Category: Authors

This is the surprising story of Azerbaijan, a country that buys weapons from others for its own needs, selling tens of millions of dollars of weapons to a Central African country.

The article, titled “Congo-Brazzaville Strongman Buys Secret Weapons Haul from Azerbaijan,” was published by OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project) on February 22, 2021. It was written by Khadija Sharife and Mark Anderson. Congo-Brazzaville is another name for the Republic of Congo.

Here is the OCCRP’s summary of the key findings of the article:

“Since 2015, Congo-Brazzaville has bought a huge weapons stockpile from Azerbaijan, with over 500 tons of weapons delivered to the country in multiple shipments.

In January 2020, more than 100 tons of weaponry was sent from Azerbaijan to Congo-Brazzaville’s Republican Guard, including 775 mortar shells and over 400 cases of rockets designed to be launched out of trucks.

Opposition figures claim that previous shipments of weapons from Azerbaijan were used to fuel a brutal post-election offensive in 2016 that led to a humanitarian crisis.

Saudi Arabia was listed as a ‘sponsoring party’ in at least two arms consignments sent in 2016 and 2017, around the same time Congo-Brazzaville’s admittance to OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] was being negotiated.”

According to OCCRP, “in January 2020, at the Turkish port of Derince on the eastern shores of the Sea of Marmara, a huge cache of weapons was loaded onto the MV Storm. Registered in the tax haven of Vanuatu, the ship set sail with an arsenal of mortar shells, multiple launch rockets, and explosives, en route from Azerbaijan to the Republic of the Congo, better known as Congo-Brazzaville.”

The above summary raises several serious questions: Why was Azerbaijan shipping weapons to the Republic of Congo, when Baku itself needed weapons? Is it Azerbaijan or Turkey the real source of the weapons shipped to Congo? Why did Saudi Arabia sponsor two of the weapon shipments in 2016 and 2017, meaning that the Saudi government paid for the weapons? Why were the dictators of Azerbaijan and Turkey trying to support President Denis Sassou-Nguesso, the dictator of the Republic of Congo, who has been in power ever since 1997? What did Azerbaijan or Turkey get in return for the arms shipments?

In January 2020, over 100 tons of weapons worth tens of millions of dollars were shipped by Azerbaijan to the headquarters of Congo’s elite Republican Guard. This was the latest of at least 17 such shipments since 2015. In total, over 500 tons of weapons, including hand grenades, mortar systems, and millions of bullets were sent by Azerbaijan to Congo, according to OCCRP.

Opposition forces have claimed that these weapons are to be used by the President of Congo to maintain his rule by force in the March 21 presidential election. He recently had the constitution changed so he could be president for life!

How can a financially bankrupt country like Congo afford to buy such a large quantity of weapons? By funding two of the weapons shipments, Saudi Arabia wanted to extend its political influence over Congo.

The most recent shipment of weapons from Azerbaijan to Congo on January 2020 included 775 mortar shells and over 400 cases of rockets. They were transported from Baku to Turkey by a Bulgarian company and then loaded onto the ship MV Storm at Derince, a port managed by the Turkish government. An inside source confirmed that Congo bought the weapons at discount prices.

The Congolese government used the weapons from Azerbaijan against the opposition in a scorched earth strategy, according to the leader of a political party in Congo. Given the regime’s brutal human rights record, no European country would sell weapons to Congo. In the 2016 presidential election, the United States criticized the government of Congo for “widespread irregularities and the arrests of opposition supporters.” The presidential election this month is expected to be just as corrupt as the previous ones. “The government is carrying out a pre-election campaign of intimidation, harassment and arbitrary detention against its political opponents,” said a representative of Amnesty International.

