enlightened types of Turkish officials. Relations between the Armenians, who lived in the better section of the city, and the Turks and the Kurds, who occupied the mud huts in the Moslem quarter, had been tolerably agreeable for many years”. That specific part mentions “periods of brutal oppression and massacre” in the light of Armenians “who lived in the better section of the city” and Muslims “who occupied the mud huts in the Moslem quarter”. Therefore, who was oppressed and slaughtered? Were those Muslims, whom Armenians herded into Muslim “ghettos” of shacks and did not let them, Turks and Kurds, live in the prosperous center, where, according to the author and the translator, Armenians lived “peacefully and happily?” In this short excerpt of the text it is quite evident that someone crammed it with incompatible contradictions. However, you yourself may analyze everything as well. In this case we shall cast a look at the certain number – “population of about 30,000 people”. We shall remember it.
We proceed reading on page 238, “… in the district north of Lake Van, and in three days 24,000 Armenians were murdered.” On page 240, “Doctor Ussher, the American medical missionary whose hospital at Van was destroyed by bombardment, is authority for the statement that, after driving off the Turks, the Russians began to collect and to cremate the bodies of Armenians who had been murdered in the province, with the result that 55,000 bodies were burned”. We calculate and get that 30,000 people lived in Van. The Armenians did not make the majority anywhere. We may admit that the population was equally divided – 15,000 of Armenians, and Muslims. How many Armenians were claimed to be killed during the rebellion then? 24 + 55 = 79,000. But if all Armenians made only 15,000, then how was it possible to kill 79,000? Where did the 79 – 15 = 64,000 come from?
If we assume the population of Van was made of Armenians, meaning 30, 000 people, then it is still not clear how 79,000 people were killed. The same question rises again and we may calculate the following: 79 – 30 makes 49,000, which is questionable again. In the first case, cramming (forgery) was 64,000. In the second version it was 49,000 that is quite a lot. This is the Armenian arithmetic.
Therefore, no documents presented by the Armenian side, shall be accepted for consideration without the most thorough and independent examination. Our congressmen obviously vainly neglect that rule.
(to be continued)