Caucasian Standoff

The bitter war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh has been on hold for 16 years. But that doesn't mean it's over.

BY THOMAS DE WAAL | JUNE 30, 2010

It all looks very tidy, a postcard-perfect picture of a small country's capital city. The central square is fenced off to traffic; inside, a flag flaps lazily over the four-story presidential offices, near the white-domed parliament building and a shiny new hotel with red awnings over its outdoor cafe. A few policemen and pedestrians stroll about admiring the view of the local sports stadium and the green plains beyond it.

Upon closer observation, however, the picture becomes stranger. The flags have a curious design: red, blue, and orange stripes punctuated with a jagged white step pattern. In the city center there are no embassies, no branch offices of global banks, no international businesses or ads -- in fact, almost no foreigners at all. The list of U.S. officials who have visited this place in the past 20 years numbers in the single digits.

This is Stepanakert, capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, virtual state and the relic of one of Europe's forgotten wars. Everything in Karabakh -- a mountainous region slightly larger than Rhode Island and home to 100,000 people -- is Armenian and Armenian-run. But Karabakh is still located in the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan. The large numbers of men in camouflage fatigues on these streets also tell a story: This would-be state was forged out of conflict, fought over between 1991 and 1994, and 16 years later remains perched on the edge of it. More than 20,000 Armenian and Azerbaijani troops stare at each other from trenches on either side of the cease-fire line.

War is still in the air. The situation on the Line of Contact, as the cease-fire line is known, is a barometer of the health of the peace process, and this year it is in bad shape. In 2009 around 19 people died in shooting incidents there, and 2010 has already matched that level of bloodshed. On the night of June 18, four Armenian soldiers and one Azerbaijani died in a fierce clash, only hours after Russian-mediated talks between the two countries' presidents in St. Petersburg. When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits Armenia and Azerbaijan -- though not Karabakh -- this week, she will raise the issue of the crumbling cease-fire with the presidents of both countries.

I have made a dozen or so visits here over the years, and spent a lot of time in these streets and hills, researching my book on the Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan is so sensitive about foreigners' visits that when I come here, as a sign of respect, I make sure to inform the Foreign Ministry in Baku that I am making the trip (though I do not ask its permission). A lot has changed over the years. When I first came in March 1996, much of Stepanakert was still in ruins from Azerbaijani bombardment; there was nowhere decent to stay, and virtually no shops were open. Since then the city has been completely rebuilt. The little de facto Armenian state has become a pet project for many diaspora Armenians, who fund a school here, a clinic there. The final stretch of road into Stepanakert bears a sign saying it was funded by the Armenian community of Argentina.

Most of the funding for the territory's annual budget of $200 million comes directly from the government in the Armenian capital of Yerevan, making Karabakh, economically and militarily, an outpost of the Republic of Armenia. Yet the state of siege has given the Karabakhis a very different outlook. The Karabakh Armenians always prided themselves on being highlanders, more stubborn and hardy than their cousins across the mountains in Armenia proper. First war and then international isolation have hardened their defiant streak. A decade ago, the locals in war-shattered Stepanakert were only too glad to share their problems with me. Now their message to the outside world is, "You're not talking to us, so why should we talk to you?" As a rare visitor, I am treated like an emissary from a whole international order that has rejected them.

There is a logic to this intransigence. The Armenians of Karabakh do not even have a place at the negotiating table in the talks over their own future -- that is handled by the sovereign governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The agreement being hammered out by the two countries will offer the Karabakh Armenians "international guarantees," including some kind of international peacekeeping force, in return for them giving up territory to Azerbaijan. But no international official has ever spelled out to the Karabakh Armenians what these guarantees will be. Whenever I raise this issue in Karabakh, I get a negative response. "Name me a successful international peacekeeping mission," says one Karabakhi friend.

There is a tough answer for everything. When I visit my old acquaintance Vartan Barseghian, deputy minister in Karabakh's de facto foreign ministry, the tone is friendly but the message is implacable. "We can't talk about peace when our enemy is preparing for war," says Barseghian. "Our soldiers and civilians need to know they should be ready for war."

"We now have full independence, but just lack the formalities of it," he says. "Achieving those formalities is not an end in itself. We will not sacrifice anything to achieve it."

ANNA ASRIYANTS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Thomas de Waal is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace working on the Caucasus and author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War.

AR

1:49 PM ET

June 30, 2010

Pander

de waal says:

"Armenians claim is the ancient Armenian city of Tigranakert, located in the Azerbaijani region of Agdam."

If you study the history of the area you will know that it isn't an Armenian claim that the city is Armenian but rather a historical fact. You just can't stop kissing azeri ass can you?

Why do you mention the azeri refugees and then fail to mention that it is offical baku's policy to keep them as refugees, they will not let them move to the better parts of the country, mostly baku, and instead make them stay in the shanty towns. Do you expect Armenia/Artsakh to solve this issue for them? Furthermore, you mention the recent clash that occured but again fail to write that it was the azeri's who sent a team of their soldiers to attack an Armenian position.

Shushi has been an Armenian city for many centuries, you again do not mention this, only that in the 20th century it had a majority azeri population. You are trying to give the impression that azeri's have lived in Karabakh (Artsakh) for as many centuries as the Armenians have, this is blatantly false.
Again, it is clear who's interests you serve. azeri people's history doesn't go past the 16th century, Armenians have over a 3000 year history in the region, which includes Karabakh.

And FYI it's not Spitak Zhak, but Spitak Zham! It's not a story that is spun that Armenians have had a presence in Karabakh for a much longer time than the azeri's, it is history, just one that you and your masters like to distort.

