ACTUAL QUOTE
Kristiina OJULAND,
Member of the European Parliament:
“At many occasions, in the, several colleagues and myself have underlined that the international law – and especially the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 844 of 1993 – need to be respected. Armenia must commit to the international legal framework and therefore withdraw its troops from the Nagorno-Karabakh region… I have the impression that the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh is still a bit underestimated by the international community. The European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize last year and therefore it should be its moral duty to contribute to a peaceful neighborhood. It is clear that the OSCE Minsk Group has not had decisive breakthroughs in solving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The European Union can increase the legitimacy of the Minsk Group if it takes a seat in it as one common actor representing 27 countries”.
From the reply to the question of the European Azerbaijan Society, Baku, September 25, 2013
Titus CORLATEAN,
Romanian FM:
“With regard to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, we support the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the conflict, in full observations of the principles and norms of the international law, respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as of all the relevant UN SC resolutions and OSCE decisions. The observance of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is a key issue that should be taken into account in all political and diplomatic demarches regarding the settlement of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The UN Security Council has repeatedly demanded in its resolutions the withdrawal of foreign troops from Nagorno-Karabakh… We fully support this position and therefore call for a withdrawal of military forces of Armenia from Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding regions”.
From the respond to the questions of the European Azerbaijan Society, Baku, September 13, 2013
Glenn HOWARD,
Jamestown Foundation President:
“The conflicts caused serious damage to Azerbaijan and Georgia. According to him, the situation in Karabakh remains dangerous. The US understands the importance of security in the South Caucasus, but does not pay much attention to this issue. The policy against the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Georgia forced these two countries to spend the incomes from energy resources on the solution of the problems of the people who became refugees and internally displaced as a result of Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts”.
From the speech at the 2nd “South Caucasus in a changing world” forum, Baku, September 2, 1013
Huseyn TANRIVERDI,
elected representative of the people from the Justice and Development Party of Turkey:
“Armenians should immediately withdraw from the occupied territories. Karabakh problem is a dagger in the heart of Turkey. Turkey adequately realizes the duties that fall to it in connection with the Karabakh problem”.
From the statement of the press, Ankara, September 26, 2013
Javad JAHANGIRZADE,
Iranian parliamentarian:
“Iran is sensitive in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Iran considers that any external interference in the solution of regional problems is unacceptable. Iran condemns the atrocities committed in the region. The borders of the country should be respected by neighboring countries. When the OSCE Minsk Group was established, Iran said that the composition of this group is not useful to resolve the conflict. Iran is ready to mediate in the resolution of the conflict anyway. We want our region to be a safe, peaceful and stable place”.
From the statement during the visit to Azerbaijan, Baku, September 25, 2013
Armenians about Armenians
Robert Arakelov
The Karabakh Diary
(see the previous editions)
AND WAS IT REBELLIOUS …
It was in this very year (1989-edi.) when emissaries of nationalist organizations of Armenia were all over the region arriving under the pretext of so called ‘cultural exchange’. One particular group consisting of forty “artists”, who travelled from school to school in Stepanakert and were convincing children that they do not live in Azerbaijan, but Armenia, was of an example of such an “exchange.” In addition all children received pictures of Vazgen I.
It was the time when Volskiy led the region and it received a huge amount of weapons with guns in almost every house.
During his tenure all Azerbaijani population was expelled from villages with mixed Armenian and Azerbaijani population – those were last spots of peace in the midst of hatred. There were more than enough of examples. This was the situation when Viktor Petrovich came to the office and was able to do so much in this regard. Here are some of the facts. Numerous undesired guests were expelled from the region, a large number of weapons was confiscated from people, the regional airport was given to Khojaly’s control making it possible to manage air traffic, the same tight control was imposed on highways and railroads, timely detection and closing down of bootleg radio broadcasting, etc. He was the one who changed the management of regional law enforcement and power agencies, strengthened military control of roads and bridges.
While trying to compare the act of Volskiy with those of Polyanichko and his colleagues thoughts of unfair fortune and its bitter rewards come to mind. Polyanichko was killed, while nationalists and separatists are longing for the time of Volskiy.
By the way, there is an interesting detail. Gorbachev personally signed a decree on assigning Volskiy to Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region directly by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Soon after leaving the region Volskiy had been appointed the head of the Russian entrepreneurs. Would be interesting to know how come he could learn entrepreneurship so well getting to the top in this field. It is unlikely that it could happen in the cabinets and corridors of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
… Viktor Petrovich was an active and creative person in Karabakh. However, the confrontation with the triangle of opponents: local extremists, traitors from the center of the Soviet Union, and foes from the republic, did not let him fight and extinguish the Karabakh fire. It was his misfortune as he never tried to keep safe and went for his goals.
