Category: Asia and Pacific

  • Nagorno-Karabakh Before the War

    Nagorno-Karabakh Before the War

     Paul Goble 2

     

     

     

     

    Paul Goble
    Publications Advisor
    Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy  
    Because the international community has rejected the argument that the right of national self-determination includes the right to declare independence from an existing state if that state does not agree, Armenian activists seeking independence for Nagorno-Karabakh or alternatively its transfer from Azerbaijani sovereignty to Armenian increasingly stress that ethnic Armenians there were subject to intense economic, cultural and ethnic discrimination prior to 1988 when the war between Armenian and Azerbaijan entered its active phase.

    However, as Azerbaijani analysts point out, the record shows that such claims lack any foundation and that in fact ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh were on all objective measures economically, socially and politically better off than almost all ethnic Azerbaijanis there and in other Azerbaijani regions except for the republic capital of Baku.  Those findings have now been summarized in the latest article in the “Historical Prism” series of the Azerbaijani Day.az news agency. [1] 

    As the article notes, “beginning with the second half of the 1960s and up to the beginning of the last phase of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988, the Armenian side in numerous letters and appeals to Moscow pointed to the impossibility of guaranteeing its social-economic, cultural and national development within Azerbaijan as one of the main reasons for uniting the oblast to Armenia.”

    Unfortunately for their case, the article continues, the available evidence shows that Armenian claims in this regard lack any real foundation.  Because the last census was carried out in Nagorno-Karabakh only in 1979—the military conflict precluded the enumeration of that region in 1989 and later—ethnic Armenians formed roughly three-quarters of the total population there at the end of Soviet times.  Although industry accounted for 60 percent of the region’s GDP in 1986, only about 11 percent of working age adults were industrial workers.  Most were in agriculture and especially various aspects of grape and wine production.  Nonetheless, the article notes, only Baku and Sumgayit in Azerbaijan had a higher percentage of working-age adults in industrial pursuits.

    In the mid-1980s, Nagorno-Karabakh annually exported 150 million rubles of industrial and agricultural produce, but only three-tenths of one percent of that production went to Armenia—and only 1.4 percent of the region’s “imports” came from that Soviet republic.  These two figures underscore, the article continues, how little integrated Nagorno-Karabakh was with Armenia and how much with the rest of Azerbaijan, again contrary to Armenian nationalist claims.

    Both industrial and agricultural production in Nagorno-Karabakh was rising rapidly at that time, again contrary to Armenian claims.  Although the region constituted only two percent of the total Azerbaijani output, its share of republic GDP was five percent, a figure that reflected the fact that between 1973 and 1978, industrial production in Karabakh rose by 300 percent and agricultural by 150.

    Because of this growth and because of the capital investments in Karabakh by Baku, the article says, “the level of life of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh was the highest among other regions of the republic and could be compared with the level of life in Baku.”  In 1986, annual per capita income in Karabakh was 1113.5 rubles, 97.8 rubles above the all-republic average and 170.4 rubles above the per capita figure in Nakhchivan.

    Residents of Karabakh—including the ethnic Armenians—also had more housing stock.  In 1987, for example, each resident there had on average 14.6 square meters, compared to an all-Azerbaijani average of 10.9 square meters.  And similarly high levels existed in terms of the medical service Karabakh residents had as well, the Day.az article continues.

    Despite Armenian nationalist claims, the article says, “the Armenian language [at the end of the 1980s] occupied a dominant position in the oblast.”  At that time, there were 205 primary schools and six specialized secondary schools, almost all of which had Armenian as the language of instruction.  Moreover, and again contrary to Armenian nationalist claims, the Azerbaijani authorities encouraged visits by Armenian SSR cultural figures to Karabakh and did not prevent ethnic Armenians in that oblast from travelling to Yerevan.

    The educational system was not the only place where the ethnic Armenian majority in Karabakh enjoyed advantages.  The government soviets in that oblast, with the exception of Shusha, were overwhelmingly made up of ethnic Armenians, in most cases 90 to 98 percent.  In the oblast committee of the Communist Party, the majority of the 165 members consisted of ethnic Armenians, with only 24 of them—13 percent—being ethnic Azerbaijanis.  The same situation obtained among the secretaries of primary party organizations; in some cases, as in Khankendi, the Day.az article points out, “practically 100 percent were reserved for the Armenians.”  And Armenian predominance was observed in trade unions, the Komsomol, and also in the militia.  Indeed, in many of these institutions, ethnic Azerbaijanis were underrepresented relative to their share in the population.