Right you are though, Armenians will never bend on the issue of Karabakh because it would be akin to national suicide; a second Genocide of the Armenians.

 

RAINING01

3:57 AM ET

July 9, 2010

My opinion is roughly same,

My opinion is roughly same, but you're right. With the D&G handbags and Gucci handbags developing very well, any fashionista can certainly shop in style, may it be at the Shopping malls or at the trendy malls. The Christmas tree is also high-demands. Go and have a look!

 

NACHALNIK

10:43 PM ET

June 30, 2010

There are so many problems

There are so many problems that I encountered with this article.

To begin with, the refugees: with its burgeoning budget, why doesn't Azerbaijani actually do something to alleviate the pain their pain? If they are still living in miserable conditions after almost 20 years, that is the fault of their own government, since if it can annually spend $2 billion on its defense budget, how much more expensive will it be to house these people in modest apartment blocks in Baku and elsewhere?

Second, the medieval churches and tombstones and now the the ancient city of Tigranakert are all evidence of an Armenian presence in the region going back thousands of years. The Armenians don't have to "spin" anything Mr. De Waal; it's the Azerbaijanis who are experts in this. They are the ones who rob these Armenian churches by calling them "Albanian" and they are the ones who have gotten away unpunished with the cultural destruction of thousands of medieval cross-stones in Nakhichevan. Perhaps you should spend more time pointing out these more egregious distortions of facts, instead of employing relativism here by making vague and irrelevant comments about Armenian narratives.

Third, most military analysts agree that Azerbaijan is not ready for a new war and believe that if it were to start one within the next five years, it would lose even more territory than the first war. Despite all the huffing and puffing by Saddam of Baku, there is so much riding on the outbreak of a new war that Azerbaijan will never risk it (the oil pipeline will probably be one of the first targets to be attacked). The soldiers in the Azerbaijani army are regularly abused by their commanders and have little stomach to fight for a land they cannot relate to and the people themselves have no desire to continue to prop a government with an atrocious human rights record, which jails anyone who dares criticize it, which bans Armenians from entering its country and everyone else after it finds out that they have visited Karabakh.

So please stop the moralizing; you're right, belligerents in a war can not always be painted in black and white but in this play, it's obvious to everyone who the protagonists and who the antagonists are.

 

NACHALNIK

12:47 PM ET

July 1, 2010

Hang on

It's all a matter of whether the two populations are ready to co-exist. Memories of the destruction and carnage of the war are still fresh in the minds of the Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijanis are bombarded daily with government propaganda vilifying the Armenians, so it's still all too uncertain. Even then, how many Azeris would be willing to stop what they're doing and leave for Karabakh to start from scratch again?

 

TEVAN POGHOSYAN

6:18 AM ET

July 1, 2010

Fails to note

I am shocked by the insensitivity Mr. de Waal displays towards the plight of
the Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan ("Fair enough, but most of the
Armenian refugees were displaced from Azerbaijan in Soviet times, and have
long since made new lives elsewhere."). The "Soviet times" he vaguely refers
to are the years 1988-1992 of systematic ethnic cleansing of the Armenian
urban population of Azerbaijan, which are not that distant and distinct from
the 1992-1994, when the Azeris fled from the war-torn area. 1988-1992 had
been the years of Soviet government's attempts to manage and contain
conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh from escalation into a large-scale war, while
it was failing to defend the dispersed Armenian inhabitants of Azerbaijan
from the town mob looting, killing and raping. Instead of condemning
unequivocally the Baku warmongering, Mr. de Waal appeases Azeri fascism,
while he could have called upon President Baby-Aliyev to spend the wealth of
petrodollars on easing the living conditions of the displaced persons and
their integration into the Azeri society. Mr. de Waal fails to notice that
the new weaponry and the very existence of the conflict is a good excuse to
buy millions of dollars' worth Dubai real estate for (not yet a President
11-year-old) Grand-Baby-Aliyev. Fair enough, but it's not still a compelling
argument for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to submit to such a rule. At the
end of the day, these things make me not to get surprised at Mr. de Waal's
failure to mention that the incident of June 18 took place because of the
Azeri subversive group's incursion attempt into Nagorno-Karabakh proper. War is still in the air, and such ambiguities as displayed by Mr. de Waal only
encourage the jingoists to continue the road they embarked upon.

 

WATUMIAJI

7:03 AM ET

July 1, 2010

adjectives, passive voice and selective memory vs facts

Tom De Waal is a great manipulator of adjectives. When something should be devaluated he uses depressive adjectives and vice versa. remove adjectives from this article and you will get a zero information. His book black garden is full of adjectives which makes the book triple biased.
Now let's check this article.

1. "The little de facto Armenian state has become a pet project for many diaspora Armenians"
Adjective - "little", fact - around 18% of states have similar or less population
Adjective - "pet project", fact - the investment and support money to Stepanakert and other parts of Karabakh is a result of negotiations, agreements, contracts, serious fundrising activities, lobbying and includes not only diaspora Armenians
funds but also foreigners and foregn governments such as the USA.

