Author: Harut Sassounian

Ever since Pres. Joe Biden’s election last November, hundreds of articles have been published around the world analyzing the problematic relations between Turkey and the United States. Pres. Biden has made no secret of his dislike, if not outright hostility, toward Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The main points of contention between the United States and Turkey are as follows:

1)    U.S. support for Kurdish allies in Syria which Turkey considers terrorists;

2)    Turkey’s purchase of S-400 Russian missiles which could expose NATO’s military technology to Moscow. As a result, the United States cancelled the sale of advanced F-35 jets and imposed sanctions on Turkey;

3)    U.S. refusal to extradite the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen whom Turkey falsely accuses of inciting the coup d’état against Erdogan in 2016;

4)    Turkey’s abysmal record on human rights with the jailing of thousands of innocent civilians, journalists and judges on trumped up charges which Pres. Biden finds unacceptable.

Pres. Erdogan is following the strategy practiced by the Ottoman Empire of manipulating rival European powers against each other, by switching sides and changing partners. For example, he has declared himself to be the defender of all Muslims and particularly Palestinians, while engaging in a military partnership with Israel until recently. Another example is Turkey’s membership in the Western military alliance of NATO, while purchasing billions of dollars of sophisticated Russian missiles which are incompatible with NATO and U.S. weapons. At the same time, Erdogan is cozying up to Russia while involved in a military conflict with Russia in Syria and Libya. Turkey and Russia, two normally antagonistic countries, have also managed to find a modus vivendi in the Artsakh conflict.

The souring of relations between the U.S. and Turkey dates back to the time of Obama’s presidency, during which Biden served as Vice President. Erdogan was annoyed with Obama after an initial friendship. However, the Turkish leader developed a privileged relationship with the United States after Donald Trump became President. It is still unclear what prompted such a warm personal affection between the two. Was it Trump’s financial interests in Turkey or his bizarre fondness for tyrants around the world? We may never know.

Nevertheless, Biden fired the first shot in a December 2019 interview with the New York Times in which he called Erdogan an ‘autocrat’ and stated that the United States should support Turkish opposition leaders “to be able to take on and defeat Erdogan. Not by a coup, but by the electoral process.”

The next awkward situation arose when Erdogan congratulated Biden a few days after the November election. Four months later, Biden has still not contacted Erdogan even though he has called many other world leaders. Erdogan must be deeply offended by this diplomatic snub.

The first indication of the Biden administration’s tough policy on Turkey became evident on January 19, 2021, during Blinken’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, when he pointedly called Turkey a “so-called strategic partner” and raised the possibility of imposing more sanctions on that country. “The idea that a strategic — so-called strategic partner of ours — would actually be in line with one of our biggest strategic competitors in Russia is not acceptable,” Blinken said. “I think we need to take a look to see the impact that the existing sanctions have had and then determine whether more needs to be done.”

Blinken’s critical comments on Turkey were later reaffirmed by US national security advisor Jake Sullivan who described Turkey as “an ally that in many ways… is not acting as an ally and this is a very, very significant challenge for us and we’re very clear-eyed about it.” Sullivan placed Turkey in the same category as China.

On Feb. 5, 2021, the Pentagon confirmed that the Biden administration has no intention to lift the sanctions on Turkey for purchasing the Russian missiles. Turkey’s “decision to purchase the S-400 is inconsistent with Turkey’s commitments as a U.S. and NATO ally,” Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said. “Our position has not changed…. We urge Turkey not to retain the S-400 system…. Turkey had multiple opportunities over the last decade to purchase the Patriot defense system from the United States and instead chose to purchase the S-400, which provides Russia revenue, access and influence,” Kirby said.

To make matters worse, Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soslu repeated in early February the baseless accusation that the United States was behind the abortive Turkish coup in 2016. State Department spokesman Ned Price issued a sharp rebuke, calling the allegations made by the Turkish Minister as “wholly false.” They “are inconsistent with Turkey’s status as a NATO ally and strategic partner of the United States,” added Price.