The OCCRP reported that “the first shipments of arms arrived in Brazzaville on Azerbaijani Air Force planes, but starting in 2017 a private [Azeri] carrier, Silk Way Airlines, began flying the weapons instead. …Silk Way is registered in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven, and was previously linked to the Aliyev family. As well as previously winning lucrative contracts with the U.S. government to move ammunition and other non-lethal materials, Silk Way was found, in leaked correspondence reported by Bulgarian newspaper Trud, to have used flights with diplomatic clearance to secretly move hundreds of tons of weapons around the world, including to global conflict zones, between 2014 and 2017.”

The opposition in Congo is concerned that the weapons from Azerbaijan will increase the prospect of violence around the elections. “We are worried that the weapons that Sassou-Nguesso’s regime bought from Azerbaijan could be used to crack down on the opposition during the upcoming election,” said an opposition leader.

The United Nations should launch an investigation into these secret weapons sales from Azerbaijan to the dictator of Congo to oppress the human rights of the local population and rig the presidential election once again!

As the situation in Armenia is getting more chaotic on a daily basis, baseless accusations are becoming a common practice. It is no longer possible to distinguish fact from fiction.

Sadly, words like ‘traitor’ and ‘bought by Turks or Azeris’ are being used by Armenians to accuse fellow Armenians without a shred of evidence. We have all heard multiple times that the territories around Artsakh were given up by the former presidents long before the war and that Armenian traitors helped the enemy by disclosing our military secrets or urged soldiers to stop fighting during the war. These accusations have been repeated so often that a lot of Armenians believe them to be true. Never mind that no evidence has been presented, tarnishing the reputations of those they disagree with. If there were so many traitors during the war, how come not one such traitor has been arrested and convicted for treason?  Normally, traitors during a war are immediately arrested, convicted and shot by a firing squad.

I do not believe that there are any traitors among us nor are there Armenians who sold their soul to the enemy for a handful of dollars. These are made up stories just because we disagree with each other. Regrettably, most Armenians do not know how to carry out a civilized conversation without insulting those they disagree with.

In this analysis, I will avoid using such terms as traitor and sold out, and stick as much as possible to the facts, no matter how difficult they are to discern.

One issue that keeps coming up is the fact that the presidents of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia seem to prefer Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan over the opposition. This does not mean that Pashinyan is a traitor or is working for the interests of Armenia’s enemies. I believe that Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia are siding with Pashinyan for two main reasons:

1)  All three realize that Pashinyan, defeated in the Artsakh war and having signed a capitulation document, is in no position to go against the wishes of Azerbaijan and Turkey, and especially Russia. Whereas, as a former member of the opposition, Pashinyan was totally anti-Russian, he changed his tune and supported all Russian initiatives even before the war. After the war, he is completely beholden to Putin and does not dare to deviate one bit from the Russian President’s directives. This became even more so after Pres. Putin repeatedly praised Pashinyan for signing the Nov. 10, 2020 trilateral agreement and abiding by its terms. Azerbaijan and Turkey are also satisfied that, after their defeat of Armenia, there is a leader like Pashinyan who is fully going along with the terms of the agreement.

2)  Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia also realize that should Pashinyan’s rule topple, his successor may not be as amenable to comply with the terms of the trilateral agreement. While a defeated country is in no position to contest these imposed terms, the fact that Pashinyan’s opponents are expressing their opposition to that agreement means that Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia may have to deal with a new Armenian leader who will question the terms of the agreement that the three countries consider a fait accompli. So, Aliyev, Erdogan and Putin naturally prefer to deal with Pashinyan based on their own interests rather than because Pashinyan is their ‘agent.’ At best, we can say that Pashinyan is reluctantly going along with these three leaders. At worst, he truly believes that the ceasefire agreement is in the best interest of Armenia, paving the way to the lifting of blockaded transportation routes, thus potentially boosting Armenia’s economy.