2. "much of Stepanakert was still in ruins from Azerbaijani bombardment" passive voice vs "18 years after the Armenians captured the town and then burned it" active voices mixed with a lie

3. "Only the church has been properly reconstructed, but when I slipped inside its echoing marble interior, I was the only visitor" vs fact http://www.ampedasia.com/forums/wedding-of-700-couples-t-13509-12.html

4. "The Armenians of Karabakh do not even have a place at the negotiating table" passive voice vs fact that Azerbaijan refuses to have talks with the NKR

5. "As a rare visitor, I am treated like an emissary from a whole international order that has rejected them."
Adjective "rare" vs fact "biased storyteller"
"I am treated like an emissary " vs "they still try to pursuade and change my biasness"

6. Selectivness
Well actually all article looks like a Azerbaijani storyline which is told by choosing only one sided facts and other techniques described above. Just few examples:
a. "In 2009 around 19 people died in shooting incidents there, and 2010 has already matched that level of bloodshed. On the night of June 18, four Armenian soldiers and one Azerbaijani died " Well the only selected fact is thet more Armenians dies then Azeris. The fact is that this was the only case within all conflict period.
b. " In 1993 and 1994 the Armenians consolidated their hold on the enclave of Karabakh by conquering, wholly or partially, seven regions of Azerbaijan surrounding it. " Indeed, selective memory forgets that in 1991-92 ethnic cleansing of Armenians were in process and it was a miracle that Armenians changed that path.
c. "At first, they talked about these lands as a security zone to be given up in return for concessions from Azerbaijan on the final status of Karabakh. Years later, the lands still lie empty" Selective memory again forgets that Armenians were ready to common state, or that Key west negotiations were held And Azerbaijanis were the hardliners with a concept of all or nothing.
d. The passage of refugees shows true face of De Waal. He justifies ethnic cleansing of Armenians by the fact that cleansed Armenians "made new lives elsewhere."

De Waals use of dirty tricks to advocate Azerbaijani agenda is partially understandable: that's the only way to have access to Baku since Azerbaijanis are hardliner on those things. But enough is enough, he should be kicked out from any Armenian Azerbaijani peace efforts since his biased writings are becoming a strong tool to advocate Azerbaijani political line and draw a very biased picture of reality. Simply go to Karabakh and you will see his biasness.

 

AR_VEST

7:34 AM ET

July 1, 2010

juggling with reality

As usually Tom Waal professionally juggling with reality. That it is not projection and opinion of scientist, but purposeful manipulation with facts, emotions, evaluations etc.
And you was in Siptak Khach, not Siptak Zham in Hadrut, centuries-old Armenian town on the ancient Silk Road.

 

AUGUST WEST

10:04 AM ET

July 1, 2010

Enforce international law

Armenia must quit Nagorno-Karabakh.

As soon as Turkey quits Cyprus and Israel quits the West Bank.

 

AR

2:14 PM ET

July 1, 2010

Don't compare Karabakh with

Don't compare Karabakh with other areas, especially when you don't know the history of the region. Karabakh aka Artsakh was placed within the azerbaijani ssr by stalin in the 1920s, before that it was under Armenian rule. Furthermore, Artsakh was one of the provinces of the medeval Kingdom of Armenia.

 

AUGUST WEST

3:41 PM ET

July 1, 2010

I do know the history.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of holding Armenia to a higher standard than Turkey or Israel. Leaving aside Stalin's gerrymandering, and even assuming Nagorno-Karabakh had no recent historical connection to Armenia, it is still the rankest hypocrisy to hold Armenia to a higher standard than other countries. And as you correctly note, Armenia has deep and current historical ties to Nagorno-Karabakh.

FYI, my Armenian grandparents barely escaped in 1915.

Personally, I think when--and not if--Azerbaijan attacks Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia should conquer Azerbaijan and seize its oil resources. The Azeris can be sent to live with their Turkish cousins in the Pan-Turkic state of which the genocidal Young Turks dreamed.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

5:18 PM ET

July 1, 2010

Let's be happy that your

Let's be happy that your policy of genocide (yes, ethnically cleansing an area is genocide even if you do not kill) is not an official one.

 

ZT

11:15 PM ET

July 1, 2010

Don't misuse the G-word

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as "[certain] acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Simply moving people doesn't qualify, unless the action is somehow "calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" or "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." Defining ethnic cleansing or any act you find repugnant as genocide defeats the entire point of having a seperate term, and makes it harder to emphasize the importance of stopping actual genocides.

 

DERSIMONIAN

6:43 PM ET

July 1, 2010

documentary

One of the best documentaries I've ever seen about war - period - was on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and played at the Tribeca Film Festival '07. "A Story of People in War and Peace", directed by Vardan Hovhannisyan. Varden covered the war for various media outlets, and then went back a decade later to interview the men and women who he had met in combat. It is, obviously, an Armenian point of view, but the documentary is largely apolitical and more interested in the experience of the individuals and the effect that the war had on them. Highly recommended.

http://www.warandpeacefilm.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLrrG1q2Uzo&feature=related

 

TOMDEWAAL

8:48 AM ET

July 2, 2010

Author responds

I am generally quite depressed by the comments left by Armenians and Azerbaijanis on articles about the Karabakh issue and this time was no exception. I have got several positive responses to the article in private, including from Armenians and Azeris, but it is the gainsayers who leave their comments on the website.

Three observations:

No one has so far responded to the actual theme of the article—how the policy of isolation of Karabakh Armenians has entrenched their attitudes and made dialogue more difficult. Instead the respondents mainly rehearse the old general arguments about who did what and who Karabakh belongs to.

I travelled to Karabakh for about the twelfth time, spent three days there, tried to convey the mood there. But, funnily enough, it is the Armenians who give hostile reactions in greater numbers. I have seen this phenomenon before and I wonder what is behind this: are there simply more English-speaking Armenians reading Foreign Policy? Are Azeris less interested in online debate?