Another contentious issue is the in absentia Turkish trial of American professor Henri Barkey of Lehigh University on false charges of aiding the 2016 coup. The US State Department called the accusations against Prof. Barkey baseless.

On Feb. 10, 2021, the U.S. State Department called on Turkey to immediately release from jail Turkish philanthropist and human rights activist Osman Kavala who has been detained for more than three years without a conviction. Kavala was falsely accused of trying to overthrow the Turkish government with Prof. Barkey during the 2016 failed coup. The State Dept. urged Turkey to comply with a European Court of Human Rights ruling in late 2019 that Kavala be released.

On February 15, 2021, when Blinken finally called Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, he urged Turkey not to retain the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

Last December, when the United States placed sanctions against Turkey for the purchase of the Russian missiles, the Turkish Foreign Ministry arrogantly warned: “Turkey will take the necessary steps against this decision, which will negatively affect our relations and will retaliate in a manner and timing it deems appropriate.”

Turkey is still attempting to find a way to circumvent the U.S. sanctions. On February 1, 2021, it hired Arnold & Porter, a major American lobbying firm in Washington, D.C., to resolve the dispute with the U.S. government over the Russian missiles. The contract was signed with the Ankara-based SSTEK Defense Industry Technologies, owned by the Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB), Ankara’s main defense industry authority. SSTEK agreed to pay Arnold & Porter $750,000 for the six months to give Turkey “strategic advice and outreach” to U.S. authorities.

It is highly doubtful that Turkey will be able to resolve the dispute regarding the Russian missiles through its hired lobbyist. Interestingly, the contract with SSTEK specified that Arnold & Porter “does not make any promises or guarantees” about the outcome. “If the matter does not reach a successful conclusion, for any reason, SSTEK shall still be responsible for all fees and disbursements charged by the firm under the terms of this agreement.” It is noteworthy that at a time when the Turkish economy is on the verge of collapse and the Turkish people are in dire financial straits, Pres. Erdogan is wasting $750,000 of Turkish taxpayers’ money on useless lobbying.

It remains to be seen if Turkey’s tightrope walking skills will succeed to maintain the Russian missiles and evade the U.S. sanctions. Should Turkey be forced to get rid of the missiles, it will have to face the consequences of a major disruption in its relations with Russia. Turkey will then have to choose either the East or the West. It will no longer be able to fool both sides. Biden and Blinken are too experienced to fall for Erdogan’s tricks.

The title of a recent article by journalist Nicholas Morgan describes best the state of U.S.-Turkish relations: “Is Turkey Biden’s Ally from Hell?” We will find out shortly.

The California Courier

Neither Armenia’s previous nor current leaders have had the adequate experience to run a country. This is true in both domestic and foreign policies. In order to rectify this undesirable situation, some have suggested finding the pertinent experts who would advise Armenia’s leaders. Regrettably, all such efforts have failed for the simple reason that before the experts could be helpful; the leaders have to be willing to listen to their advice. My long experience in dealing with Armenia’s leaders has shown that they think they know everything and have no need to learn from anyone. This is one reason why the Republic of Armenia has been mismanaged for 30 years. It is understandable that a leader does not have to be knowledgeable about every issue. That is why he or she has advisors. But when the advisors know even less than their leader, as is the case in Armenia, the situation becomes hopeless.

I have written this lengthy introduction to make the point that in addition to not knowing much and not listening to advice, Armenia’s leaders refuse to learn from their past mistakes which is the reason why they repeat them.

One such example is the current discussion in Armenia and Turkey about the possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border, closed by Turkey since 1993. Last week, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ara Aivazyan told the members of Parliament: “There is no longer a reason [for Turkey] to close the border with Armenia. For long years, Turkey blockaded Armenia’s border, demanding a change in the status quo of the Artsakh conflict. The status quo has been changed through the use of force.” The Foreign Minister assured the Parliament that currently no activities have been initiated in that regard.

