Category: Authors

SCANDAL: MPs caught trying to sell their influence for cash
[1]

‘MPs for hire’ face lobbying clean-up

Cabinet ministers rounded on their former colleagues, including Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, who were caught trying to sell their influence for cash.

Cabinet members have vowed to tighten up lobbying laws

Related Tags:

Geoff Hoon

Patricia Hewitt

David Miliband

ministers

secretary

They vowed to tighten up lobbying laws after MPs including Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon were secretly filmed talking to undercover reporters.

‘There is absolutely no room for the sort of innuendo or promises that seem to have been floated in this case,’ said foreign secretary David Miliband.

Chancellor Alistair Darling sugges ted the MPs had been naive to fall for the sting targeting 20 MPs standing down at the next general election.

‘Really, what on earth did they think they were doing?’ he said.

‘The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again – it’s obvious.’

In the footage for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, former transport secretary Mr Byers described himself as ‘like a sort of cab for hire’ – charging £5,000 a day to pull the strings of movers and shakers. He also claimed to have influenced Lord Adonis in his dealings with National Express.

Former health secretary Ms Hewitt allegedly said she had helped a client paying her £3,000 a day to win a seat on a government advisory group.

And ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon is said to have offered introductions to current ministers, in return for fees of £5,000 a day.

Mr Byers last night insisted he had ‘never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial organisations’. He said he had made ‘exaggerated claims’ in the discussions caught on camera.

, 21st March, 2010

[2]

Calls for inquiry into ‘MPs for hire’ scandal

Damian Whitworth, Francis Elliott and Alex Ralph

David Cameron demanded yesterday that Gordon Brown investigate a boast by the former Cabinet minister Stephen Byers that he had used his influence to change policies to favour businesses.

The former Transport Secretary [Lord Adonis], who was secretly filmed offering himself “like a sort of cab for hire” for up to £5,000 a day, will be referred to the parliamentary standards watchdog today.

Mr Byers told an undercover reporter that he had secured secret deals with ministers and said that he received confidential information from No 10 and was able to help firms involved in price fixing to get around the law.

The claims gravely embarrassed Labour, which rushed forward a promise to introduce a compulsory register of lobbying which it said had been planned for the election manifesto.

Thirteen Labour MPs and seven Tories were approached by investigators for Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Sunday Times, pretending to be executives from a fictitious American lobbying firm. The others to feature in the documentary to be screened tonight are Labour’s Geoff Hoon, Patricia Hewitt, Margaret Moran and Baroness Morgan and the Tory MP Sir John Butterfill, who is understood to have boasted about his closeness to Mr Cameron.

Mr Byers was covertly filmed telling the reporter that he would be able to lobby ministers and gave examples of where he had done so before. He said he would charge £3,000-£5,000 a day and claimed he had done a deal with Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, to benefit National Express. He later retracted his claims and he, Lord Adonis and National Express all strongly denied any deal yesterday.

All of the MPs filmed, including Ms Hewitt and Mr Hoon, former Cabinet ministers, denied any wrongdoing and insisted that they had breached no rules. “I am confident that any investigation from the Standards Commissioner will confirm that I have always fully complied with the MPs’ code of conduct,” Mr Byers said. “I have never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial organisations and have always fully disclosed my outside interests.”

Mr Hoon, a former Defence Secretary, reportedly said that he charged £3,000 a day and was looking to turn his knowledge and contacts into “something that frankly makes money”. He said: “At no stage did I offer, nor would I attempt to, sell confidential or privileged information arising from my time in government.”

Ms Hewitt said she “completely rejected” the allegation that she helped to obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying £3,000 a day.

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said they would table parliamentary questions about the claims in an attempt to see if there had been breaches of the ministerial code.

“I have been warning for some time that lobbying is the next scandal to hit British politics,” Mr Cameron said. “These are shocking allegations. The House of Commons needs to conduct a thorough investigation into these ex-Labour ministers.”

He said that the Prime Minister “would want to get to the bottom of the accusations being made about his Government — and real change is needed”.

Senior Cabinet ministers distanced themselves from their former colleagues.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, said it was “ridiculous” that the MPs had been caught out in the sting. “The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again. There are rules about serving MPs — we’ve said that we are going to have to get a statutory-backed code of conduct to deal with former ministers. But really, what on earth did they think they were doing?”

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that he was “appalled” and added: “There is absolutely no room for anyone to trade on their ministerial office.”

Research by The Times shows eight former ministers have made up to £370,000 in outside work of various kinds since announcing they would be stepping down as MPs. They include John Prescott, John Reid, John Hutton, Alan Milburn and Ms Hewitt. Mr Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, has made up to £166,000, mostly through television documentaries and his autobiography.

, March 22, 2010

[3]

[4]

MPs’ foreign visit rules breached

Hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments have been uncovered by a BBC investigation.

More than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar.

Between them, the MPs – from all the major parties – breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions.

One former standards watchdog says it shows MPs cannot regulate themselves.

Some MPs dismissed the breaches as technical errors or oversights.

However, the former Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, told the BBC repeated rule breaches threatened to “undermine the integrity” of the democratic system.

He said it “demonstrated the failure of the self-regulating system of discipline in the Commons” and called for a shake-up of the way MPs’ behaviour is monitored.

“This is a very worrying situation which will further demean the standing of Parliament,” he said.

BBC home editor Mark Easton, who led the investigation, said it would raise further questions about the Commons’ ability to regulate itself.

The rules on overseas visits are there to ensure that no-one can accuse MPs of accepting foreign hospitality in return for political favours, for example pressing the UK government for financial assistance.

They require MPs to register such visits and then declare relevant trips in questions, motions or debates.

One of those who appears to have fallen foul of the code of conduct is Labour’s Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee – the very body which polices MPs’ behaviour.

He broke rules more than 90 times, following annual visits to Cyprus, by failing to declare the hospitality when raising issues about the island in Parliament.

In total, he has tabled more than 200 Commons questions about Cyprus since the last election in 2005, on topics such as missing persons from the island and its victims of past conflict between Turkey and Greece.

The Commons information office estimates it costs on average £149 to answer a written question.

Mr Dismore has also signed motions and led debates about Cyprus. However, he denies any wrongdoing and claims his questions about Cyprus were not sufficiently relevant to his trips to require a declaration.

Conservative David Amess has admitted failing to register a free trip to the Maldives – regarded as a “very serious” breach of the rules by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, according to the MPs’ code of conduct.

He also accepts he did not register a second trip for almost a year, blaming an administrative error by his office staff.

‘Paradise’

During a debate he tabled about the Maldives in 2007, Mr Amess told the Commons how his “splendid visit” had given him “an early taste of paradise”.

“No words can describe adequately just how beautiful the islands are,” he added, before suggesting the UK Government “could be encouraged to do a little more than is being done at the moment” for the islands in the Indian Ocean.