Various people express outrage that I did not mention this or that tragedy or express sufficient sympathy for this or that group who have suffered in the conflict. There is only so much you can say in a short article and I have written a book on this conflict. (Some other things that I did not mention in the article: Chardakhlu, Kafan, Sumgait, Baku in 1990, Operation Ring, the shelling of Stepanakert and Shusha, Khojali, Maragha, the Budapest killing, the Julfa cemetery...) I believe that the day the conflict will begin to be solved is when people of one nationality begin frequently to express sorrow about what happened to the other nationality: ie Azeris say they are sorry for the victims of the Sumgait or Baku pogroms or Armenians express sympathy for the plight of Azeri refugees.

 

AR

12:22 PM ET

July 3, 2010

You don't have space to

You don't have space to include accurate facts about what happened to the Armenians but you seem to have enough for azerbaijan. You point to your book, as if that isn't just as pro azeri as this article, and you fail to address why Armenians in Artsakh are not willing to negotiate with official baku. You make it seem as if the Artsakh Armenians are being stubborn when in fact it is baku which continues to threaten Armenia proper and Artsakh every chance it gets. The day when the conflict will be solved is when the little sultan of baku and his clan are overthrown and azerbaijan is no longer a tyrannical fiefdom of one family.

 

WATUMIAJI

12:11 PM ET

July 2, 2010

Thanks to the Tom De Waal for

Thanks to the Tom De Waal for his response.
However this answer is so general that shows the problem of generalization method used by the author. Everything is not that simple as Tom de Waal wishes to present. Probably the "all were guilty" approach is a result of a culture of superiority which Tom De Waal represents, so called cultural misunderstanding.

///I am generally quite depressed by the comments left by Armenians and Azerbaijanis on articles about the Karabakh issue and this time was no exception. ////

May be this mood was the reason to draw a picture of Karabakh as "depressed people are living there tired of the life and not attending the church?"

///I have got several positive responses to the article in private, including from Armenians and Azeris, but it is the gainsayers who leave their comments on the website.////

Did you ask your friends which part of the article they liked? We are not discussing the author but the contents and disliked writing techniques. Ask your Armenian friend - Is it good that I framed an empty church?

///No one has so far responded to the actual theme of the article—how the policy of isolation of Karabakh Armenians has entrenched their attitudes and made dialogue more difficult.////

Because this passive voice makes it like Armenians self-isolated themselves. Is it so difficult for you - a really brave journalist /without sarcasm/ - to write who's policy is that?

/// Instead the respondents mainly rehearse the old general arguments about who did what and who Karabakh belongs to.////

Such responses are triggered only by your provocative frames. Why did you frame Shushi as an Azerbaijani city?

////I travelled to Karabakh for about the twelfth time, spent three days there, tried to convey the mood there. But, funnily enough, it is the Armenians who give hostile reactions in greater numbers.////

And have you ever changed your mind during this period? It seems you have your truth and you wonder why all others don't change their mind according to your truth. May be something is wrong in your perception of conflict or it's presentation?

//// I have seen this phenomenon before and I wonder what is behind this: are there simply more English-speaking Armenians reading Foreign Policy? Are Azeris less interested in online debate?/////

It's very simple. First English is a debate language and Armenians do it on their own without any fear. And second Azerbaijan doesn't engage in a debate/dialog but pushes state stamped agitation mostly in Russian speaking fora.

////Various people express outrage that I did not mention this or that tragedy or express sufficient sympathy for this or that group who have suffered in the conflict. /////

Not true, or partly true. If you search internet you will find detailed criticism of your works with strong arguments and facts. So, first of all it's not outrage. The problem is not sympathy and dismissing of facts, but the journalistic method of fake balance between events and guiltiness of parties. You balance facts with the interviews of other parties. So your method is a collection of stereotypes and [ab]using them whenever needed to counterbalance some facts.

////There is only so much you can say in a short article and I have written a book on this conflict.////

This concrete article is a selection of some emotions and facts to portray Armenians in Karabakh like people living in hell and fully depressed.

////(Some other things that I did not mention in the article: Chardakhlu, Kafan, Sumgait, Baku in 1990, Operation Ring, the shelling of Stepanakert and Shusha, Khojali, Maragha, the Budapest killing, the Julfa cemetery...) ////

No facts on Kapan
It was only Stepanakert -full of civilians- which was shelled from Shushi
And Khojalu is the only uncertain case which I beleive lacks any serious fact to prove official Baku's position.
All other cases are well documented, inspected and presented by non-partisan authorities. So in this small sentence you balance facts with rumors/uncertaintaties and stereotypes.

////I believe that the day the conflict will begin to be solved is when people of one nationality begin frequently to express sorrow about what happened to the other nationality: ie Azeris say they are sorry for the victims of the Sumgait or Baku pogroms or Armenians express sympathy for the plight of Azeri refugees./////

I also agree that such emotional conflict may change its dynamics only when parties accept their input into conflict escalation. However you start from a wrong end and equalize/generalize two different reactions. Azerbaijanis are angry that you raise issues which they prefer to keep silence like "operation ring". I doubt that an Azerbaijani will ask you to bring facts - they simply want to not talk about it. Armenians are angry when your bring undocumented facts. And their reaction is about asking you to bring facts.

sincerely yours ...

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

1:15 PM ET

July 2, 2010

Mr. De Waal, It is

Mr. De Waal,

It is commendable that you visited Artsakh and wrote this article about the conflict, however, the critical comments listed above are all valid.

After reading your article I felt that I just read another piece of Azerbaijani propaganda masked with vague references to Armenian inhabitants, some people that you spoke there and the Armenian churches that you visited.

I will elaborate more about your article in my next posting.