The Armenian Foreign Minister’s statement comes on the heels of recent expressions by the President and Foreign Minister of Turkey of their willingness to open the border with Armenia, should the latter meet certain conditions. In the past, Turkey’s reason for closing the border was Armenia’s refusal to free “Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.” Therefore, one would think that now that Azerbaijan has forcefully occupied most of these territories, the problem is solved and Turkey will open the border. However, let us remember that Turkey had two additional conditions to open Armenia’s border:

1) Armenia must abandon its pursuit of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide;

2) Armenia must recognize Turkey’s current borders and not make any territorial demands.

We all recall that back in 2009 after Armenia and Turkey signed the Protocols to open their mutual border, Turkey made the additional demands from Armenia. When Armenia refused to accept these new conditions, Turkey decided not to ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, after coming under intense pressure from Azerbaijan.

At the time, there was a major outcry from the Diaspora and many within Armenia that the Protocols were not in Armenia’s interests. Nevertheless, President Serzh Sargsyan persisted in his misguided approach, until Turkey gave up on the Protocols, inadvertently saving Armenia’s interests.

The other major harmful effect of the Protocols was that it undermined the pledge that Pres. Barack Obama had made to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2009.

The Protocols were a clever Turkish ploy to derail the acknowledgment of Armenian Genocide by the President of the United States. The Turkish leaders, with the collaboration of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, repeatedly told Pres. Obama not issue a statement recognizing the Armenian Genocide at a time when Armenia and Turkey were engaged in serious negotiations on normalizing their relations. They succeeded in convincing Pres. Obama that using the term Armenian Genocide would disrupt these negotiations. As a result, instead of keeping his campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Pres. Obama stated on April 24, 2009: “I also strongly support the efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations. Under Swiss auspices, the two governments have agreed on a framework and roadmap for normalization. I commend this progress, and urge them to fulfill its promise.”

It is true that Pres. Obama failed to keep his campaign promise, but Armenia’s leaders are the ones who gave him the perfect excuse to hide behind the charade of the Protocols. Consequently, Armenians lost both the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the President of the United States and the opening of the border.

Regrettably, the same scenario is about to repeat again this year. Pres. Joe Biden made a campaign promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. It should be much easier for him to take such a step now, since both the House of Representatives (almost unanimously) and the U.S. Senate (unanimously) acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in 2019. While it is not certain that Pres. Biden will keep his promise, we should not give him the excuse not to do so.

If the past is any indication, this is the exact ploy that Turkey is plotting now. We know that the Biden Administration has a much harsher position vis-à-vis Pres. Erdogan and Turkey. There are several disputes between the United States and Turkey that will be difficult to overcome. Knowing this well, Pres. Erdogan has started in recent weeks to take steps to reconcile with Israel, Greece and Saudi Arabia in order to ingratiate himself to Pres. Biden. Pres. Erdogan’s suggestion to open the border with Armenia is a part of this overall Turkish strategy.

In the aftermath of the disastrous Artsakh War, Armenia’s leaders cannot afford to make more miscalculations. While most of Artsakh and its surrounding territories are already lost, I hope the Armenian Government does not make the mistake of providing an excuse for the Biden Administration not to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Even more importantly, Armenia’s leaders should not take the unthinkable step of pledging not to pursue the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and acknowledge the current borders of Turkey. Such an acceptance would damage Armenia’s interests forever. How could Armenia agree to such Turkish suggestions in the aftermath of the vicious role played by Turkey in the recent Artsakh War, which resulted in the killing and maiming of thousands of Armenian soldiers and the occupation of Armenian territories? The wounds are too fresh to contemplate any attempt to normalize relations with Turkey.