Despite leading two debates about UK support for the Maldives and asking 15 questions about the islands, he failed to declare an interest. Referring to the MPs’ code of conduct, Mr Amess told the BBC: “It is for the member to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant.”

Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who has been actively calling for a clean-up of Parliament following the expenses scandal, has admitted breaching the rules on 37 occasions.

In a statement to the BBC, Mr Baker accepts he failed to declare an interest when leading debates and tabling questions about topics such as human rights in Tibet. He has travelled to India twice, courtesy of the Tibet Society and the Tibet government-in-exile.

“I should have then declared a relevant interest in respect of the parliamentary activities you list,” he said. “It is an unintended oversight that I did not.”

The MP who heads the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Tony Wright, told the BBC that such rule-breaking was “unacceptable” and that the system should be more transparent.

“Declarations should be the norm. It is quite proper for MPs to go on visits. Some of those visits will be financed by foreign governments. But… if they’re lobbying on behalf of governments who have paid for their visits, then clearly we need to know about it.”

The rules are enforced by MPs themselves. Breaches are only investigated if a formal complaint is made and there is no independent body to ensure that members stick to the regulations.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox has admitted breaking the rules on two occasions, having visited Sri Lanka five times in the past three years courtesy of its government. He failed to declare the hospitality when asking ministers how much UK aid had been given to Sri Lanka.

In a statement, Mr Fox said: “I should have noted an interest and will be writing to the registrar to make this clear.” He blamed a “changeover of staffing responsibilities” for registering one of his visits more than two months late.

During the current Parliament, Gibraltar’s government has funded 31 trips for MPs to attend an annual street party on the territory.

Street party

Labour’s Lindsay Hoyle has been a guest at these National Day Celebrations three times. Following his visits he has asked 30 questions, tabled three early day motions and signed a further seven, all without declaring his interest.

Mr Hoyle also broke the rules by failing to declare an interest following registered trips to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

“I have never received or sought any financial benefit,” he told the BBC.

Conservative Andrew Rosindell has been a guest of Gibraltar’s government twice in recent years. He subsequently asked 48 questions and signed or sponsored nine motions related to the territory without declaring an interest.

Thirteen of his questions about Gibraltar were before a visit had been registered. The BBC put the matters to Mr Rosindell but has yet to receive a response.

The BBC has identified a further 10 MPs from all three major parties who have been guests of Gibraltar’s government and shortly afterwards breached rules when signing motions or tabling questions about the territory.

The investigation has also identified three more Labour MPs and another Conservative who failed to declare an interest following visits to Cyprus.

MPs who have breached the rules:

David Amess

Norman Baker

Crispin Blunt

Graham Brady

Colin Breed

David Burrowes

Andrew Dismore

Jim Dobbin

Alan Duncan

Liam Fox

Mike Hancock

Lindsay Hoyle

Paul Keetch

Bob Laxton

David Lepper

Andrew Love

Madeline Moon

Mike Penning

Andrew Rosindell

Richard Spring

Theresa Villiers

Rudi Vis

DECLARING FOREIGN TRIPS
- Any MP who has an overseas trip paid for by a foreign government must register it within four weeks
- They must declare a financial interest if it “might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question”
- This includes when tabling questions, motions, bills or amendments, and when speaking out during Commons proceedings
- Members may not, for example, call for increased UK financial assistance to the government which provided the hospitality
- Q&A – MPs’ foreign trips rules
ANALYSIS

By Mark Easton, BBC home editor

The point of the regulations is to ensure that a sceptical citizenry can be confident about the integrity of their elected representatives.

Transparency is key.

The whole system only works if members take this responsibility seriously. Declaration doesn’t imply wrongdoing, but a failure to declare might be interpreted that way.

The widespread abuse of the system uncovered by our investigation suggests some Members of Parliament don’t understand this.

But what really struck me as I conducted the investigation is that the system of scrutiny surrounding the rules clearly does not work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8580183.stm, 22 March 2010

[5]

…
March 22, 2010
Demopoulos and others v. Turkey

This article was written by my good friend Robert Ellis and first appeared in the print edition of Hürriyet Daily News.

The non-admissibility decision a fortnight ago by the European Court of Human Rights was welcomed as “historic” by the Turkish press and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, but it might be premature to pop the champagne corks. In fact, it is probably former Turkish Ambassador Tulay Uluçevik who struck the right note when he described the Court’s ruling as “a Pyrrhic victory.”

Apart from the issue of security, that of property can be considered a major stumbling block for a solution to the Cyprus question, and the Annan Plan did little to assuage Greek Cypriot concerns. The right to restitution and return was effectively limited by a number of restrictions so that the majority of displaced Greek Cypriots were faced with compensation in the form of what Tassos Papadopoulos called “dubious paper.”

The Property Board that the Annan Plan envisaged, which would have settled claims from both sides, would for the most part have been funded by the Greek Cypriots, so it would have been the merchant from Kayseri who fed his donkey with its own tail all over again.

However, the Immovable Property Commission, or IPC, which the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) established in December 2005 to deal with Greek Cypriot property claims, will in effect be funded by Turkey, as the “TRNC” has the status of “a subordinate local administration” under Turkish jurisdiction.

The legal status of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, which was proclaimed in 1983, has been a bone of contention for previous property cases appearing before the European court, but it has been established in admissibility decisions (for example, Loizidou v. Turkey in 1995 and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey in 2005) that Turkey is the respondent state.

In the latter case, an attempt was made to avoid a judgment against Turkey by establishing an “Immovable Property Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission” in July 2003, so as to provide a domestic remedy that should be exhausted. Nevertheless, this only provided for compensation but not restitution, and as there were doubts about the impartiality of the Commission, the remedy was found to be neither effective nor adequate.

So, seen in those terms, the IPC must be considered an improved model as its provisions provide for restitution, exchange or compensation in return for rights over the immovable property and compensation for loss of use if claimed. Furthermore, two of the IPC’s five to seven members are independent international members, and persons who occupy Greek-Cypriot property are expressly excluded.

Consequently, on the basis of the 85 cases concluded by last November, the Court found that the IPC provides an accessible and effective framework of redress for property issues “in the current situation of occupation that it is beyond this Court’s competence to resolve.”

In view of the redress offered by the Annan Plan, it must be a disappointment for Greek Cypriots that the Court maintains its view that “it must leave the choice of implementation of redress for breaches of property rights to Contracting States” and that, from a Convention perspective, “property is a material commodity which can be valued and compensated for in monetary terms.” In fact, in more than 70 cases claimants opted for compensation.

A further bone of contention in the current talks between Dimitris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat is whether it is the legal or the current owner of the property who should decide whether redress should be in the form of restitution, exchange or compensation.