… Once, just before his end, Viktor Petrovich suggested to write a script for a feature film on Karabakh. I was free to choose the subject and texture. I wrote the script and read the text and description of the staging of a short episode in a telephone conversation, which happened to be the last one.
– We will shoot this film, definitely do that. We need just time – shouted he over the phone. Alas, it was the fate not giving you the time, Viktor Petrovich. And the script wanders around in other people’s hands. Briefly, that was the fate. That’s about all. I am left to say be his fervent soul in peace.
“TOP PRIORITY CASES”
While reading article “Fear” by Y. Schekochikhin published in Literaturnaya Newspaper (dated June 10, 1992) it is impossible not to be struck by the immense scale of corruption in the governmental structures of Moscow (although I am well aware that the important task of the article is something else: to prove that in this case the fish does not smell (rot) from the head).
It is not only the scale of corruption, but, immense fear that binds hearts of people at the mere mention of names from those very structures. And the following thought seems to me being naturally connected to it – WHERE are GDLYAN with IVANOV, and why are they silent? Indeed, these “fiery fighters” would have found a good place here to fight with embezzlement and bribery; it would be such a good place for them to demonstrate their experience of professional investigators of top priority cases, and there is no need to drive somewhere else as all the mafia people are close at hand. Eventually, there is nothing they should be afraid of because if something goes wrong they may leave for Yerevan to do their parliamentary “duty.”
But the two men are silent, nothing heard from them. I wonder if they managed to keep their experience and knowledge safe and sound and had not lost it to the democratic strife. While thinking about all of this, I recalled a recent episode.
Stepanakert 1990. I am sitting at my friends’ and watching TV. There were five more people in the room besides myself, and all except the owner – local pseudo-intelligent national separatists.
And Gdlyan was virtuoso on the TV screen, once again revealing the party’s elite mired in bribery. And then for a moment a television camera catches Alexander Yakovlev’s face.
– Another party boss – I throw a phrase never imagining how it’s going to end for me.
– What are you, crazy or something? – Yells at me one of the guys.
– Do not you dare, Yakovlev is a true democrat – shouts the other one.
– If all are like Yakovlev then we would have no worries – joins the third one.
– Yakovlev is our man. I would die for him – yelling at me the fourth guy and clenching his fists.
Not expecting such a reaction, and being shocked by the wild yelling of these people I become guiltily silent, totally unaware of the reasons for their resentment and anger. Finally the TV program was over and we went out to the street after dinner. Then the host, who was my old friend, explained to me the essence of my blunder.
– The thing is – he says – that while being in Yerevan Yakovlev expressed his understanding of the goals of “the Karabakh movement,” and even promised his support. That is why that member of the Politburo is so dear to my guests. By the way, for the same reason Gdlyan would never say anything against Yakovlev whether he is thrice guilty, not even a single word. Anyway, brother, it is a subtle game here and it has got roles for Gdlyan and Ivanov. Well, say, if there are truth-seekers in Russia and how come they were elected to the Armenian parliament. In-depth background of this election is the same as with Starovoytova – it is Karabakh …
And only then, after these explanations of the home owner, I understood why his guests suddenly turned against me.
Elchin AHMEDOV, doctor of philosophy in political science
Historic, political and military-strategic value of Shusha
(beginning in the previous issues)
Based on Turkmenchay agreement signed on February 10 of 1828 Azerbaijan was divided into two parts. The northern Azerbaijan was invaded by Russian troops. Until the law adopted on April 10 (1840) the territory of former Garabagh was called as “Garabagh province”. By reforms of 1840 “Shusha district” was created instead of “Garabagh province” and it was given to Yelizavetpol (Ganja) province in 1868. This was in force until Soviet rule coming to power in Azerbaijan in 1920. In 1917 Shusha district during Temporary Government was the administrative unit of Yelizavetpol province subjected Caucasian Committee. Through 1918-1920 during the period of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic it entered Ganja province.
Then Soviet rule came to power in Azerbaijan the issue of borders between Azerbaijan and Armenia was in responsibility of Moscow. Armenians living in mountain portion of Garabagh received a status of autonomous region on June 7, 1923 and this was due to patronizing of Soviet Russia only. Establishment of Daglyg Garabagh Autonomous Region (DGAR) no doubt was the result of farsighted and purposeful policy of Soviet Russia which used territorial claims and hostility of Armenia towards Azerbaijan. Thus the basis was put for future territorial claims of Armenia.
Administrative territorial division of Azerbaijan was seriously violated while establishment of DGAR. This was because until establishment of DGAR in Azerbaijan there were no cities or regions named Stepanakert, Martuni, Mardakert or Hadrut. By the order of 1923 territories of Shusha, Jevanshir and Gubadly districts were divided for favor of DGAR, and Khankendi and Askeran regions were wholly taken away from Shusha district. In 1923 tens of villages of Shusha district such as Khankendi, Khodjaly, Kerkidjahan, Ulubab, Pirdjamal, Jamylly, Aranzemi, Ballidja, Demirchiler, Syghnaq, Garabulag, Mukhtarkend, Dagdaghan, Shusakend and Dashbashy were given to Khankendi and later on those areas the Askeran region was created.