Armenia’s inexperienced leaders can find themselves in an untenable situation if Turkey decides unilaterally to open its border, while Armenia refuses to do so; giving Turkey accolades and making Armenia seem obstructionist in the eyes of the international community. Armenia’s situation will be further complicated should Turkey open its border, whereas the Armenian Government just banned the import of Turkish products for six months or longer. Should the border open and Armenia allow the import of Turkish products, the Armenian market would be flooded with cheaper Turkish products, adversely affecting local manufacturers. One possible solution would be for Armenia, instead of outright banning Turkish imports, to place such an exorbitant tariff on them, making them practically unsaleable in the country. By avoiding the ban, Armenia would not look bad in the eyes of the world, while generating much needed revenue for the Armenian Government, should anyone import Turkish goods.

In the meantime, Armenia should put its own conditions on Turkey before agreeing to open its border, such as Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide and compensation for the Armenian losses. Such a move would contradict the positions of both Pres. Serzh Sargsyan and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan who have expressed their readiness to have Armenia ratify the ill-fated Protocols and open the border with Turkey, without any preconditions!

After ruling Armenia as Prime Minister for almost three years and most importantly during the country’s recent disastrous defeat in the Artsakh War, Nikol Pashinyan keeps making mistake after mistake and misstatement after misstatement.

As I have written before, regrettably Pashinyan is not competent to lead Armenia. He is more of a protester and a critic who does not possess the necessary skills and experience to be the head of state. The Artsakh War made the situation in the country even worse and exposed Pashinyan’s inability to manage the plethora of Armenia’s problems.

Armenians around the world had high hopes that, after getting rid of the previous regime, Pashinyan would be able to lead Armenia into prosperity and a degree a normalcy. The overwhelming majority of Armenians supported him due to their complete hostility to the former government.

Unfortunately, it turned out that Pashinyan was all talk and no action. In addition to his lack of experience, he surrounded himself with advisors and ministers who knew even less than he did. As a result, neither he nor his government had the slightest chance to be successful. The Artsakh War made matters worse. As the Commander-in-Chief, he made error after error leading Armenia and Artsakh to an indescribable disaster from which we will not recover for decades, if ever. Pashinyan now insists that he should remain in power to correct the grave problems of the country. One would be extremely naïve to believe in such a promise. A leader who is incompetent to lead in peace time and utterly fails during the war is in no position to correct anything. He has made matters worse with his misstatements and erroneous policies.

Several weeks ago, while addressing the Parliament, Pashinyan angered many Armenians by describing as “unfortunate and pale” the historic Armenian city of Shushi in Artsakh. There was no reason to use such negative adjectives to describe a city which is the pride of all Armenians.

More recently, during another appearance in Parliament, in response to a question from a deputy about Shushi, Pashinyan made matters worse for himself, when he said: “Shushi before the conflict and the liberation [in 1992], had an Azeri population of 90 and more percent. In other words, you mean to say that the city of Shushi with an Azeri population of 90 and more percent is Armenian with that status?”

A huge outcry erupted among Armenians around the world after Pashinyan’s unfortunate words. This was yet another self-inflicted wound. A few days later, during Pashinyan’s visit to Yeraplour, the cemetery where fallen Armenian soldiers are buried, when a journalist questioned him about his statement in Parliament on Shushi, he said that he would give an answer if the reporter put her question in writing. The following day, the journalist wrote Pashinyan’s words on a large placard and read them aloud, while standing in front of the Prime Minister’s building. Even though one of Pashinyan’s supporters attacked the journalist and tore up her placard, the Prime Minister kept his word and on his Facebook page addressed the controversy during a live video.

In his response, Pashinyan first accused the media of manipulating his words. He repeated that in the early 1990’s Azeris consisted of over 90% or rather 96% of Shushi residents. He went on to state: “How Shushi could be considered under Armenian control by its status when 96% of the population was Azerbaijani?” Pashinyan then mentioned the offer by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev on October 19, 2020, several weeks before the end of the war, to accept Armenia’s demand for a ceasefire on condition that Armenians allow the return of the former Azeri residents to Shushi, under Armenian rule.