On this issue, the Court states, “It is still necessary to ensure that the redress applied to those old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs.” Finally, the Court concludes that this decision is not to be interpreted as requiring that applicants make use of the IPC. They may choose not to do so and await a political settlement, but in the meantime the Court’s decision provides a legal basis.

Davutoğlu believes the Court’s decision has boosted the international legitimacy of the “TRNC”, in which case he has neglected to read the small print. “The Court maintains its opinion that allowing the respondent State to correct wrongs imputable to it does not amount to an indirect legitimization of a regime unlawful under international law.”

Furthermore, “Accepting the functional reality of remedies is not tantamount to holding that Turkey wields internationally-recognized sovereignty over northern Cyprus.” The European Parliament has, in a resolution, called on Turkey to immediately start to withdraw its troops from Cyprus and address the issue of the settlement of Turkish citizens as well as enable the return of the sealed-off section of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has indicated he is willing to withdraw Turkish troops in the event of a solution, but his chief EU negotiator, Egemen Bağış, has boasted that Turkey has not withdrawn a single soldier or given away territory.

Considering that not only the future of Cyprus but also Turkey’s prospects of EU membership hang in the balance, that kind of attitude is singularly unhelpful.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.

March 18, 2010
Turkish-Azerbaijani-Israeli Axis Revived

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

RELATED INFO

https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

mete62@inbox.ru

The visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to Baku on February 8-11, which has attracted so much comment and speculation, is a constituent part of Tel Aviv’s policy in the post-Soviet space. An analysis of the results of this visit shows that the resonance arising from the Baku meetings of the Israeli minister serves only as a cover for the discussion behind the scenes of issues, which have strategic geopolitical importance.

Azerbaijani and Israeli media in their discussion of these meetings devoted most of their attention to several questions, including the broadening of Azerbaijani-Israeli ties at a time when contacts between Ankara and Jerusalem are increasingly tense, Azerbaijani permission for Israeli use of the territory of the country in the event of military actions against Iran, and a mediating role of official Baku in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. The links among these various issues become obvious upon close examination.

As far as the first question is concerned, one should note that Israel and part of the Jewish lobby, which has spoken out against military actions in Iran, do not consider the territory of Azerbaijan as a place des armes for military actions against Iran. Related to this and as part of an effort designed to restrain Iran, the United States and Georgia have signed an agreement on the use of Georgia’s territorial waters in the Black Sea if US military bases in the Persian Gulf are used for an attack on Iran.

Correctly assessing the situation, Israeli political analysts understand that Azerbaijan will not under any circumstances agree to the use of its territory for an invasion of Iran but rather will do everything it can to prevent the beginning of military actions against its southern neighbor. Any military invasion, be it a broad scale military action or surgical strike, would entail a humanitarian catastrophe (including an incalculable number of refugees from the northern part of Iran), a collapse of the economy, and a growth of terrorism in Azerbaijan. These threats in turn are entirely capable of delivering a destructive blow to the security of Azerbaijan. Consequently, official Baku cannot agree to such a step even in exchange for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

There is, however, a plethora of other issues that invite attention of Baku and Tel Aviv, as well as Ankara, and could hence serve as a solid foundation upon which the relations among the three could develop further. Since Lieberman’s visit to Baku, there have been several extremely interesting events. On February 16, Pinchas Avivi, the deputy director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and head of that organization’s Division for Central Europe and Eurasia, made a working visit to Ankara. Not only did the two parties discuss bilateral relations, but they also touched upon the issues of cooperation and interaction in “third countries,” in particular those in the South Caucasus (Goldenstein 2010). That suggests that the meeting in Ankara represented a continuation of the Baku negotiations. The possibility of tripartite cooperation in dealing with the regional issues at a time when Turkish-Israeli relations appear to be in “conflict” is not fantastic if one comes to analyze more closely recent events. Despite a certain public cooling in recent months, both countries have enough in common that cooperation with regard to regional issues is far from impossible. As one Turkish official put it, “populism is part of contemporary politics,” but “Turkey was and remains a most serious guarantor of Israel’s security” (Oguz 2010).

Consequently, while some experts have hurried to bury the Azerbaijan-Israel-Turkish military-political union, it is obvious that precisely this union and not individual states are capable of being a key geopolitical center and playing a defining role in the region. And local conflicts, which are taking place in these countries, are considered not in isolation but as part of regional policies.

This nexus also reflects Azerbaijan’s interest in playing a larger international role. Indeed, many countries hope that it will. In May 2009, for example, when Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov was in Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Azerbaijan could take on itself greater responsibility and leadership in the resolution of important issues in the region of the South Caucasus. She stressed that “Azerbaijan is a strategic location which is important not only for Azerbaijanis, but also for the region and the entire world,” including not unimportantly not only the Caucasus but the areas to its south. [1]

Not surprisingly, therefore, during Lieberman’s visit to Baku, the two parties discussed in detail the possibility of Azerbaijan’s mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Baku’s growing interest in playing a greater role in the broader region to its south is also reflected in its continuous reluctance to open up its embassy in Tel Aviv. Experts in Baku often cite relations with the Organization of the Islamic Conference and with Iran as the reasons Azerbaijan has not taken that step, but the experience of Turkey and Israel suggests that in reality there is another reason at work: a desire, on the part of Baku, to demonstrate its respect for, and solidarity with, the Palestinians and the Islamic world more generally, something which will help increase the influence of Azerbaijan as a mediator in the Middle Eastern conflict.

As the situation around the region heats up, the links between Azerbaijan, Turkey and Israel seem certain to become closer, and this axis is destined to bear a direct effect on the broader region for years to come.

Note

[1] See (accessed 25 February 2010).

References

Goldenstein, Alexander (2010) “Турция и Израиль сохраняют координацию по Кавказу” [“Turkey and Israel keep coordination on the Caucasus”], Izrus, 17 February, available at http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2010-02-17/8651.html (accessed 25 February 2010).

Oguz, Dzhem (2010) “Есть причины, вынудившие Турцию изменить отношение к Израилю” [“There are reasons that prompted Turkey to change its attitude to Israel”], Regnum, 11 February, available at (accessed 25 February 2010).

source

March 16, 2010
Killing Two Birds With One Stone?

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

mete62@inbox.ru

RELATED INFO

https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia complicated the ethnic situation in the entire Caucasus by creating favorable conditions for the exacerbation of ethnic self-consciousness among many groups and for the manipulation of some of these groups by various countries both in the region and beyond.

The activities of the Circassians who hope to unite the members of their ethnos into a single republic have attracted a great deal of attention, but developments in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, a Georgian region populated largely by ethnic Armenians have not, although for many reasons, what is going on there may have even greater immediate consequences.

At the start of this year, the Georgian authorities – as they have in the past sought to prevent the situation in Samtskhe-Javakhetia from getting out of hand – arrested several activists, who Armenians said are completely “innocent.” But almost at the same moment this exchange occurred, an unusual declaration by Dashgyn Gulmammadov, the president of the National Assembly of Azerbaijanis of Georgia, was released.