From the day of establishment of DGAR the economic potential of Azerbaijan was directed for development of Khankendi. Consisted of 10-15 houses the Khankendi village transformed into the center of economically strong region under the name “Stepanakert”. Shusha which administratively belonged to this region was put in position of dependant on Khankendi: phone lines connected Shusha to other regions of the Republic were managed from Khankendi; gas pipeline Yevlakh-Lachin was through this region; Agdam-Shusha highway was surrounded by Armenian settlements of Askeran and Khankendi. All this was done according to a certain plan and this became clear only after 1988.
It can be seen that tens years earlier there was preparation for the events of February of 1988 and basis of separatist movement was created. At the end of 1987 political and ideological activity of Garabagh Armenians increased. At the end of November of the same year A.Aganbekyan in his speech in Paris underlined his confidence that Garabagh will soon be given to Armenia. This speech played a role of signal for start of marches in Khankendi in the beginning of 1988.
In February of 1988 in Khankendi the meetings and strikes started at which Armenians demanded annexation of DGAR to Armenia. In Yerevan also meetings were held with the same demands. The same year on September 18 Armenians by use of violence have withdrawn 15 thousand Azerbaijani from Khankendi and forced them to settle in Shusha and surrounding regions.
(to be continued)
Felix TSERTSVADZE
Tragedy of Morgenthau
(see the beginning in previous editions)
Chapter 7. Curved Arithmetic
Further page 225 reads, “There was only one hope of saving nearly 2,000,000 people from massacre, starvation, and even worse, I was told – that was the moral power of the United States”. Once again the Armenian agents of influence “stepped on the same rake”. Do you remember I introduced an episode in the epilogue from the book by Morgenthau? But they messed up again. In the rush [H.Andonyan and A.Shmavonyan] did not consider that a provocative version of 2 million coming out of the blue would contradict, fundamentally, to the main text of the book by Morgenthau. The author reported that since the beginning of the war hunger and epidemics took lives of a quarter of the Ottoman population. As it was identified, the Armenian population made no more than 1,600,000 people before the war. Therefore, the given figure would have decreased due to the fact of hunger and diseases killing poor people with no difference of their ethnicity. However, it turned up being totally “opposite”. As Morgenthau claimed, thousands of Turks, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Circassians and Kurds were dying of diseases and hunger every day. Meanwhile, Armenians doubled their number on the same territory and time. How is that possible? – would be a question of any outside observer. That is, definitely, not possible. However, our congressmen are not embarrassed by such a “minor trifle”. It is said that they are in the process of preparation of the next draft with the same crooked numbers. I wonder if they approve it.
Approve or not, I do not know. We shall see. But it would be naïve to hope that the representatives of the Armenian side would voluntarily give up their fantasy. Playing with all kinds of information “on the brink of a foul,” and often being beyond the permissible line, has long been a national fun for them. For example, they seriously claim to humanity that the first man – Adam – was (probably you already guessed it!), right, no one else but Armenian. Although any inquisitive child would know from the Holy Scripture that the word ‘Adam’ is derived from Aramaic ( Hebrew ) ‘adom’, i.e. ‘red’. Saying this the Scriptures (the Holy Torah) state that the Lord made the first man of red clay. Furthermore, Armenian “scholars” vehemently claim that the Babylonian and Ancient Egyptian cultures have Armenian origins and, in fact, they are not the Babylonian and Egyptian cultures but the Armenian one. Poor Jews still do not realize that they had been held captive by the Armenians and not the Egyptians.
That is the way the theory of the ancient origins of Armenians advances. They also claim that on the territory of New Armenia there are unique ancient Armenian astronomy observatories. Apparently they forgot that New Armenia, i.e. modern Republic of Armenia, is located entirely on Azerbaijani lands together with Irawan, which the Turkish authorities asked from Azerbaijan to allocate Armenians in 1918. Otherwise, they would have had given a part of the Eastern Anatolia to create the Armenian state. Thus, the “ancient observatories” if they were there – are in fact Azerbaijani, Seljuk, Turkmen, Persian, anything but have nothing to do with Armenians. Running ahead, I would say that honest Armenian scholars have found no observatories at all. Not only that, esteemed Ph.D. holders, Professor V.Gurzadyan, Professor Sedrakyan (Yerevan Institute of Physics), Professor P.Avetisyan (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography), Professor A.Kalantaryan (corresponding member of ANAS), in a letter to the Prime Minister of Armenia state,”… pseudoscientific (pseudo scholarship) claims have got widespread manner in Armenia … ( listed above – F.TS. ).