Pashinyan made several errors in his original statement and subsequent failed attempt to set the record straight. Actually, he had no reason to go into such a convoluted and false argument. He had just to say that he rejected Aliyev’s offer because allowing Azeris to return to Shushi under Armenian control was unacceptable to him and most Armenians. In fact, that’s exactly what Pashinyan told the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, when the latter relayed to him Aliyev’s offer. Had Pashinyan limited his remarks to that fact, there would have been no outcry in the Armenian world. There was no reason to say that Shushi was mostly populated by Azeris prior to 1992, causing such a controversy at a time when his power is waning and he is criticized by a lot of Armenians, including many of his former supporters.

By mentioning the high percentage of Azeris living in Shushi in the past, Pashinyan made several mistakes:

First of all, regardless of the number of Azeris who lived in Shushi, it is a well-known fact that it has been an Armenian city for centuries long before Azerbaijan existed. In 1920, after Azeris massacred thousands of Armenians in Shushi and pursued a policy to depopulate the city’s Armenians, their numbers were diminished considerably. But Pashinyan provided no such background in his misleading statement.

Secondly, Pashinyan was wrong to judge whether an area is Armenian or not by its population at a particular time. For example, there are hardly any Armenians now living in Nakhichevan or Western Armenia, but Armenians still consider these territories to be a part of historic Armenia.

Thirdly, it is understandable that accepting Aliyev’s offer to allow former Azeri residents to return to Shushi, under Armenian control, was a hard pill to swallow for Pashinyan and most Armenians, there is an important issue to consider. How many Azeris would have returned to Shushi to live under Armenian rule? Very few, if any. Pashinyan’s implication that thousands of Azeris would have returned to Shushi, making the city’s population again 96% Azeri was totally unrealistic. No Azeri would have wanted to live in Shushi under Armenian rule, just like no Armenian would risk living in territories controlled by Azerbaijan.

Finally, Pashinyan’s refusal to accept Aliyev’s offer on October 19, 2020, meant that the war was prolonged until November 9, 2020, causing the loss of much more Armenian territories to Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Azeris took over Shushi completely and many more young Armenian soldiers were killed or wounded. The consequences of Pashinyan’s faulty decisions during the war were far worse than his misstatement in Parliament and his subsequent lame effort to correct himself.

The Prime Minister should realize that the longer he clings to power, the more he destabilizes the country. A defeated and incompetent leader cannot improve the tragic situation in the country. The sooner he leaves, the faster a new government can take over and try to reduce the damages suffered by Armenia and Artsakh.

Publisher,

The Calvert Journal published last week an article by Lucía de la Torre titled, “The Aliyev influence: how nepotism and self-censorship rule Azerbaijan’s art scene.”

 On October 2, 2020, two days after the start of the Artsakh war, a giant Azerbaijani flag was placed on the façade of Baku’s YARAT Contemporary Art Space gallery with a giant message: “Karabakh is Azerbaijan.”

This did not sit well with the Turkish-born Kurdish artist Ahmet Ogut whose exhibition “No Poem Loves Its Poet” had been displayed in the gallery since May 2020. Ogut requested that the propaganda banner be taken down and boldly declared: “I refuse to allow my work to fall prey to political instrumentalization.”

The gallery refused to remove the banner and closed down Ogut’s exhibit on October 29, 2020, three weeks earlier than scheduled.

According to The Calvert Journal’s article, “This is one example of how Azerbaijan’s apparently thriving art scene conceals something darker: a deeply nepotistic environment which routinely suppresses dissident voices while crafting an international image of Azerbaijan as a free, art-loving nation.”

Artists like Ogut, who refuse to go along with Azerbaijan’s political propaganda, are quickly ostracized and lose all artistic privileges.