    The underlying demography in Karabakh was changing, both as a result of higher fertility rates among the ethnic Azerbaijanis and outmigration of ethnic Armenians to Armenia if they spoke Armenian or to the RSFSR if they spoke Russian and of ethnic Azerbaijanis from Karabakh to major Azerbaijani cities such as Baku.  Prior to the 1960s, most ethnic Armenians who left Karabakh went to Baku or other industrial centers, the article continues, but after that time, most of them went beyond the borders of Azerbaijan and in large measure to neighboring Armenia.

    While some of this may have reflected underlying tensions between the two basic communities of the region, much of it reflects the fact that in 1959 the Soviet authorities gave collective farmers their passports thus allowing rural people to move more easily to the cities.  In the case of Azerbaijan, this led to an expansion in the use of Azerbaijani in Baku and other cities at the expense of Russian and undoubtedly to greater ethnic self-consciousness among the republic’s titular nationality as well, something that may have had an impact on ethnic Armenians in Karabakh and elsewhere.

    Between 1970 and 1979, the number of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan as a whole increased by 25 percent and in Karabakh by 37 percent.  And in the latter, Azerbaijanis “took the jobs freed up by the migration of ethnic Armenians out of Karabakh,” a situation that undoubtedly had an impact on how both groups viewed the future.  That, rather than any discrimination by Baku against ethnic Armenians, explains the basic trends, and as the international community seeks a resolution of the Karabakh conflict, it is worth remembering that before the war, the ethnic Armenians in Karabakh were doing better than many of their neighbors, something that would not have been the case had the current claims of Armenian nationalists were true.


    Notes

    [1] See https://news.day.az/politics/338784.html (accessed 20 June 2012).

     

    source – 

  • What Goes Around Must Come Around Chapter16

    What Goes Around Must Come Around Chapter16

    WHAT GOES AROUND MUST COME AROUND

    IT CAN NOT HAPPEN TO ME. GUESS WHAT? It will !!!

    Chapter 16

    On February 10, 1941 then Senator Harry S Truman made a speech telling the [1]Senate what he had found on his investigations of government waste in the war effort.  The Senate passed his resolution and authorized $15,000 and made him Chairman.

    That was the beginning of the “Truman Commission.” It saved the taxpayers over $15 BILLION dollars and saved thousands of soldiers lives. FDR even encouraged Truman to look into certain areas. Every report made by the committee was unanimous. During the course of the war the committee’s budget was increased from the initial $15,000 to $300,000. That is amazing considering how today this congress is so divided.

    Because of his positive efforts as a fine senator FDR chose him to become his vice President when he ran for a fourth term.

    Truman felt that people dealing with government funds , whether they are local, state or national have very little respect for those funds.

    It is my belief that when you have a boom period, people become very sloppy because IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY.   Then when times are tough which is usually the case after a boom period- good times can not last forever-they get too dependant upon those loose funds and create clever schemes to cover up their begotten gains.

    A perfect example of this is what went on with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the two giant government mortgage agencies that are now controlled by the Federal Housing Finance Agency at the cost of over $150billion. They (bureaucrats) are trying to figure out what to do with them.  These entities should be closed down immediately. The mortgages, if found, should be returned to the originating bank and serviced there interest free. I believe this is one of the reasons Collateralized mortgages (CMO”s) and derivatives were created as another way to fleece the public. The firms that created these monster fraud vehicles should be the ones to pay and forced to leave the business. This is a process of power and corruption. What goes around comes around. Too big to Fail should mean too big to save. The public worked hard to save and invest for a home, it is the politicians and the bureaucrats that squandered their savings and ruined their dreams. They are trying to muddy the thought process by bringing up the fact that there are some folks who have been paying. If they can pay the principal then forgive the interest payments. Give them a second chance – not the politicians.

    Some of these instruments have been traded into oblivion and should be trashed with the creator of these funny money obligations taking the loss. That is if they can be found. This will ultimately be a good savory bone for the beleaguered savings industry.

    When a mortgage was submitted to the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac those funds left the local community and fleeced the pockets of bureaucrats inWashingtonD.C…Simply put – more fingers tasting the pie.

    IT BEHOOVES EVERY NEWLY ELECTED POLITICIAN IN EVERY DECOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORLDWIDE TO INVESTIGATE FOR WASTE AND CORRUPTION IN THEIR COUNTIRES.  Some agencies should be dropped and other downsized and maybe some increased. The main purpose is to recover ill-gotten gains even if they were transferred to other entities. This will help bring down government deficits and reduce government debt. If Harry Truman’s committee saved billions of dollars in the early 1940’s; think of all the moneys that can be saved today. One of the wealthiest cities in the world today is WASHINGTON.DC.