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

4:08 PM ET

July 2, 2010

"But, funnily enough, it is

"But, funnily enough, it is the Armenians who give hostile reactions in greater numbers. I have seen this phenomenon before and I wonder what is behind this: are there simply more English-speaking Armenians reading Foreign Policy? Are Azeris less interested in online debate?"

Unlike Armenians, the majority of Azerbaijanies do not care about the issue of Mt. Kharabakh since they know that it is not their ancestral homeland and they will loose nothing of significant value if their fail to retake Mt. Kharabakh. Just because the Azerbaijani people are being continuously bombarded by their government's propaganda of hatred and falsehood about this issue, it doesn't mean that they are ignorant enough to believe to every word that their government says on this issue.

For Armenians it is different. Artsakh is part of their ancestral homeland; it is part of their cultural identity and psyche. Even if one ignores the cultural significance that Artsakh has for the Armenians, it is a common sense to conclude that without Artsakh, the Republic of Armenia will not survive as a viable nation-state.

Therefore you get so many more comments from Armenians on this issues than what you get from Azerbaijanies. Whoever has more connection with this land will care more about it and thus will respond more often on this issue than their opponent.

 

RSAFSOZ

5:51 PM ET

July 2, 2010

answer: turkey

only turkey can end this problem.

porno sex porno film

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

2:05 AM ET

July 6, 2010

Policy of Isolation?

I appreciate a rare and analytical article related to the Kharabagh conflict on FP.

As long as the underlying point of your article is concerned, I think your understanding of this conflict as a conflict between Karabakh and Azerbaijan is quite misplaced given that the fierce war and the invasion of Azerbaijani territories (beyond Kharabagh which is more than the space of Kharabagh itself) was carried out by the armed forces of the Armenian Republic (not “Armenians” as such which makes a huge international law difference) with huge and active support of Russian military.

So, the current predicament in “peace negotiations” between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not because of “policy of isolation” of Kharabagh Armenians or Armenia and Azerbaijan’s “all-or-nothing” approach at all. This is a politically incorrect narrative. It must be looked at in a broader perspective of Russian policy in the Caucasus and the Armenian expansionist and colonization policy at the expense of Azerbaijan backed by Russia.

In this context, the main thing is that weather Azerbaijan will accept the invasion of its territory by Armenia and facts on the ground. Why Azerbaijan shall be willing to do so? Why it shall compromise its valuable and strategic territories? As far as negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan are concerned, Azerbaijan has been quite flexible and accepting all three proposals of the Minsk Group (composed of Russia, US, France to mediate between Armenia and Azerbaijan) and accepted the “Madrid Principles” while Armenia has rejected all of these proposals on fundamental principles for resolving this conflict without any reasonable justifications. If Armenia does not want to pursue a policy of isolation it shall play by international rules acceptable to international community and accept such proposal for negotiations. Why it does not want it?

I don’t understand what Armenia wants and what its strategic calculations are? It seems that it is strategy is to retain the Karabagh and other Azerbaijani lands which will not be sustainable in the near future. It is illegal under international law and unacceptable to Azerbaijan with the Azerbaijan’s right of self defense under the UN Charter.

The just resolution of this conflict will be a huge boost to the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the region at large.

 

NACHALNIK

2:08 PM ET

July 6, 2010

A warped narrative

The narrative spun above aptly represents the warped understanding most Azerbaijanis have of the Karabakh war. After all these years, they still cannot contemplate nor come to grips with the notion that the Karabakh Armenians were the greater participants in the conflict than the Armenians in Armenia proper. The Levon Ter-Petrosyan administration was too busy trying to placate Turkey or too busy stealing aid money coming from overseas to give much thought to grandiose nationalist dreams of "reconquest" and "colonization". The Russians may have helped the Armenians, like they helped the Azeris, but it was ultimately the hardy fighters of Karabakh who won the war.

Azerbaijan has proved to everyone that it is an irresponsible overseer of the people living under its rule. Rather than try to find a tongue with the Karabakh people when they peacefully tried to secede from Azerbaijan, it immediately struck, and still maintains, a hardliner position and lashed out against Armenians living elsewhere in the republic with massacres. The notion that it has assumed a "flexible" position during negotiations is nonsense, and they're constant violations of the cease fire and never-ending calls to restart the war just shows how restless it is in trying to find an aggressive solution to the conflict. This is demonstrated further by its childish refusal to speak with the Karabakh Armenians at the negotiating table.

While the Karabakh Armenians are now building a lively democratic republic, the Sultan of Baku is busy suppressing all dissent in his petro kingdom and jailing anyone who dares criticize him or his cronies. Now, who in their right mind would want to revert back to such a tyrannical rule? With the memories of the Karabakh war still fresh in their minds, it only makes sense that the final outcome of this still unresolved conflict be the granting of full independence of the people of the Karabakh Republic.

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

12:37 AM ET

July 7, 2010

Azerbaijanies continue to twist history and ignore facts

From the post made by Deconstructor, it is evident that Azerbajanies continue to twist history and fail to acknowledge the facts of the conflict.

Russian troops didn't fight along the Armenians in this conflict. There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Yet there is plenty of evidence to the contrary; it is fact that that in 1991 Soviet/Russian troops carried out operation Ring "Koltso" together with the Azerbaijani special militia detachments (OMON) against the Armenians by forcefully deporting them from their homes in Getashen, Martunashen and other Armenian villages of Shahumyan region.

Furthermore, Azerbaijani government utilized Russian and Ukranian mercenaries to carry out their genocidal policy against the Armenians. If Armenians didn't arm themselves and didn't fight back, the Azerbaijani government would have accomplished its goal of total annihilation of Armenians in their own homeland. The Armenians of Zangezur would have been the next target of the genocidal Azerbaijani war machine.