Artists worldwide were alarmed by Azerbaijan’s abuse of power, trampling on the rights and independence of an artist. However, this came as no surprise to those who have followed many other violations by the country’s despotic leader. Ruled “by President Ilham Aliyev and Vice-President and First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, the Azerbaijani government has been repeatedly criticized by human rights’ groups for ongoing censorship, a poor human rights record, and rampant corruption. And, like many nearby authoritarian regimes, members of the President’s family are known to own most of the country’s major businesses, earning them millions of dollars since the fall of the USSR and situating Aliyev amongst the world’s richest oil billionaires,” The Calvert Journal reported.

The YARAT gallery was founded by Aida Mahmudova, an artist, curator, and Vice President Mehriban Aliyeva’s niece. The Marriott Hotel in Baku, “which is allegedly connected to Aliyev’s daughters Leyla and Arzu Aliyeva according to reporters for the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, is one of YARAT’s main partners,” The Calvert Journal wrote.

“Mahmudova is also the director of another of Azerbaijan’s main contemporary art galleries: Baku’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMa). The museum was founded by Mehriban Aliyeva in 2009, and is funded by the Heydar Aliyev Foundation (of which Mehriban Aliyeva is the President and Leyla Aliyeva the Vice-President), a charitable organization created in memory of the former president of Azerbaijan and father of current president Ilham Aliyev. Elsewhere in Baku, another star venue on Azerbaijan’s cultural scene is the Heydar Aliyev Center. The current director of the Heydar Aliyev Center is Anar Alakbarov, a former assistant to the Vice President of Azerbaijan and current assistant to the President,” The Calvert Journal reported.

Baku has several other smaller art galleries which are controlled by Azerbaijan’s government. “The Qiz Qalasi Gallery, an art venue in Baku with a branch in Berlin, is headed by Emin Mammadov, who also works as Art Curator for the Heydar Aliyev Foundation. ‘Modern Art of Azerbaijan’ is a travelling exhibition supported by the Heydar Aliyev Center that toured European capitals, where Mehriban and Leila Aliyeva hosted lavish inaugurations attended by European government officials and diplomats. In November 2020, the gallery launched ‘Armed with the Arts,’ an exhibition allegedly meant to promote peace after the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war, while, similarly to YARAT, openly supported the position of the Azerbaijani government and used politically-charged, bellicose language. Kicik QalArt Gallery, a project of the ‘Art ex East Foundation’ and another important smaller-scale venue in the capital, although now closed, used to be owned by Olivier Mestelan, a Swiss art collector and financier. Mestelan used to sit on the board of Ataholding, an open joint-stock company that managed Atabank, one of the biggest commercial banks in Azerbaijan, now bankrupt and owned by the Azerbaijan Deposit Insurance Fund (ADIF). According to an investigation carried out in 2011 by Radio Free Europe’s Azerbaijani Service, Mestelan was also claimed to be the treasurer of three offshore Panama-based companies linked to Azerfon, a Baku-based telecommunications company with links to Arzu and Leyla Aliyeva,” The Calvert Journal wrote.

Lesley Gray, a scholar researching the development of the contemporary art scene in the Arab Gulf and Caspian Sea region, explained that Azerbaijan and other countries use contemporary art as a tool to reshape the country’s international image.

Azerbaijan’s leaders are not interested in art for art’s sake. “They hope to use art as a tool to attract international attention for something other than imprisoned journalists and crackdowns on free speech,” The Calvert Journal reported.

The Azerbaijani government has also used its investments in contemporary art around the world to project power and establish goodwill. “Mehriban Aliyeva, through the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, has shelled out generous sums for cultural institutions such as The Palace of Versailles, Paris’ Louvre Museum, and the Vatican Museums, while the Friends of Azerbaijani Culture Foundation, a non-governmental charity which she founded in 1995, routinely organizes art exhibits abroad,” according to The Calvert Journal.

