Category: Azerbaijan

  • KLO: “Matthew Bryza’s last report prejudices Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity”

    KLO: “Matthew Bryza’s last report prejudices Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity”

     

    [ 02 Aug 2008 15:22 ]

    Baku. Ramil Mammadli-APA. Karabakh Liberty Organization made a statement on Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, OSCE MG Co-Chair Matthew Bryza’s report on the solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. KLO Press Service told APA.
    “Matthew Bryza stated that liberation of regions around Nagorno Karabakh, deployment of peacekeeping forces in the region, voting on the status of Nagorno Karabakh had been discussed during the negotiations. KLO stated many times that this plan and discussions directed to give Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia forever. Bryza’s report prejudices Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. KLO considers that Azerbaijan should refuse negotiations within the framework of OSCE MG. Moreover, U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan should clear up absurd report”, the statement says.

  • Bryza: Karabakh residents will themselves decide whether the republic will return under Azeri control or will be independent

    Bryza: Karabakh residents will themselves decide whether the republic will return under Azeri control or will be independent

    01.08.2008 20:55 GMT+04:00

    /PanARMENIAN.Net/ Nagorno Karabakh residents will decide for themselves whether the republic will return under Azeri control or will be independent, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza said after the meeting between the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers in Moscow.

    The people of Nagorno Karabakh will express their will through a referendum, he said, Interfax reports.

  • Turkish Parliament and Khojali massacre

    Turkish Parliament and Khojali massacre

     
     

    [ 30 Jul 2008 18:35 ]
    Ankara-APA. February 26 is proposed to be marked as Commemoration Day of Khojali massacre at the meeting of Turkish Parliament on July 29, APA Turkey bureau reports.

    MP Rashad Dogru from Nationalist Movement Party commented on terrorist act occurred in Istanbul and noted that one of the crimes committed against mankind is a genocide committed by Armenian against Azerbaijanis in Khojali city in February,1992. MP mentioned that women and children have been undergone tortures by Armenians and their lands have been occupied by Armenians.
    “Being Turks we should support these people. Armenians should be withdrawn from Azerbaijani occupied lands. Otherwise, relations cannot be developed between Armenia and Turkey. I propose to mark February 26 as Commemoration Day of Khojali massacre,” he said. MP from AKP Aladdin Boyukgaya supported proposal of his counterpart. He provided broad information to MPs about Khojali massacre.

  • Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Cultural Influences On Caspian

    Brenda Shaffer works to define cultural domination on states’ foreign or domestic affairs in “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?”article. With some examples, Shaffer is explaining this event us. Firstly, Shaffer begin the article with Huntigton’s thesis: “The Clash of Civilizations”1Shaffer gives an example about different state decision-making. Some Muslim countries have Anti-American people as behavioral. But these states make alliance with the USA like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Commonly we can see incongruent actings between states policies and people behaviors.
    Iran – Playing Politics with Islamic Style

    Samuel Huntigton’s thesis bases on idea that culture has main role in defining of policy. Also Brenda Shaffer agrees Huntigton’s thesis. Shaffer says that culture is main mechanism for diplomatic relations. Shaffer interprets culture as specific culture of country’s within religion, history and civilization.

    Western scholars researched about Islam effection in Muslim countries after 11 September terrorist act. They looked at Muslim scholars, historians, diplomats and generals. They understood Islam effection as strong as nuclear weapons. But this is not a physical thing, this is an ideology. And they speeches to newspapers, politic journals a subject that has a title as “Do Muslim countries act differently than Non-Muslim States?”

    On the other hand, Shaffer interests about this subject under the psychological perspective. Human beings are often driven by culture according to Shaffer. Also, human behavior effects on to state affairs. But state acts partly different from human behaviors. We can give example from philosophical history: Some philosophers think that the state is a thing like human. But it is systematically human. The state action is like people’s actions. State is big form of human and human is small form of the state. As behavioral psychological meaning has different dimensions.

     

    Shaffer’s Caspian perspective has common beliefs. According to Shaffer, all Caspian countries have been influenced by Islam effection after from the Soviet Union. And now they have Islamic perspective on their state affairs. But Shaffer judges all Caspian and Middle Asia area as Islamic effection zones. But it is not totally like that. Today these countries are secular except Iran.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is important in this area according to Shaffer’s idea. After the collapsing of the USSR, Iran wanted to export their Islamic regime to other neighbor states. In Central Asia and Caucasus territory, Iran plays for exporting their Persian Islamic mind as a regime under the title as “Islamic Solidarity” with economic and security events. Shaffer is true for this event. Iran wanted to export their regime to other states. But American or Western scholars’ view point is different. They are looking as totally Islamic system to Iran. They say about Iran that they are working for Islamic fundamentalism. But Iran’s Islamic mind is very different from normal Islamic idea. Persian Islamic system bases on fundamentalist movement. If we look at Turkey, Egypt or others, we can see normal, laic Islamic behavior. Also Shaffer says their false point in next sentence. “Poor Muslim countries have an influence circumstance but secular Muslim countries challenges to Iran like Turkmenistan.”
    – The Nagorno-Karabagh conflict (Christian Armenia versus Muslim Azerbaijan)

    But Tehran has faced three regional disputes :

    – The Chechen conflict (Chechen Muslims versus Moscow)

    – The Tajik civil war (The Islamic Renaissance Party versus Moscow

    In these mix circumstances Iranian fundamentalist approach transformed to self-interest system. And most telling of these policy preferences are Iran’s support for Armenia instead of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.2FinalCulture may be material interest of regime survivability. Islam is more likely to affect policy under conditions that see greater domestic and personnel influences on foreign policies.Mehmet Fatih OZTARSU
    Qafqaz University Law Faculty
    International Relations

    By these events, Iran’s state security was challenged in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia since Iran is a multiethnic state. Shaffer Gives information about Iran’s population: Half of Iran’s population is comprised of non Persian ethnic minorities; Azerbaijani groups. The majority of the residents of Iran’s northwestern provinces which border the country of Azerbaijan and they are Azerbaijani. But Iran’s relations bogged down with Baku because of Iranian self interests.