As I have said before, Armenians had to win in this conflict because it was and is and will be the matter of national survival for the Armenian nation and its nation-state for many years to come.

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

1:46 AM ET

July 7, 2010

Irony

The two above posts by the Armenian commentators are the reflection of political and ethnic radicalism of Armenian people really, nothing less.

The irony and ridicule is that Armenia the country which occupies the 20% of territory of Azerbaijan blames Azerbaijan for that. It is like the Nazi Germany blaming Poland for its invasion of Poland. It is really funny. What this people are thinking of themselves really.

Firstly, your notions of “history” are very Armenian-focused and without substance. The Nagorno-Kharabgh does not belong to Armenia just because the Armenian history books say so. We have our history books too claiming otherwise. Therefore, we have to approach history critically and with common sense. Yes, Armenians lived in the Nagorno-Kharabagh, so what? Armenians also historically live in Jerusalem, New-York, California. There are 2 million Armenians living in California and I will not surprised if you will declare California as a part of Armenia one day because your history books say so. My point is that reading history uncritically is simply ridiculous. Because, all nations write its history in its own favor and it’s the politics of history from the time immemorial.

Yes, without Russia’s HUGE military assistance (huge military hardware, intelligence, personnel, diplomatic support at the UN) the impoverished Armenia was not able to make any significant move at all. It is not a rocket science to understand it. Even now the Russian military aid to Armenia exceeds several billions of dollars. Anyways, that’s not the question at all at this stage. You have to keep in mind that because of your present policy of aggression and isolation you are not going anywhere but digging a deep political and economic grave for your future.

Yes, Azerbaijan has been very FLEXIBLE in accepting all Proposals of the Minsk Group intended to find a just solution to the conflict which gave an autonomy and integration of Kharabagh with Armenia equal and more that the independence like Scotland. Because the Nagorno-Kharabgh is an Azerbaijani territory and there is no any disputable question about it from an international law perspective. However, Armenia rejected all of them outright, why? Because it wants nothing but secession of the Kahabagh from Azerbaijan which is a pipe dream in all respects. Neither Azerbaijan not international community will ever accept that. If Armenia believes the legality of its occupation of Kharabagh why it does not recognize the Nagorno Kharabagh as an independent state?

So turning to the question posited by the author of this article, I think there is no policy of isolation by Armenia but a deliberate policy of occupation and colonization of Karabagh mandated by the historical, political and religious ideology of Armenia which is not in line with any values of international community and the UN. These are two different issues completely. The solution is that Armenia shall renounce its outright radicalism, fundamentalism and occupation and come to its senses and accept the applicable standards of international law in its external behavior.

Azerbaijan is trying to find a solution to the conflict from 1991 by taking huge risks and compromises however no constructive move by Armenia so far.

 

HOVHANNES NIKOGHOSYAN

5:04 PM ET

July 7, 2010

Whatever the level of my pacifism is...

Whatever the level of my pacifism is, but Tevan Poghosyan from ICHD is
quite right: "War is still in the air". Of course but unfortunately, a
new war, truly, is the most straightforward way to solve the problem.
Hopefully, the sides of the conflict do not and will not consider this
option seriously, taking into account the obviously tragic outcomes of
such a “solution.” With this in mind, Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan’s idea “to sign an agreement on non-use or threat of force”
sounds not so well thought out by the addressee and the international
community.

Since all other instances are already well covered in the dicussion
below the piece, I will concentrate on the international law. The
point is made that "Karabakh is still located in the internationally
recognized territory of Azerbaijan". Not to reiterate the propaganda
that (but really) the Republic of Azerbaijan declared itself a
successor of ADR, which, in turn, didn’t have the "effective control"
over Nagorno Karabakh, and didn’t have any sovereignty over it –
neither recognized, nor de facto. You all know this.

What I want to offer is another instance of international law, having
the case of Palestine in mind. The nations fighting for their
independence are recognized as subjects of international law. Since
the peace process under the auspices of the OSCE is an internationally
recognized “chamber” for this conflict and is still not cancelled or
exhausted – the right of Nagorno Karabakh people (N.B. I am not
talking still about the authorities whom you may label as
non-democratic, etc) to build their life independently is well
recognized, no matter what will be the final settlement. In a
nutshell, the peace enforcement that the Azerbaijani leadership was
referring to did not fall under UN Charter’s Article 51 (the right of
self-defense). Instead, that would constitute trans-boundary use of
military force without the proper UN Security Council mandate, which
will in turn constitute a direct threat to peace and an act of
aggression and would, sooner or later, directly or indirectly engage
the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, or CSTO
(Armenia), and NATO (Turkey).

Cutting the long story short, this is the hell of the military solution.

The point about Armenian refugees from elsewhere in Azerbaijan is
another instance where we might have a good discussion and fare
disagreements. They are forgotten by the int'l community, by the
negotiators, by Azerbaijan and farely being integrated in Armenian
society and life - truly without a hope to get back due to the
well-known level of hatred.

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

9:20 PM ET

July 7, 2010

Irony ?

"Armenia the country which occupies the 20% of territory of Azerbaijan ..."

-Armenians also occupy 40% of North Pole and 50% of the Moon. LOL
Please check your facts again. Kharabakh was never part of Azerbaijan and it never will be. Furthermore, it is Azerbaijan that occupies the Armenian territories, specifically parts of Mardakert, Martuni, and all of the Shahumyan region, as well as Artsvashen and several other Armenian villages in the north of the Armenian Republic.

"The two above posts by the Armenian commentators are the reflection of political and ethnic radicalism of Armenian people really, nothing less."