We can be on different sides of the above analysis, but one thing is very clear. Pashinyan should not cross any red lines which are totally contrary to Armenia’s national interests. It is one thing to be obligated to go along with your enemies after your defeat, but it is a whole different thing to enthusiastically comply with their wishes, mistakenly believing that the enemy’s imposed actions are in Armenia’s own interest. Aliyev and Erdogan have repeatedly stated that they are willing to allow Armenia to use their transportation routes under certain conditions which were: 1) Return Artsakh territories to Azerbaijan (which has been mostly accomplished through the use of force), 2) Recognize the existing borders of the Republic of Turkey (no more territorial demands from Turkey), and 3) Discontinue the international pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. More recently, Aliyev added a new demand: signing a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan which means that Armenia will give up claiming Artsakh as an Armenian territory.

In my view, these Azeri and Turkish demands should be rejected by Armenia’s current leaders. These are red lines that no Armenian government should cross, depriving future Armenian generations of their right to pursue the nation’s just demands.

It remains to be seen if Armenia’s next leaders will be able to find a way to minimize the losses from the war. But one thing is certain: Pashinyan must resign immediately allowing a new and more competent leadership trying to manage the catastrophic situation Armenia finds itself in.

Words have meanings and consequences as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan found out when he told a journalist last week that the powerful Russian Iskander missiles, supposedly fired by Armenia during the Artsakh War last November, “did not explode or exploded 10%.” This surprising statement was in response to an interview by previous President Serzh Sargsyan in which he asked why Pashinyan had not ordered the use of the Iskander missiles during the early part of the Artsakh War.

Several days after the Prime Minister’s highly controversial statement, his spokeswoman announced that Pashinyan “was not briefed correctly regarding the Russian missiles.” But it was too late. The damage was done.

No one could have predicted the chain of unexpected events that followed Pashinyan’s words questioning the merits of the Iskander missiles that Russia had exported exclusively to Armenia. A large number of Russian military experts and political leaders reacted very harshly to Pashinyan’s statement viewing it as disparaging of the prized missiles of Russia and the prestige of its defense industry.

However, the reaction within Armenia was no less devastating. When First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Tiran Khachatryan, a Lieutenant General, was asked to comment on Pashinyan’s statement about the Iskander missiles not exploding, he responded with a chuckle that it was not possible and not serious.

Upon hearing of this slight, Prime Minister Pashinyan immediately ordered the firing of the Deputy General Staff. His dismissal was endorsed by Pres. Armen Sarkissian, according to the process outlined in the constitution. The Prime Minister had surely overreacted to Khachatryan’s snub, particularly since Pashinyan himself had appointed him in June 2020 and awarded him the prestigious “National Hero” medal for his outstanding role during the Artsakh War.

In retaliation, dozens of top Armenian military leaders released a joint statement on Feb. 25, 2021, demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and his government. The statement was signed by Onik Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff and 40 other high-ranking military Officers, including 17 generals and Commanders of all five Army Corps. Later, several other military and police officials added their signatures.

The military’s statement expressed its “resolute protest” against the “short-sighted and baseless” dismissal of the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff “without taking into account the national and state interests of the Republic of Armenia, solely based on personal and pretentious sentiments.” The statement added that “in such difficult conditions for the country, such a decision is an anti-state and irresponsible step. The Prime Minister and his government are no longer able to make adequate decisions in this critical and fateful situation for the Armenian people. The Armed Forces, for a long time, patiently tolerated the ‘attacks’ by the incumbent authorities to discredit the Armed Forces, but everything has its limits…. The current authorities’ unproductive governing and the most serious errors exhibited in foreign policy have brought the country to the brink of collapse. Based on the created situation, the Armed Forces demand the resignation of the Prime Minister and the government….”

Pashinyan immediately announced on his Facebook page the firing of the Chief of the General Staff. The Prime Minister called the military’s statement “an attempted military coup,” urging his supporters to gather at the Republic Square where he joined them and marched in Yerevan streets holding a megaphone. This was a highly irresponsible act on the part of Pashinyan, venturing to the streets during what he described as an attempted military coup, which could have led to tragic consequences for the country had anyone harmed him.