That declaration [1] called for Georgia to be transformed into a confederation of Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians. But despite its Azerbaijani origin, it did not call for ethnic Azerbaijanis to gain autonomy, limiting itself to the demand that in this new state, Azerbaijani should be one of the state languages. A similar idea surfaced during the Russian-Georgian war of last August. At that time, its authors were citizens of the Russian Federation and an ethnic Azerbaijani from Iran now living in Sweden.

And this declaration, by a strange coincidence appearing at the time of the Javakhetia events but one not strange at all if these groups are being manipulated by Moscow and Yerevan, also called for giving the ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan, in particular the Talysh, Avars and Lazgis, similar rights. By putting out such statements, those who issue them and even more the people who are orchestrating this hope to weaken and fragment Georgia and Azerbaijan and to limit the options of both Tbilisi and Baku.

Confirmation of this is provided by the following: During the most recent arrests in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, Armenian commentators hurried to accuse Azerbaijan of being behind events there. In this way, Yerevan sought to take steps to give it greater freedom of action in the future. First of all, since Javakhetia organizations, in the opinion of Georgian experts, are directed by the Armenian special services and Russia, then the shift in rhetoric toward Georgia regarding its citizens of Azerbaijani nationality beyond any doubt indicates who compiled the “Azerbaijani” declaration.

Moscow is interested in the further dismemberment of Georgia and consequently views the efforts of the Javakhetia Armenians as a completely logical next step. Azerbaijanis, on the other hand and as Georgians recognize, do not have separatist ambitions and remain loyal to the Georgian government. Changing that by a few declarations of the type cited above won’t shift them from that.

Consequently, it should be obvious that claims to the contrary are simply intended to provide cover for Armenian plans. Equally indicative of what is going on is that the exacerbating of the ethnic situation in Georgia has slowed the process of the return of Meskhetian Turks to their historical lands in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, a return that Armenians of that region oppose.

And the sponsors of this exploitation of ethnic minority aspirations have promoted their ideas via scholarly conferences about these communities, propaganda about the dangers of Pan-Turanism and the assimilation of peoples living in Azerbaijan, and the creation of websites which speak out in defense of the rights of ethnic communities living there, to name just a few. Lazgis, Udins, Tats, Jews, and Kurds who alongside Azerbaijanis and Turks at the beginning of the 20^th century were killed by the thousand by Dashnaks have suddenly been transformed into the brothers of the Armenians. Indeed, Armenian websites are ready to post materials about the interrelationships of the indigenous peoples of Azerbaijan with the power structure which exists in this republic and about the means of expanding relations between them and the Armenian people. [2]

The latest and especially gratuitous example of this involves the dissemination by the Armenian information agency Panarmenian.net of reports about “Jewish pogroms” in Sumgait this month, events which someone at the agency or somewhere else invented out of whole cloth. There were no such “pogroms.” But reports that they were, however false, may help the Armenian lobby in the United States to push through a Congressional resolution about the Armenian genocide. And it is possible that they were directed at complicating relations between Israel and Turkey.

Armenia, even as it remains in occupation of Azerbaijani territory, has always sought to convince the world that the rights of ethnic minorities are not protected in Azerbaijan and consequently that it would be unthinkable to return the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to a position in which they would be threatened by discrimination and destruction. The ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan and “the defense of their rights” thus remain under the constant control of political operatives in Armenia.

Unfortunately, this effort is often supplemented by the dispatch of Islamic groups and even criminal elements into Azerbaijan where they pose as “defenders” of the interests of ethnic Daghestanis. Indeed, the appearance in Daghestan of the youth movement Anti-Turan, the goal of which is the struggle with the spread of Turkish throughout the Caucasus, is a measure of the lengths Armenia and its Russian backers are prepared to go to promote anti-Azerbaijani attitudes. [3]

Notes
[1] Regnum (2009), ‘Настало время добиваться своих национальных целей: президент Национальной ассамблеи азербайджанцев Грузии’, January 30, available at (accessed February 12, 2009).

[2] E.g. explore .

[3] Khabal.info (2009) ‘Заявление молодежного патриотического движения “Анти-Туран”’, January 18, available at (accessed February 12, 2009).

l

March 15, 2010
A Nation of Conspiracies
The article which states ” In the first, the AKP is a party of religious deception that seeks to bring all elements of the government under its control. Its hidden goal is the eradication of the secular state, the wrenching of Turkey from the West, and, ultimately, the imposition of Islamic law.”.

Regards
AHMET SUER [klmaf@hotmail.com]

President, TASAA (Turkish Society of Augusta and Aiken):
- WALL St JOURNAL
- MARCH 13, 2010
Coup plots and growing extremism. Why the West can’t ignore Turkey’s paranoia
- By CLAIRE BERLINSKI
Last fall, having observed that few women in Istanbul took martial-arts classes, I conceived the idea to work with local instructors on creating a women’s self-defense initiative. My project met with initial enthusiasm, particularly among women concerned with the high rate of domestic violence in Turkey. But other martial arts instructors in the city grew uneasy, sensing a plot to swindle them out of their small pieces of the martial-arts pie. Istanbul quickened with lunatic rumors that the initiative was a conspiracy to disparage the other instructors’ martial prowess and steal their students. Martial-arts cliques consumed themselves with plotting and counter-plotting. Secret tribunals were held, covert alliances formed, poison-pen letters sent, friends betrayed. I gave up in disgust.
No one familiar with the prominent role of conspiracies and paranoia in Turkish social and political life will be surprised. Last month, more than five dozen military officers were arrested and charged with plotting a coup. The detained stand accused of planning to bomb mosques and down Greek fighter jets as a pretext for toppling the government. Whether it is true, I don’t know. But either way, the country is drowning in persecutory theories.

Turkey’s strategic and economic significance to the West is massive—and American-Turkish relations took a turn for the worse earlier this month when a U.S. congressional committee recommended the full House of Representatives take up a vote on a resolution condemning the slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide.

Turkey is a rarity in the Middle East, a democracy with a secular constitution. It has the second-largest army in NATO; it provides a crucial energy route to Europe. The Incirlik air base is a crucial staging point for the US military. Turkey has made a sizable contribution to the coalition forces in Afghanistan. It has a seat on the U.N. Security Council, and could be a vital diplomatic partner—or a vexed antagonist—to America throughout the Middle East and Islamic world.

The West, understandably, is concerned about the trouble in Turkey. Particularly disturbing is the growing anti-Israel animus of Turkey’s foreign policy and its growing intimacy with the most extremist regimes and parties of the Islamic world. Turkey’s trade with Iran is galloping. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the first international figure to host Hamas. He has called for the expulsion of Israel from the U.N. while offering diplomatic support for the denial of genocide in Darfur.