    Shaffer shows their ideas that Iranian diversity of opinion is good example for Iranian foreign policy. There are some different points as historical legacies and religious differences in policies.

    “On the other hand Turkey attempted to conduct a balanced policy toward both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also Turkey helped for Karabagh conflict to Baku.”

    Turkey changed its policy when Karabagh became a conflict. This is an example for cultural combines. (Brenda Shaffer)

    According to many observers, religious differences have played a central role in the Caspian region. With these happenings, Azerbaijan supported Chechnya. Also some analysts have assumed that religious differences serve as a basis for conflict between Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia. Over these events, common culture serves as a basis role for alliances and coalitions and different cultures act as an obstacle to cooperation.

    Shaffer’s opinion is that there are cultural alliances are created follow by from collapsing of the USSR.

    Tehran’s main argument is Shiite background in their helping system. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan shares ethnic Turkic and Muslim backgrounds. Also Russian and Armenian background is Orthodox Christian form. But Georgian-Russian conflict is different from this event. It bases on security alliance.

     

    Some governments explain and justify their policies in cultural terms. We must analyze a country’s foreign policy on the basis of actions. We have anticipated the New Testament to Germany or Russia or Torah to Israel like Islamic system. Shaffer asked question : “What does the Koran have to say a foreign policy question?”

    If Islam influences them, they should act with Islamic interaction. (Shaffer)

    The USA wants an enemy for their father emotion on the world. They forced as goodness of the world during the Cold War. They defended the world’s countries from dangerous communist system. Their interest was communism in that time. But they wanted a new enemy for regulate the world with themselves. After the Cold War, their White House scholars worked for a new enemy. There was a “Red Dangerous” line. But today there should be “Green Dangerous” line. And its name is Islam. 3

    The USA’s fans defense western style always. There shouldn’t be a religious system like Islam around the world according to them. But they don’t look at Israeli system or American Christiantic base.

    Today there is a Muslim conflict. And the USA is patron of the world. So they are working for peace, democracy and other good things. But the world’s people will know workings of the USA. All terror acts, all problems, all ethnic clashes…

    ———————————————————————
    1 Dogu Bati Journal – 26
    2 Karabagh conflict begin in the late 1980. And Armenia attacked to legal boundaries of Azerbaijan.
    3 Politic Declaration Fikret Baskaya – Ideologies.

     

  • Azerbaijan Hospitality – Part II

    Azerbaijan Hospitality – Part II

    By Nick Nwolisa. Original can be read here.

    Azerbaijan hospitality can not to be reduced to only good gestures shown to foreigners or limited to having to be entertained by the assorted varieties of cuisines the Azerbaijanis has to offer (read Azerbaijan Hospitality – Part I); the Azerbaijan hospitality encompasses and embraces a people total way of living, its specificity is in the area of its acceptability of people from diverse cultural, religious beliefs and origins. (more…)

  • Mediation between Armenia and Turkey would be a multi-dimensional gain for Iran

    Mediation between Armenia and Turkey would be a multi-dimensional gain for Iran

    /PanARMENIAN.Net/ While Turkey has intensified its mediation efforts in the Middle East, Iran has volunteered to take on a similar challenge to break the ice between Ankara and Yerevan.

    “The possibility of such an initiative by Iran is highly optimistic,” Arif Keskin, a specialist on Iran at the Eurasian Strategic Research Center, or ASAM. Explaining that a possible mediation would be a multi-dimensional gain for Iran, Keskin said this is what has likely driven the country to make such an attempt. “Iran is the sole country rescuing Armenia from its isolation within the region. Armenia is currently under geopolitical siege, surrounded by countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan with whom it has long-standing problems.”

    “For Iran, Armenia has major strategic importance as well,” he said. “Iran wants to establish good relations with non-Turkish elements in the region, especially with Armenia. Its Azeri minority is a major concern. Therefore to alienate Turkey from Azerbaijan through an Armenian-Turkish reconciliation would be to its benefit,” he said.

    “Iran could not solve the problems between Turkey and Armenia. Moreover it is not clear how sincere Ankara is for a rapprochement with Yerevan. The establishment in Turkey does not want any change in bilateral relations,” he said. “Previous mediation efforts by Iran between Azerbaijan and Armenia resulted in Baku’s losing territory. It is disputable how impartial Iran can be, or to whose advantage it would work. It is unlikely that it would defend the Turkish thesis against Armenia,” he said.

    “Iran wants to give the message to the West that it can act within their parameters, that it is a stability factor in the region, not vice versa,” said Keskin. He said, however, that the initiative raises many questions in terms of Turkey. “I do not think that it was Ankara who asked for such a move from Iran. Turkey is disturbed by the depth of Iran-Armenia relations. Therefore it is definitely Iran’s own initiative.”

    According to Keskin, the Turkish government has to explain itself publicly in terms of its recent relations with Iran. “It is not just this mediation effort. Let’s take Ahmedinejad’s planned visit for example. What could Turkey gain from the visit of such a radical figure? Sure AKP (Justice and Development Party) would have gains in domestic terms. But it is a very risky visit otherwise,” he added, the Turkish Daily News reports.