    Governments should not get into the people’s business, but they must set fair and honest rules so the participants are guaranteed an equal chance. Participants that break the rules should be severely punished.

     


    [1] Plain Speaking An Oral biography of Harry S Truman, Chapter 13

    Merle Miller

  • “PKK Failed in Armenia”

    “PKK Failed in Armenia”

    murinsonWe evaluated extremely important subjects and events in South Caucasus with Dr. Alexander MURINSON for Strategic Outlook readers. (more…)

  • Where will People’s Mujahedin of Iran (or Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) enter Iran from?

    Where will People’s Mujahedin of Iran (or Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) enter Iran from?

    Iran Azerbaijan

     

     

     

     

    Gulnara Inanch, mete62@inbox.ru

    Director of Information and Analytical Center Etnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az), editor of Russian section of American-Turkish Resource website www.turkishnews.com  

     

     

    Foreign Ministry spokesman of Iran Ramin Mehmanparast has recently expressed his concern over the possibilities of provision a shelter in Azerbaijan to anti-Islamic regime People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) by the US and Israel.

     

    Mehmanparast, at the same time, has warned that neighbors should take into account sensitiveness of this issue toIran; otherwise Tehran’s response will be severe. Statement is not by chance.

     

    It is another proof thatTehrantries to take preventive measures asIran’s statement is based on possibilities rather than true facts since West andIsraeluse Southern Azerbaijan national issue and internal and external anti-Iran regime in order to cause disorder inIran.

     

     

    MEK’s survival began from 2009 when MEK was removed from the EU list of terrorist group.  Besides between 2005-2009 MEK trained in the US military bases.

     

    In April a group of American politicians asked for removal of MEK from the list of terrorist group. Such progress of the events enables us to believe that the offer will be accepted by the White House:

     

    «OfficialTehranis concerned about MEK. This organization was established by Shah Pehlevi as a close power to him. As the organization was established on basis of interests, instead of ideas, it changed its position. MEK has strong support and reputation both in and outside ofIran. This is well-organized organization. Being not a nationalist group, it meets the demands of the west with regard to overthrow of political power ofIran».

     

    MEK also has media organizations broadcasting in theUS. Although its TV broadcasting has been stopped for a while, it is expected to restore its broadcast for political pressure over Iranian government.

     

     

    In April of this year US New Yorker magazine reported that MEK had received standard training that included communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics and weaponry. The training in theU.S.took place at the Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site. The article also says that the purpose of the trainings was to commit terror attacks inIran.

     

    In order to penetrate into Iran MEK militants need to use territories of neighbor countries. However, permission of neighbor countries for it is not required. They may apply various methods that the terrorists use like entering different countries under different names through which they can enterIran.

     

     

    To settle such well-organized and trained armed groups within the territories ofAzerbaijanis a dangerous as it might lead to destabilization in the country, as well as of statehood point of view. So,Azerbaijanitself would be interested in cooperation withIranto prevent MEK militants from access to the country.

     

     

    Reference – People’s Mujahedin of Iran was founded in 1965 by a group of leftist Iranian university students. Although the goal was to establish a socialist republic inIran, they offered establishment of Tovhid society.

     

    MEK carried out various terror attacks in Iranin the 1970s, then fought against Iranduring Iran-Iraq war.   Despite recognition of new regime following Islamic Revolution MEK chose to struggle against Islamic regime after being subject to terror and torture. Group’s armed wing is called National Liberation Army of Iran whose leader is Masoud  Rajavi.

    source- New Baku Post

     

     

  • Why does Iran support Armenia about Karabakh issue?

    Why does Iran support Armenia about Karabakh issue?

    The balance in Caucasia that shifted with the collapse of the Soviet Union caused a big change in the foreign policy vision of the states in the region. While examining the problems that emerged between republics, which gained their sovereignty, it is possible to see the changes in foreign policy of neighboring countries. (more…)

  • Number of Armenian tourists in Turkey increases

    Number of Armenian tourists in Turkey increases

    The number of Armenian tourists who visited Turkey this April increased by 26.9%, as compared to last year.

    110117

    Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism said 4,889 Armenians visited Turkey in April 2012 as compared to 3,854 last year.

    The number of citizens visiting Turkey as compared to March grew by 25.

    In 2011, over 72,000 Armenian citizens visited Turkey.

    via Number of Armenian tourists in Turkey increases | Armenia News – NEWS.am.