As a result, “in 2004 Mehriban Aliyeva was designated UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, a laurel given in recognition of her actions to promote international cultural exchanges. Later, in 2010, Aliyeva received a gold medal from UNESCO for her ‘efforts in establishing an intercultural dialogue.’ Over the years, Azerbaijan has had a particularly favorable relationship with the UN body — in October 2015, at the petition of Mehriban Aliyeva, UNESCO hosted an exhibition ironically called ‘Azerbaijan — Land of Tolerance’ at its Paris headquarters. At the opening, when a journalist asked Aliyeva whether the title of the exhibition lived up to the reality in Azerbaijan, considering the country has ‘many political prisoners in jail,’ Aliyeva denied this and turned her back while security guards pushed the journalist away. The relationship was particularly favorable between Mehriban Aliyeva and Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, 2009-2017. Their relationship came under scrutiny in 2017, when Kalin Mitrev, Bokova’s husband, was investigated by the Bulgarian Chief Prosecutor in relation to media publications about payments made by Azerbaijani companies to his [bank] accounts. Bokova then wrote a letter to The Guardian [newspaper] defending the rightfulness of her relationship with Azerbaijan, but never spoke openly about the money allegedly received by her husband or her stance towards Azerbaijan’s human rights abuses,” The Calvert Journal reported.

However, Azerbaijan’s devious use of the arts was exposed in 2011, when “Azerbaijan censored its own entry to the Venice Biennale, the world’s most high-profile showcase of contemporary art, by hiding the work of one of its own artists under a piece of cloth. Moscow-based artist Aidan Salakhova’s work Waiting Bride, which showed a woman in a black veil from head to foot, and another sculpture, which showed the Black Stone of Mecca contained in a vagina-shaped marble frame, were hidden under a white cloth. The [Azeri] government later claimed that the artworks were ‘damaged during transport’, while senior sources at the exhibition clarified that the works were censored for being considered offensive to Islam,” according to The Calvert Journal.

Nothing is surprising about the exploitation of art by Azerbaijan. A government, whose soldiers cut off the heads and ears of captured Armenians, can easily abuse art to cover up its corruption and gross human rights violations.

There are three reasons why Armenia is in such a state of chaos and confusion:

The first reason is that Armenia, as the defeated side in the war, has very little leverage in the implementation of the “Statement” or agreement signed on Nov. 9, 2020 by the President of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of Armenia and President of Russia.

The second reason is that since the text of the “Statement” was vague, key details were left out causing uncertainty.

The third problem is that Prime Minister Nikole Pashinyan, as the demoralized head of the defeated side, is in no position to resolve or minimize the damage caused by the war. The reasons for his ineffectiveness are: his failings during the war and his mismanagement and inexperience throughout his tenure as Prime Minister.

The only proper course for Armenia is for Pashinyan to resign on his own free will without any pressures, demonstrations, and ugly confrontations. While it is horrible that Armenia was defeated by powerful outside enemies during the war, it is much worse when Armenians treat each other as enemies. Those who say that no one can replace Pashinyan are insulting the Armenian nation. No one is irreplaceable. There are plenty of competent and intelligent Armenians both in Armenia and the Diaspora who can manage Armenia competently. The new leader should be neither a part of those in power now nor those of the past. The Armenian people will choose Pashinyan’s successor through democratic elections. Armenia needs fresh blood!

Returning to the Nov. 9, 2020 agreement, it is strange that specific deadlines were set for several of its provisions, such as the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the various territories surrounding Artsakh, but point 8 of the agreement, the “exchange of prisoners of war, hostages and other detained persons, and dead bodies” had no specific deadline. Prime Minister Pashinyan should have insisted on a deadline before signing the agreement. Thousands of Armenian families are in an extremely tragic situation, not knowing if their loved ones are dead or alive. Meanwhile, many of the Armenian prisoners of war are being tortured by Azeri officials in contravention of the Geneva Convention. Azeri soldiers have shamelessly videotaped themselves decapitating or cutting off the ears and limbs of captured Armenian soldiers and civilians. This is a continuing war crime which should be presented to international courts.

Armenia and Azerbaijan exchanged a small number of prisoners shortly after the war. The fate and the number of the rest of captured Armenian soldiers remain unknown.