-It was the Azerbaijanies who carried out massacres of peaceful Armenian communities in Baku, Sumgait, Kirovabad, etc... between 1988-1990.

"It is like the Nazi Germany blaming Poland for its invasion of Poland. It is really funny."

-Your comparison is not valid.

"The Nagorno-Kharabgh does not belong to Armenia just because the Armenian history books say so."

-The comment above could be said about Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Armenian history books are not the only ones that say so.

"Therefore, we have to approach history critically and with common sense. Yes, Armenians lived in the Nagorno-Kharabagh, so what? "

-Same could be said about Azerbaijanies.

"Yes, without Russia’s HUGE military assistance (huge military hardware, intelligence, personnel, diplomatic support at the UN) the impoverished Armenia was not able to make any significant move at all."

-Russia supplied you with weapons also, and Turkey played the same political role for Azerbaijan that Russia played for Armenia. Many other countries supplied you with weapons and intelligence on Armenian forces and movements also. Furthermore, not only Russian/Ukranian mercenaries took part in the conflict on the side of Azerbaijan, but also Al-Qaida linked Taliban mercenaries from Afghanistan (more than 2000 of them), and several hundred Chechen mercenaries under leadership of Shamil Basayev.

"You have to keep in mind that because of your present policy of aggression and isolation you are not going anywhere but digging a deep political and economic grave for your future."

-The comment above applies to Azerbaijan.

"Because the Nagorno-Kharabgh is an Azerbaijani territory and there is no any disputable question about it from an international law perspective. "

-Said who? Armenians dispute your claim to Kharabagh.

-In 1991 Azerbaijani gov't claimed to be the continuation of Azerbaijani Republic of 1918. Guess what, Kharabagh was not part of Azerbaijan in 1918. In fact, it never was part of Azerbaijan. Even under Soviet rule, Kharabakh was an autonomous region. You may also claim that the Moon belongs to Azerbaijan, that doesn't mean that it belongs to you.

"The solution is that Armenia shall renounce its outright radicalism, fundamentalism and occupation and come to its senses and accept the applicable standards of international law in its external behavior."

-That's what I will say about Azerbaijan. It is the Azeraijani gov't that continuously engages in war rhetoric, not Armenia. The only radicals around are the ones residing in Baku. So please, keep your facts straight.

"Azerbaijan is trying to find a solution to the conflict from 1991 by taking huge risks and compromises however no constructive move by Armenia so far."

-Oh, really? By continuously violating the cease fire on the contact line and threatening with the resumption of war in the region? How generous.

 

BEAUTYGIRL

1:28 AM ET

July 8, 2010

Armenia must quit

Armenia must quit Nagorno-Karabakh.

As soon as Turkey quits Cyprus and Israel quits the West Bank.

clip on hair extensions
cheap prom dresses

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

1:35 AM ET

July 8, 2010

Armenia is an agression country..

The two above comments are without substance to deserve any criticism at all.

(1) Armenia was not a aggressor state? There are four UN Security Council Resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) have been passed during the Nagorno-Karabakh war. These resolutions require the Armenians to withdraw occupying forces from Kelbajar, Aghdam, Fizuli Jabrayil Qubadli, Zangilan, Ghoradiz. Why Armenia does not comply with the resolutions of the UN Security Council while you declare your “peaceful intentions” keeping in mind that these territories are not part of Nogorno-Kharabagh at all?

(2) The Kharabagh has never been part of Azerbaijan? The UN recognized the Nogorno-Kharabgh as Azerbaijani territory and you claim is without substance from international law and historical perspective. Yes, Armenians lived there, so what? The Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Albans also lived there historically as well. Even the name of “Kharabagh” is Turkic name how can it be of Armenian territory as such? Under you logic the Russian Federation shall disintegrate just because there are so many minorities living in Russia, Tatars, Bashgirds, Checheches etc. Armenians have their own state and self-determination - the Republic of Armenia – and the claim that the Nogorno Kharabagh Aremnians has also the right to self-determination is without substance. Under you logic the Californian Armenian can exercise the right to self-determination and integrate with Armenia. Does it sound reasonable to you?

(3) The Nogorno-Kharabgh was not part of Azerbaijan in 1918 because it did not have “effective control” or “sovereignty” over the region. Was it under the “effective control” or “sovereignty” of Armenia? This is ridiculous. At that time both Azerbaijan and Armenia were new nations living together for many centuries in many parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan. There were not such ethic claims against each other. And even the notion of “effective control” or “sovereignty” did not exist at that time which is purely Western legal concepts.

(4) Armenians massacred and deported hundred thousands of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. Since January 1988, the Armenians began to implement into life the policy of “Armenia without Turks”. As a result of this ethnic cleansing 185 Azerbaijani settlements were emptied, over 250,000 Azerbaijanis and 18,000 Kurds were compelled to leave their houses; thousands of Azerbaijanis and Kurds were massacred. You are not going to acknowledge it either? The point is that both Armenians and Azerbaijanis are guilty of the current situation and both have a share in it.

To sum up, Armenia is keen continuing its occupation in flagrant violation of international law hoping to keep Nogono-Kharabagh in the future without any intention of a constructive dialogue with Azerbaijan which is in a weaker position because it is a losing party in the war so far.

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

3:57 AM ET

July 8, 2010

really?

"The two above comments are without substance to deserve any criticism at all."

--You cannot criticize the facts that are true. Period.