Turkey has seen three military coups in the past half century—by definition, you can’t have a coup without a conspiracy. The military, which conceives itself as the guardian of Turkish democracy and secularism, has intervened, most recently in 1997, to unseat prime ministers who have veered too far off the secular rails.

The ruling Justice and Development Party, known as the AKP, came to power in 2002. Its senior figures rose from the ranks of virulent—and banned—Islamist parties, but the AKP claims to be moderate.

Almost everyone in Turkey subscribes to one of two conspiracy narratives about this party or its antagonists. In the first, the AKP is a party of religious deception that seeks to bring all elements of the government under its control. Its hidden goal is the eradication of the secular state, the wrenching of Turkey from the West, and, ultimately, the imposition of Islamic law. In this narrative, the specter of the sect leader Fethullah Gülen, who has undefined ties to the party and has taken exile in Utah, arouses particular dread. His critics fear he is the Turkish Ayatollah Khomenei; they say that his acolytes have seeped into the organs of the Turkish body politic, where they lie poised, like a zombie army, to be awakened by his signal.
The second version holds that the AKP is exactly what it purports to be: a modern and democratic party with which the West can and should do business. Mr. Gülen’s followers say the real conspirators are instead members of the so-called Deep State—what they call a demented, multitentacled secret alliance of high-level figures in the military, the intelligence services, the judiciary and organized crime.

Neither theory has irrefragable proof behind it. Both are worryingly plausible and supported by some evidence. But most significantly, one or the other story is believed by virtually everyone here. It is the paranoid style of Turkish politics itself that should alarm the West. Turkey’s underlying disease is not so much Islamism or a military gone rogue, but corruption and authoritarianism over which a veneer of voter participation has been painted.

The system does not look too undemocratic on paper. Turkish political parties are structured, in principle, around district and provincial organizations. There is universal suffrage, but a party must receive 10% of the vote to be represented in Parliament. Party members elect district delegates, district presidents and board members. Yet Turkish prime ministers have near-dictatorial powers over their political parties and are not embarrassed to use them.
It is theparty members, not voters, who pick the party leader. Members of Parliament enjoy unlimited political immunity, as do the bureaucrats they appoint. The resulting license to steal money and votes is accepted with alacrity and used with impunity. Corruption and influence peddling are the inevitable consequence. Business leaders are afraid to object for fear of being shut out.

Conspiracies flourish when citizens fear punishment for open political expression, when power is seen as illegitimate, and when people have no access to healthy channels of influence. They give rise inevitably to counterconspiracies that fuel the paranoia and enmity, a self-reinforcing cycle. Throughout Turkey is the pervasive feeling that no one beyond family can be trusted.
The common charge that the AKP is progressively weakening the judiciary and the military is objectively correct, as is the claim that this concentrates an unhealthy amount of power in the hands of the executive branch. Yet the prime minister and his intimates insist that their actions are defensive. “For 40 years, they have kept files on us. Now, it is our turn to keep files on them,” AKP deputy Avni Doğan has said.

Their enemies voice the same worldview. “When you look at Turkey today, it is as if the country has … fallen under foreign occupation,” the leader of the opposition CHP party Deniz Baykal has said.
Paranoia is inevitably also grandiose. When the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed up the recent resolution to describe the massacre of Armenians in the First World War era as a genocide, Suat Kiniklioglu, the spokesman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish Parliament, explained Turkey’s outrage thus: “I think the Americans would feel that same if we were to pass a resolution in our parliament talking about the treatment of [native] Indians in this country.”
Mr. Kiniklioglu speaks fluent English; he has spent years in the West. Yet he is blind to the most obvious of facts about American culture: No one in America would give a damn.
Meanwhile, discussion of Turkey’s most serious social and economic problems—corruption, poverty, unemployment, and a legal system held in contempt even by its attorneys—has been eclipsed. Reports of economic miracles under the AKP have, as everyone now understands, been exaggerated by statistical legerdemain. This is all too easy to do, because Turkey has one of the largest underground economies in the world, worth somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of the country’s GDP. Every major economic sector in Turkey is largely off-the-record. No one can say confidently whether these sectors are growing or shrinking, and even officially, Turkey now has the second-highest rate of unemployment in Europe. This is hardly the mark of an expanding middle class.
Among the most serious of Turkey’s problems, ignored in the constant din of mutual accusations, is the grave seismic risk to Istanbul. The city’s position on a highly active fault line and the prevalence of shoddy construction make it not only possible but probable that it will be the world’s next Port-au-Prince. The death and displacement of half a million Turks in an earthquake would clearly be the end of any hope of stability and peace in this region.
The failure to prepare for this predictable event is a betrayal of trust, like so many the Turkish people have suffered. Each deepens the paranoia. Each citizen believes that to survive, he must lie and conspire. Everyone assumes everyone else is lying and conspiring against him because he himself is lying and conspiring.
Turkish Ambassador Namik Tan recently said that the West “must understand that in this region, two plus two doesn’t always equal four. Sometimes it equals six, sometimes 10. You cannot hope to understand this region unless you grasp this.”
Psychiatrists are typically advised to attempt to form a “working alliance” with the paranoid patient, avoid becoming the object of projection, and provide a model of non-paranoid behavior. This is also sound advice in diplomacy.
But paranoia is known to be a particularly intractable disorder. Those who experience it do not trust those trying to help them. The West should keep this, too, in mind, for the paranoid spiral here could easily do what spirals are known to do: spin out of control.
March 14, 2010
GENOCIDE OVER AZERBAIJAN NATION IN MARCH OF 1918

Tamilla Musayeva,

Doctor of history, professor

Adil Mammadov, Doctor of history

It’s already ten years since our nation has commenced building its sovereign state being in utterly difficult situation and surpassing incredible obstacles. Looking back to the passed way we observe both errors, shortcomings and those great achievements which were possible exclusively in terms of the independence. Among such achievements there is opportunity to see our nation’s history in new light, form objective approach to historical course of its evolution, reveal obscure pages of history, give proper, unbiased appraisal to its individual periods and events having been distorted, forged or just hushed up for long decades. One of the pages is March events of 1918 that were presented in soviet historiography as “civil war”, “musavatists’ counter-revolutionary rebellion” being allegedly provoked by “Musavat” party’s members with aim of overthrowing soviet regime in Baku. In present-day times owing to efforts of azerbaijani social scientists who found and analysed most archive documents being earlier thoroughly concealed, and also owing to current democratic processes in Azerbaijan there was created condition for public declaring the whole truth about the March events, qualifying them as genocide over Azerbaijanis, list the main ringleaders of this bloody massacre. February revolution and following October events, publication of such documents as “Declaration of russian nations’ rights” and “Appeal to moslem working people of Russia and East” were taken by Azerbaijan nation, intellectuals, national parties for opportunity of realizing “national autonomy within Russian Federation” idea.