This nonsense has got broad broadcast and has not been rebuffed by the academic community, and as the result has seeped into school textbooks and children’s books …” Furthermore, the Armenian scholars bring lots of additional examples and asked to exclude pseudoscientific materials from advertisements and other activities. Those interested in details, may refer to newspaper “Voice of Armenia”. Our congressmen should avail themselves of the above mentioned information and develop a wider outlook as it is known that “East is a delicate matter”. And they most probably have forgotten about it. Or simply never knew that at all?
(to be continued)
Samuel A.Weems
“Armenia: secrets of terrorist “Christian” state”
The great series of Armenian frauds. Vol. I
(beginning in previous flimsies)
Chapter ten
What can be expected from Armenia? Exalting the goal of friendship one day and slandering their neighbors before the allies the next
The Armenians, even after starting a war with Georgia, now wanted to use the Georgian railroad and equipment to transport supplies it had begged from around the world. The Armenians wanted Georgia to make their railroad and equipment available for almost nothing and wanted priority use each time supplies arrived in a Georgian port.
The Armenians argued their people were dying of hunger. Armenians should be given priority under such circumstances even if Georgians were in equally bad shape and dying also. The Georgians demanded a 15 percent transport fee. The Armenians protested to the Allies who in turn directed George Clemenceau, president of the Allied Council of Heads of Delegations, to send a harsh message to the Georgian government.
Shortly thereafter, the messages were printed in the Georgian press. The reaction was swift and direct:
Georgia, they cried, had given Armenians haven for centuries and, despite heavy economic strains, had permitted thousands more to enter during the World War. Georgia had made possible the very survival of Armenia in the midst of hostile elements. And now, the Georgian people had received the Armenian token of appreciation. Whether or not direct Armenian channels had been used, the Dasknaktartium and its irresponsible scandal sheets had to bear the blame for the malicious reports sent to Paris. The Armenian government was obliged to proclaim that Clemenceau’s telegram had been a gross injustice. Without such an announcement, any talk of Armeno-Georgian conferences to settle existing problems would be ludicrous.
The Armenian response was typical. These corrupt dictators complained that both Georgia and Azerbaijan had too many railroad engines and cars.
The Georgian contention that each republic should have title to whatever rolling stock was within its boundaries when the Transcaucasian Federation was dissolved in May 1918 was not acceptable, for Armenia would thus be left with only a score of damaged locomotives and 300 cars, whereas Azerbaijan would have nearly 400 locomotives and 4,000 cars and Georgia, 500 locomotives and more than 8,000 cars. An equitable redistribution of all the rolling stock was therefore imperative. The debate was indicative of the many complicated issues impeding named Armeno-Georgian relations (P 146, from the book of Hovannisian).
Hovannissian writes that “the status of the nearly half a million Armenians in Georgia was an extremely complex and delicate issue” (P 147). That’s quite a statement, considering Armenia had just started a war with Georgia. The Armenian professor states administrative reforms led to the dismissal of most Armenian and Russian civil servants. In order to relieve congestion in the capital and at the same time to clear it of refugees and other undesirable elements, Minister of Interior Ramishvili issued further ordinances requiring all non-citizens who were not property owners or gainfully employed and all citizens whose heads of householder were absent to leave the city. The latter category applied specifically to the dependents of men serving in Armenia or with the White Armies. Violators of the regulations were to receive severe punishment. In the Armenian view, the new rules of Georgia were heeding the admonition of a nationalist deputy in the Tiflis city Duma: “We must rid ourselves at any price of the Dashnakists and the families of the Armenian ministers” (P 148).
Can any fair person believe this Armenian dictatorial attitude? After all, these Armenian leaders had just launched an unprovoked attack on Georgia and then lost the war. Now Christian Georgians knew not to trust the Armenian Christians and took these actions to insure that officials in their government were loyal – and the Armenians object. Consider the following lie the Georgians were subjected to by Armenians:
The sufferings of the people of Akhalkalak dwarfed the tribulations of all other Armenians in Georgia. Thirty thousand had perished as the result of the Turkish occupation, and those who survived were starving. Some mothers attempted to save their daughters by offering them as wives to Georgian militiamen and soldiers. Russian, Jewish, and Georgian entrepreneurs were reportedly buying young girls for 100 to 300 rubles and sending them to brothels; eight-to twelve year-old orphan boys were being sold for a pittance at Bakurani; hundreds of women and children were pressed into servitude – in the adjacent Muslim districts. All roads leading away from Akhalkalak were strewn with the bodies of fleeing Armenians… Although the Tiflis government regarded Akhalkalak as an integral pan of the Republic of Georgia and even pretended to hold elections there, it did nothing to relieve the agony (P 148).
(to be continued)