After a lengthy and frustrating wait, the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia finally met in Moscow on January 11, 2021, to take decisions on two key points: 1) the exchange of prisoners of war and hostages; and 2) determination of the final status of Artsakh, according to an announcement made before the meeting by the Armenian Prime Minister’s office.

Shockingly, after the Moscow meeting, a new agreement was signed by the three leaders mentioning only point 9 of the Nov. 9, 2020 agreement: “the unblocking of all economic and transportation routes in the region.” This means that Armenia would be able to use the railway that starts in Northern Armenia, crosses Nakhichevan and exits in Armenia’s South on its way to Iran. Armenia would also be able to use the railway that crosses mainland Azerbaijan, reaching Baku and then Moscow. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, would have a route through Southern Armenia linking Nakhichevan to mainland Azerbaijan. Very short deadlines were set to form high level committees on the transportation routes without mentioning either the exchange of prisoners of war or the final status of Artsakh. Amazingly, Pashinyan announced immediately after the summit meeting: “Today we failed to resolve the issue of prisoners of war, this is the most sensitive issue. We agreed that we will continue [talks] in this direction. I hope we will be able to come to a concrete solution as soon as possible…. Unfortunately, it is impossible to resolve all issues in one meeting.” The Moscow meeting was a second defeat for Armenia.

Pashinyan’s comments should be unacceptable to all Armenians, regardless of whether they support him or not. How could he have sat in a meeting for four hours with Presidents Putin and Aliyev and not insisted on the immediate exchange of the prisoners of war? Two months have passed since the ceasefire? No one knows when Putin, Aliyev and Pashinyan will meet again to resolve this critical issue. This is no way to defend Armenia’s interests, even considering the dire situation of a defeated country. Pashinyan should have made clear at the meeting that priority number one was the exchange of prisoners. Unless it was decided that these prisoners would be exchanged within a few days, he would refuse to discuss any other issue with them. How can Armenia and Azerbaijan discuss the unblocking of transportation routes between the two countries while Armenian prisoners are languishing in Baku jails and tortured? Furthermore, neither the November agreement nor the subsequent Moscow announcement indicated who will pay for the construction of the road and railway linking Nakhichevan to mainland Azerbaijan through Armenia.

While Armenia’s Prime Minister continues to negotiate from a position of weakness, the Azeri side is becoming even more strident; warning Armenia’s leaders not to travel to Artsakh after the Armenian Foreign Minister went there. Azerbaijan insisted that this was a violation of the Nov. 9, 2020 agreement, although there is no such prohibition in the agreement. In addition, Azerbaijan announced that the Armenian prisoners of war would be tried as ‘terrorists’; therefore, not subject to an exchange. Even though Armenia is in a very difficult situation after the war, Armenian leaders have to fight hard to protect the country’s interests as much as possible. The more subservient Armenia’s leaders behave, the more demanding Azeris and Turks become.

Regrettably, Pashinyan seems to have convinced himself that unblocking transportation routes between Armenia and Azerbaijan would boost Armenia’s economy. I seriously doubt this is true. Would any Armenian feel safe traveling or sending goods through Azerbaijan? Who will protect them? More problematic is Armenia’s agreement to allow Azerbaijan a road and railway link between the two countries, allowing Turkey to cross Nakhichevan, and then through Armenia’s Southern region reach mainland Azerbaijan and onwards to the Turkic Republics of Central Asia. This is the century-old Pan-Turanian dream of Turkey which is now about to become a reality. Such a route would undermine Armenia’s sovereignty and endanger its existence. The Armenian people and its government should do everything in their power to block this Pan-Turanian connection. Giving access to Azerbaijan and Turkey to cross Armenia’s territory has absolutely nothing to do with the Artsakh war and such a provision should not have been included in the Nov. 9, 2020 agreement.

I fear that Armenia’s downhill slide will continue as long as the country is ruled by a Prime Minister who is primarily responsible for the loss of Armenian lands and the deaths of thousands of soldiers.