“Musavat” party that appeared at the respective period on political struggle’s proscenium advanced “Azerbaijan’s autonomy” idea as one of the paramount programme demands. But provisional extraordinary commissar on Caucasian affairs, S.Shaumyan was ardent antagonist of the idea. He considered azerbaijani nation’s legitimate and natural demand of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy as “dream of azerbaijani nationalists” to make Baku “capital of Azerbaijan khanate” (S.G.Shaumyan, Selected works. Moscow, 1978, II v., p.257). The paradox is that flatly refuting possibility of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy Shaumyan at the same time took for due plan of establishing Provisional armenian government at its territory occupied russian troops. Moreover realization of this plan in accordance with decree dated by December 29, 1917, signed by V.I.Lenin and I.V.Stalin was charged to Shaumyan. He was also commissioned with leading over determination of this “autonomy’s” bounds especially of adjoining moot areas (Decrees of Soviet government. Moscow, 1957, p. 289-299).

The bolshevist government was pretty aware of Shaumyan’s approaches to most clue points of bolshevist party’s national programme, his radically hostile attitude to such items as granting of autonomy, nations’ right to self-determination. As far back as 1914 Lenin expressed in his letter to Shaumyan critical attitude to these views. “It’s shame on russian marxist to hold standpoint of armenian hen-coop… Because of “armenian” blindness you become apprentice of Purishkevichs and their nationalism” (Lenin V.I. Complete Works, v.48, p.302).

It’s very interesting that on the eve of March developments “Bakinskiy rabochiy” newspaper published in March, 15 Lenin’s letter to Shaumyan written as early as December, 1913 where the latter has been sharply criticized for non-recognition of autonomy and self-determination right ideas (CW, v.48, p.233-236).

Maximalism of Shaumyan’s views, obstinacy and strict methods during activities conducted by him were known to Centre. Right therefore Lenin wrote in his telegram to Shaumyan dated February 14, 1918 that along with “firm and resolute” policy it’s necessary to conduct very cautious diplomacy. The former took into account utterly complicated situation in this region, he demanded to solve very delicately and carefully most important problems (V.I.Lenin about Azerbaijan. Baku, 1959, p.75).

It should be kept in mind that Shaumyan – “internationalist” regarded Azerbaijan nation highly malevolently attaching to it such labels as “Tatar (azerbaijani) mob”, “tatar ignorant masses”, “robber gangs”, “tatar ruffians” etc. It’s enough to read fluently his selected works for making sure of the above-mentioned. (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, I v., p.119, 129, 185; II v., p. 216). All of this accounts for Shaumyan’s behaviour in March days of 1918.

Considering March events in the light of contemporaneity we reveal the facts that used to escape our consciousness, weren’t paid due attention.

Among them – appointment of Kobozev P.A. as Extraordinary Commissar of government in Middle East and Baku province. The fact is mentioned in events chronicle from volume 36 of V.I.Lenin’s Complete Works (p. 684). In March 17, 1918 Lenin had conversation with Kobozev, signed and delivered him mandate for taking measures on securing local authorities, handed him letter addressed to Baku comrades. The letter mentioned in Complete Works is supposed to be written by Stalin on Central Committee and Lenin’s instructions. It was of great importance and provided guide to action, directed and anticipated prospects of the developments in the region. In view of the letter’s importance we’re citing it in more details: “To Stepan, Alyosha and other friends. We are sending comrade Kobozev to you as extraordinary commissar of Middle Asia and Baku. He’s resolute, has rich experience in struggle with counter-revolution in Middle Asia, knows the particulars of war art, he’s railway engineer and old party worker. Appointing him also as commissar of Baku we were guided by the fact that Stepan, Caucasian affairs commissar functions basically in Tiflis, while Baku, this central point of the entire south is already besieged from everywhere, therefore it’s impossible for Stepan to be both in Middle East and Baku at once. We are fully sure that Kobozev (he is warned by us) will act in concordance with Stepan. One thing is indubitable; in military and financial terms Baku should be fortified, if Moslems demand autonomy, we should grant it, ensure unconditional recognition of central and local soviet authorities, immediately establish within Baku Deputies Council Moslem department, highly develop Moslem literature… Kobozev will report you details. Faithfully yours, Stalin”. (Azerbaijan Republic Political Parties and Public Movements State Archives, copies fund № 453).

Thus all measures listed in the letter were aimed on fortifying soviet power in Baku and winning round large working strata of moslems. Confrontation with local inhabitants wasn’t necessary to Centre. Here in Baku, with its extremely motley population there was required delicate and cautious approach to many complicated problems and maximalism was absolutely irrelevant here. Appointment of Kobozev, experienced party member and military specialist was in our opinion careful attempt to restrict Shaumyan’s actions from making decisions on his own as Caucasian Extraordinary Commissar. Henceforth decisions were to be taken in concord. As further events showed Centre’s apprehensions were grounded.

If he knew about concrete resolution of Centre concerning autonomy for Moslems he would have come to an agreement with “Musavat” party’s leaders and solve the problem by peaceful means. Especially as before March events “Musavat” members publicly advanced idea of autonomy within Russian Federation. Unfortunately we don’t know exactly whether this letter reached Shaumyan before the March events (Kobozev was at this time in Baku), and how he took part in them.

Historians will have to study all of this thoroughly. One thing was undeniably obvious: Shaumyan went toward confrontation deliberately. It was necessary for realizing well-conceived plan. Frenzied atrocities over Azerbaijanis, cruelty and vandalism of dashnaks in March days in Baku give ground to suppose that it was Shaumyan’s “requital action” as stresses M.Rasul-zade in ‘Untorgettable tragedy’ article (“Azerbaijan” newspaper, March 31, 1919) on account of March developments’ first anniversary (quotation from “Historiography of March slaughter, 1918” book after A.Iskandarov, Baku, 1997, p. 103): action of cleaning Baku from Azerbaijanis because differently it’s impossible to account for mass slaughter of Azerbaijanis, absolutely innocent peaceful Azerbaijan population of Baku and other towns of the region in March days. The further course of developments confirms this.

At this period in Baku because of blocking Baku-Tiflis railroad there gathered several thousands of armed Armenians returning from battle-fronts. Besides here were thousands well-armed fighters who represented Dashnaksutun party. Shaumyan was perfectly aware of ardent nationalistic and counter-revolutionary orientation of dashnaks’ policy. Right therefore he had to hinder from their staying in the city. But this failed to take place.

By this time it was observed swift increase of “Musavat” party’s influence. Shaumyan admitted himself that “by the II year since revolution the party had become the most potent one in Transcaucasus” (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p.291). In these conditions he tried by any hooks to debar “Musavat” from political rival, discredit it.