"Armenia was not a aggressor state? "

-Azerbaijani gov't was the one that started the war against the Armenians in 1988, not the Armenians. Therefore, Azerbaijan is the true aggressor. Furthermore, everything that happened as a result of the war was directly caused by the genocidal policy carried out by the Azerbaijani gov't against the Armenians. Thus, the blood of all the people who died in this conflict, including Azerbaijanies is on the hands of the Azerbaijani gov't.

"The Kharabagh has never been part of Azerbaijan?"

-No. There was no Azerbaijani republic until 1918 and even after 1918, Kharabakh was a soviet autonomy. The Russian name for the province "NKAO" means exactly just that, Autonomous Region of Nagorno Kharabakh.

"Was it under the “effective control” or “sovereignty” of Armenia? "

-Yes, it was.

"Armenians massacred and deported hundred thousands of Azerbaijanis from Armenia."

-What you claim above is like somebody claiming that Armenians killed off all the dinosaurs and mammoths that freely roamed the earth. So if you want to be taken seriously, at least put some effort to substantiate your claims by providing real facts.

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

7:19 AM ET

July 8, 2010

just gimme a break...

“You cannot criticize the facts that are true. Period.”

- You have not given a single fact except the official propaganda of Armenia.

“No. There was no Azerbaijani republic until 1918 and even after 1918, Kharabakh was a soviet autonomy. The Russian name for the province "NKAO" means exactly just that, Autonomous Region of Nagorno Kharabakh.”

- Was there Armenian Republic before 1918? Of course, not. The Republic of Armenia was established in June 4 1928, while the Republic of Azerbaijan was established in 28 May 1918 which included Kharabagh. The territory of then Republic of Armenia was nearly the half of the territory of its current territory. Take a look at the maps pls.

The Armenian population was moved to the Kharabgh region by Russia from Iran and Turkey after winning two major wars against the latter countries in the 19th century. It is a historical fact.

“What you claim above is like somebody claiming that Armenians killed off all the dinosaurs and mammoths that freely roamed the earth. So if you want to be taken seriously, at least put some effort to substantiate your claims by providing real facts.”

- it is like you claim that the Armenians has been living in Kharabagh before the dinosaurs has come to the planet and even before the Earth came into existence. Come on.

There were huge deportation of Azerbaijanis and Kurds from Armenia from 1940 and 1988. The below link may help refresh your memory.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/26_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%8F_2010

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

7:24 AM ET

July 8, 2010

Just a correction: The

Just a correction:

The Republic of Armenia was established in June 4 1918,

 

AR

3:09 PM ET

July 8, 2010

deconstructive: are you

deconstructive:

are you spreading mis information from the propaganda office in baku or the outlet in dc that you call an embassy?

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

3:28 PM ET

July 8, 2010

"There were huge deportation

"There were huge deportation of Azerbaijanis and Kurds from Armenia from 1940 and 1988. The below link may help refresh your memory."

--That is bunch of ballony. What you claim as evidence is nothing more but a rumbling of schizophrenics in Baku. They also claim that we deported bunch of Martians from their planet and killed all the green aliens on the Jupiter.

--And for your information, the first Republic of Armenia was established on May 28, 1918.

"The Armenian population was moved to the Kharabgh region by Russia from Iran and Turkey after winning two major wars against the latter countries in the 19th century. It is a historical fact."

--LOL. We should award you a PhD in bull s*****

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

12:36 AM ET

July 9, 2010

In the face of strong

In the face of strong factural arguments you hide behind the viel of pathetic "sarcasm" as if it means smth to me or other readers, if any. It is too much for the nick of "analyst":)

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

4:25 AM ET

July 9, 2010

Stop insulting the

Stop insulting the intelligence of FPM readers with the Azerbaijani propaganda garbage that you present as "facts", may be then you will have a normal debate about an issue that you know very little about.

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

7:00 AM ET

July 9, 2010

too much analytical:-)

I aint insulting anybody but trying to show off your ignorance and inaptitude of saying any reasonable thing on the forum related to the topic except the repition of the Armenian murderous propoganda in English language.

 

CAUCASIAN ANALYST

4:39 PM ET

July 9, 2010

LOL

and the pigs can fly because Azerbaijanies said so :-)

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

3:58 PM ET

July 10, 2010

mda

I aint gonna get surprised if Armenians declare New York as an ancient capital of Armenia one day because there are few thousand Armenians living over there:-)

 

AR

6:08 PM ET

July 12, 2010

Simpleton, You and your

Simpleton,

You and your people are guilty of exactly that which you accuse Armenians of doing, that is, fabricating history. Prior to the 1600s there was no azeri ethnicity, furthermore, azeri comes from Azari, an ancient province of Iran which the little sultan in baku and his propaganda department are now trying to claim as 'southern azerbaijan' You're all so full of shit that serious persons now ignore anything you have to say, especially when it's historically related.

 

MARI

4:02 PM ET

July 18, 2010

“Armenian” syndrome

How do you expect Azerbaijanis live together with these barbarians?
Even virtually they are sucking fingers for Azerbaijani blood…

Locked in the Mountains, haunted by the murdered ghosts of innocent Azerbaijanis, they have lost all their common sense…

May God save you from the inner “Armenian” syndrome.

 

MARI

4:04 PM ET

July 18, 2010

"Armenianized" ancient lands?!

I can’t understand why Armenians are so insolent about this article? It is a pretty pro-Armenian piece!
I don’t wanna get involved into history proving whose land Karabakh is... Too boring...

But I know1 simple fact, when Armenians established a state in 1918, its territory was only 9 thousand sq km, today it is 29.7 thousand sq km… Where did you get those lands from?!

If we add there the occupied territories of Azerbaijan by Armenians, it makes more than 40 thousand sq kilometers. Amazing, isn’t it? :)