After Pashinyan ordered the firing of Onig Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Pres. Sarkissian, having consulting all sides of the political spectrum, refused to sign the Prime Minister’s order, calling it unconstitutional. The Prime Minister then submitted a second dismissal request to the President. Should the President refuse to sign the order for a second time, then the issue will be submitted to the constitutional court for its final decision. It is curious as to why the President endorsed the Prime Minister’s earlier order to sack the First Deputy of the General Staff but refused to sign the order to dismiss the Chief of the General Staff. After all, the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff’s wrongdoing was simply chuckling at the Prime Minister’s statement about the Russian missiles, whereas his boss, the Chief of the General Staff, demanded the Prime Minister’s resignation.

In the meantime, the Armenian military took no further steps beyond its call for the resignation of the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister wrongly described as an attempted coup. However, the statement could be viewed as interference in political affairs which violates the constitution. It is clear that the military’s intent is having the Prime Minister resign without taking any military actions.

Turning to the unconstitutionality of the military’s statement, there are counter points to this argument. The military stated that they could no longer remain quiet while the country is on the brink of collapse. The national interest of Armenia has to be of paramount importance. After all, the military is the guardian of the nation’s security. Furthermore, Pashinyan and his supporters cannot all of a sudden claim to be defenders of the constitution, when they have been violating many of its provisions in the past three years. The Prime Minister has repeatedly pressured the courts and has stacked the Constitutional Court with his allies to get verdicts desired by the government. Pashinyan and his supporters similarly pressured Pres. Sarkissian to force him to sign the Prime Minister’s order. Ironically, the democratic principles endorsed by Pashinyan when coming to power have dissipated turning the country into a one-man rule, a dictatorship. Given the Prime Minister’s partisans’ overwhelming majority in Parliament, other voices have been mostly muzzled. All suggestions to form a government of competent experts have been ignored, leaving Pashinyan with a mediocre and incompetent cadre of officials and advisors.

Pashinyan’s only important attribute is that he is not corrupt — which is very positive, but that alone is not enough to lead the state through such turbulent waters. After all, Armenians are not looking for a saint, but a competent leader who can solve the country’s complex problems.

Furthermore, Pashinyan and his followers did not always practice what they are preaching now. Back in 2018, when there were widespread street protests by Pashinyan and his supporters, a large number of Armenian soldiers illegally left their barracks and marched with the demonstrators. Even though this was a violation of military rules and interference in politics, Pashinyan did not take any action against these soldiers. In a similar situation occurred in 1998, when Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan forced then President Levon Ter-Petrosyan to resign. No one complained that it was unconstitutional.

Shortly after this new crisis in Armenia, leaders in Azerbaijan and Turkey issued self-serving statements on the situation in Armenia. In my opinion, both of these countries, led by dictators, are in no position to comment on developments in Armenia, let alone give Armenians lectures about democracy. They should look at themselves in the mirror and keep their mouths shut.

Having suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of our enemies in the Artsakh War, Armenians cannot afford now to attack each other. We need to place the national interest above all else. Having lost most of Artsakh and thousands of soldiers, let’s not risk losing Armenia itself.

Pashinyan, the leader of the ‘Velvet Revolution,’ should not have told his followers last week that there will be no more ‘velvet’ which could be interpreted as a threat to anyone who disagrees with him. Should the military also adopt a no velvet approach, the outcome would be tragic for the entire Armenian nation. The best solution would be for the Prime Minister, having lost territories and thousands of soldiers, to resign by his own volition without facing any threats or protests. Otherwise, having demanded Pashinyan’s resignation, the military leaders may carry out their demand by force, to ensure that they themselves are not arrested. Such a group arrest would deprive Armenia of its entire military leadership. Months from now, under calmer conditions, new parliamentary elections should take place with a clean slate, hopefully excluding Pashinyan and the other former leaders. The people have the right to decide by a majority vote who their new leader should be.