Azerbaijanis in Baku and its vicinities were completely defenceless before armed to the teeth armenian military units. At that time “Musavat” failed to dispose of any units. Y.Ratgauzer writes in his “Revolution and civil war in Baku” book: “Musavat” party didn’t have available regular military units by the time of beginning events in the city. The Musavat forces located in provinces weren’t brought up to Baku in proper time. We suppose that “Musavat” party’s leaders didn’t expect commencement of battle in March 30” (Ratgauzer Y. Revolution and civil war in Baku. 1927, Baku, p.145). Presence of numerous armed dashnaks who inundated the city incandesced situation exceedingly. The fact attracts its attention that during recordings at different plants all except Azerbaijanis have been enrolled into Red Army. Most detachments raised in that way almost completely consisted of Armenians. In many respects it was favoured by Avakyan, military commandant of Baku city who raised the detachments.

Besides in March 29, 1918 due to Shaumyan’s order there began disarmament of “tatar regiment’s” (being part of “Wild division” raised during I World War) soldiers and officers who were on the board of Eveline ship that sailed toward Lankaran-its dislocation point.

A small-numbered detachment of the division’s officers and soldiers headed by general Talyshinski was in Baku in view of H.Z.Tagiyev, eminent Azerbaijan oil industrialist-magnate’s tragically perished son’s funeral. Why Baku council obstacled the sole armed groups of moslems from peaceable leaving the city and failed to disarm armenian military units located in great amount in Baku that days? Haven’t all national units been liable to abolition and withdrawal from Baku in accordance with Baku Soviet’s resolution dated from March 15, 1918 on the base of Shaumyan’s report? It applied to all armed forces dislocated in the city. However Shaumyan neglected the directions given by his participance (SPIHDA,[1] fund 276, errata 3, addendum 272, sheets 5-6). This action caused discontent and protests of Baku’s moslem population. In March 30 in mosques, different parts of the city there began spontaneous movements, meetings of Azerbaijanis who demanded return of armament and withdrawal of national armenian units. These days “Achyg soz” (“Speech freedom”) newspaper-publication of “Musavat” party-addressed to local inhabitants appeal of resisting emotions, remaining calm.

The provocative firing of a small-numbered Red Army detachment executors of which remained unknown was initial point of the terrible bloody action victims of which were peaceful azerbaijani inhabitants. Shaumyan wrote himself that they needed just a slightest cause for realizing their plan. “We took opportunity of the first attempt of armed attack to our cavalry and passed to offensive on a wide front. We already had 6000 amounted armed forces. “Dashnaksutun” also counted 3-4 thousands national units. The latter’s participance attached to the civil war national carnage feature but it was nevitasible. We did it consciously. If they (Musavatists) gained the upper hand in Baku the city would have been proclaimed as capital of Azerbaijan” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works, Moscow, 1978, v. II. p.246). Here as it’s said commentaries are needless.

Under pretext of struggle with musavatists bolshevist-dashnak detachments practically started single-minded slaughter of peaceful Azerbaijan population. Their dwellings were bombarded from sky and sea. It was armenian units that took especially active part in atrocities over Azerbaijanis. Not the least was the fact that this time chief of Red Army’s headqu arters in Baku was Tsarism Army’s former colonel, member of dashnaks party Z.Avetisyan. For several days the outrages have lasted in the city. Stubborn fighting had been taking place in its most central part, Ichari Shahar (Inner City) area. A.I.Mikoyan commanded personally by offensive to this historical place. In March 30 one of commissars Tatevos Amiryan entered building of moslem charity “Ismailiya” with gang of armed dashnaks and set fire on it. Theatre of G.Z.Tagiyev being first one in the East was also burnt, Taza-Pir mosque seriously damaged. “Struggle with counter-revolution” turned into unprecedented carnage. S.M.Afandiyev stressed that “dashnaks slaughtered not only musavatists but also generally moslems…” (Nationalities life, 1919, July 6).

Trying to involve into their sloven actions Caspian fleet dashnaks resorted to their pet method-provocations. Among sailors they began spreading rumours that Azerbaijanis allegedly kill Russians in the city. Therefore at the action’s beginning there thundered gun salvoes from Caspian fleet’s ship toward azerbaijani dwellings. But soon these rumours proved to be utter fiction and dashnaks’ provocation.

Not only national armenian units but also those of Red Army took active part in violences over peaceful Azerbaijanis. In these terms the fact should be stressed that the latters consisted of armenians at 70%. According to G.Avetiysn, corresponding member of Armenian Republic Academy of Sciences, “for Baku Army battled 4 brigades of Caucasian Red Army consisting of 25 battalions and 18000 soldiers. About 70% of the latters were Armenians” (“Communist”, Yerevan, August 26, 1989, №199).

Even after accepting Baku Council ultimatum by Azerbaijanis murders and robberies by Armenian units continued. Only after interfering of Japaridze who noted events march to go extremely far, and also order of 36^-th Turkestan regiment about stopping moslems’ carnage and threat of gun firing at armenian dwellings the massacre was ceased.

Much more atrocities inflicted during punitive raid to Shamakhi and Guba where over 50 villages had been set on fire and sacked.

The great-numbered detachment expedited to Guba commanded by Dashnaksutun Amazasp consisted solely of Armenians being members of Dashnaksutun party. The detachment was raised under the personal control of G.Korganov, chairman of war-revolutionary committee of Caucasian army, Armenian by nationality.

Beside of murders Amazasp’s punitive detachment marauded and robbed Azerbaijanis’ property.

In result of the punitive action about 2000 peaceful azerbaijanis were killed in Guba. Speaking before local inhabitants Amazasp declared: “I’m hero of armenian nation and protector of his interests… I’m sent here not for establishing order and Soviet power but for taking vengeance for murdered Armenians, I had commandment of killing all moslems from Caspian coasts to Shahdag and razing your dwellings to the ground. History of Azerbaijan in documents and publications, Baku, 1990, p. 185;

Before events in Guba armed forces of Baku council commanded by Amazasp Avetisov commited io the flames and completely burnt Shamakhy town (A.Balayev. Azerbaijan national movement in 1917-1918, Baku, “Elm” p.h., 1998, p. 175).

Punitive operations were conducted in Lankaran, Khachmaz, Hajigabul, Salyan provinces. Direct participation of S.Shaumyan in bloody March events of 1918 and dashnaks’ atrocities in Baku and province were reported in “Azerbaijan” newspaper dated October 8, 1918. There was founded special provinces commission on investigating these crimes. Shaumyan cynically confessed that “in result of civil war suffered mass of poor and homeless moslems”. He stressed they “had to make use of armenian regiment. We even couldn’t permit ourselves luxury of neglecting its services. It was necessary to use the regiment’s services, and the victory is so much great that it slightly clouds reality” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p. 249, 250). Even “Nash golos” (“Our voice”) menshevist newspaper characterized the events as national massacre. The eyewitness of March events People’s Enlightenment Commissar of Baku People’s Commissars Council N.Kolesnikova wrote in her memoirs that “dashnak groups commenced in the town massacres, arsons of houses, robberies, murders of innocent peaceful citizens, mainly Azerbaijanis” (Kolesnikova N.N. About history of struggle for Soviet power in Baku, Moscow, 1960, p. 71). In letter addressed to Council of People’s Commissars, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic dated from April 13, 1918 Shaumyan trying to justify heinous crimes of Armenian units in Baku in March days and conceal from bolshevist authorities the real scales of Azerbaijanis slaughter made under his leadership falsified death roll, facts of threatenings by the side of moslems. Realizing that it’s impossible to conceal everything and aspiring to calm down Centre he wrote: “Moslem mass heavily suffered but now it’s consolidating around bolshevists and council”, that “oil is already at our disposal”. Here was also especially stressed role of armenian national units in defence of Soviet power (“Historical archives”, №2, 1957, p. 55-57).

In Shaumyan and Japaridze addressed letter published in “Gummat” newspaper in April 3, 1918, Narimanov mentioning March events wrote: “This smirches Soviet power, casts slurs upon it. If the next few days you don’t tear the black veil and don’t remove the stain bolshevist idea and Soviet power will fail to consolidate here…”

You know that power won by means of arms failing to be supported by people can’t stay long (N.Narimanov. Selected works in 3 vol., II v., Baku, “Azernashr” p.h., 1989, p. 122-123). These words turned out to be prophetic. After March events despite of Shaumyan’s allegations broad masses of azerbaijani people turned away from Soviet power. In “Baku organization of bolshevists in 1917-18” article published in 1923 A.J.Mikoyan had to admit: “March events also resulted in much more estrangement of moslem working” masses from Soviet power (“Bakinski rabochiy” (Baku worker), March 14, 1923, №57). March events had serious public repurcussions. S. Ter-Gabrielyan, notable bolshevist wrote in letter addressed to S. Shaumyan sent by him from Astrakhan in April 28, 1918 that the local community and newly arrived Russians who left on a mass scale Baku for Astrakhan regarded developments in “Baku not as struggle “ for Soviet power, but national carnage, and that “this carnage was organized by Armenians” (Sur. Shaumyan. The Baku Commune. Baku, 1927, p.94).

Armenians’ outrages in Baku since March 30 till April 2, then continued in provinces were none other than massacre on national basis or more exactly – genocide over azerbaijani nation. Right therefore Soviet power in Baku held out not long and ignominiously quitted the stage in 1918.

Today we can definitely say it was well-conceived and well-planned action prepared by Shaumyan and victims of which were Azerbaijan moslems. With armenian troops and Dashnaksutun party’s cut-throats Shaumyan vented his hatred toward musavatists by massacres in azerbaijani dwellings of Baku, Azerbaijan provinces. Just in Baku that days were murdered over 10000 peaceful inhabitants, in Shamakhy-7000, Guba-2000, Lankaran and Astara – more than 1000, Salyan and Hajigabul – almost 1000. In March – April, 1918 armenian – bolshevist detachments killed in Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Mugan, Lankaran districts more than 50000 Azerbaijanis (“Statement of Azerbaijan Republic National Council” article in “Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 2001).

Using bolshevist power and slogans as a cover Shaumyan betrayed Soviet power discrediting it by his actions. But this wasn’t principal for him. His purpose was another-extermination of Azerbaijanis. All his efforts were aimed that March days on deporting Azerbaijanis from the lands for their further joining to “armenian autonomy” establishment of which was charged to Shaumyan due to decree of People’s Commissars Council dated December 29, 1917.

The prominent german researcher Erikh Figle in his “Truth terror. Armenian terrorism – roots and reasons” (Baku, “Azernashr”, 2000) speaking of Shaumyan’s activity in 1918 stresses that Stepan Shaumyan was leader of armenian communists in Baku where he formed bolshevist government tyranny of which intended to expatriate or exterminate Azerbaijanis. His aim was “Baku’s armenianizing by any hooks or crooks” (p. 101, ibid).

Unfortunately these heinous crimes commited in Baku and provinces in March, 1918 received in due course proper and objective appraisal neither by world society nor republic’s authorities. For sake of internationalism and consolidation of nations friendship these facts were painstakingly kept silent, concealed. Right this gave full scope to nationalist – separatistic forces. In 1988 as a result of the so-called Highland Garabagh problem a great number of Azerbaijanis were killed and expatriated from their primordial lands of Armenia because of their national belonging, in January of 1990 savage crimes were committed over people who expressed protest against the actions, in 1992 bloody Khojaly genocide took place. Adventurous actions of armenian aggressors and “Great Armenia” ideologists on ethnical mopping – up resulted in expatriating more than millions of our countrymen from their motherland and their superhuman sufferings. Just in XX c. as it’s stressed in “Appeal to Azerbaijan nation in view of March 31, day of Azerbaijanis Genocide” over 2 millions of Azerbaijanis became victims of loathsome genocide policy pursued by our enemies in one or another form” (“Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 1999).

Current advancing of Armenia’s claims to Nakhchivan being primordial azerbaijani land, calls to abolishing Gars treaty concluded in October of 1921 between Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Turkey, claims to Georgian, Turkish landsall of this are after-effect of impunity reigning in world society respect to aggressive Armenian Republic.

Today our major task is forming in present and future generations eternal memory of genocide committed over Azerbaijan nation in the last century, attain political and legal appraisal of these events from international community, avert its grave consequences and do the all best for this never recur.

Our long silence and tolerance costed us dear. Right therefore republic government adopted resolution of declaring March 31 as day of Azerbaijanis Genocide.

In these terms important are monumental works and documentary archives revealing dashnak terrorists, their heinous crimes on azerbaijani land during the last century. Committing genocide over Azerbaijanis they represent themselves as innocent victims having been subject to genocide. As early as July 15, 1918 due to decree of Azerbaijan Republic under the leadership of Foreign Affairs Ministry there was established extraordinary “Inquiry Committee” on investigating violences made by Armenians over moslems within the entire Transcaucasus since I World War. In the committee’s materials there was stressed that in March days basically suffered Azerbaijanis, their properties were plundered and dwellings burnt out. In State Archives of Republic there are kept materials of the committee which are impossible to be read without shudder, scales of vandalism displayed by Armenians that bloody days are incommensurate. The documents were drawn up on hot trails, March events described by eye-witnesses. Today when our state is member of many in ternational organizations, the committee’s materials must be published and become possessions of the world society. Let it know the real executors of genocide on our land, those who through XX c. claimed to our areas, who hold the region’s inhabitants in permanent tension can’t go on any longer. The Armenians’ claims must be repulsed finally and decisively.

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

History Institute named after Bakikhanov A.A.

Historical Facts of Armenia’s Actions in Azerbaijan Land

Baku – Елм – 2003

[1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

[1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

March 11, 2010