Category: Azerbaijan

  • 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 – 

  • 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, [email protected]

    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…)

  • US put pressure on Azerbaijan by «Armenian genocide»

    US put pressure on Azerbaijan by «Armenian genocide»

     

     

    армяно турецкие протоколы

     

     

    Gulnara Inanch,

    Director of Information and Analytical Center Etnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az),

    editor of Russian section of  Turkishnews American-Turkish Resource website www.turkishnews.com  ,

    [email protected]

     

    According to BBC, a group of former and present high ranking officials of the US Administration has called the presidential administration to put pressure over the sides for implementation of protocols signed betweenTurkeyandArmeniain 2009. FormerUSSecretary of State Madeleine Albright in her statement before the US Council on Foreign relations said that implementation of the mentioned protocols would serve for improvement of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

     

    However, while speaking of the very issue in her visit toArmenia, US present Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted that initial unconditional dialog betweenTurkeyandArmeniawould not have any impact upon Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

     

    Contradiction between the statements of the present Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright, who, despite, is not in power but preserved her reputation, is the reflection of US view with regards to the issue.

     

     

    As you see, White House tries to pull out “Armenian genocide” issue from connection with Azerbaijanby strengthening their attempts to make Turkeyrestore negotiations withArmenia. Because, in order to force Turkey to come to the negotiations without any precondition agreement of officialBakuis required.  Statement of  Hillary Clinton that Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has no connection with Turkish-Armenian relations proves it.

     

    Therefore,Washingtontries to persuade Turkey that opening of  borders between Turkey and Armenia will cause Armenia to compromise in Nagorno-Karabakh issue. On the other hand, as recognition of “Armenian genocide” is a principal issue for Azerbaijan along with Turkey, it is used as pressure object to Baku and Ankara.

     

    The fact that “Armenian genocide” was the focus of attention again in Israel Knesset on June 12, it should be considered as pressure tool over Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is again proved by the report recently made by Madeline Albright together with former US president George Bush’s national security advisor Steven Hadley where this subject was the focus of attention as well. According to that report, establishment of good relations withIsrael by Turkey will lead to earning support of  US Jewish society which will support Turkey to avoid discussion of “Armenian genocide” as in previous years. Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who seeks for strategic cooperation policy with official Baku, said that this issue wouldn’t be discussed for the sake of strategic cooperation with Azerbaijanwhen “Armenian genocide” was focus of attention in Israel Knesset. Israel media that are close to state and power bodies has been asked to be attentive in the sensible issues related to Azerbaijan. Being attentive we can see that Israel media pretext not to see that “Armenian genocide” is brought to focus of attention in Israel Knesset.

     

    Israel is Our Home (IOH) party head secretary Faina Kirschenbaum, Members of Knesset said that IOH – Kadima block would try to avoid discussions of “Armenian genocide” which is brought to focus of attention by the pressure of Israel Armenian church.

     

    But the point is that some Israel politicians and public figures think that the “Armenian genocide” is the issue between Armenia and Turkey and it has nothing with Azerbaijan, especially with Nagorno-Karabakh. Therefore, in order to satisfy society and Jewish lobby, “Armenian genocide” is brought to focus of attention in the Israel Knesset.

     

    Since “Armenian genocide” is the tool of political speculation, attempts by Israel officials to close the subject for the sake of cooperation with Azerbaijan will be temporary and it is expected to be used for the purpose of mollifying Turkey and Azerbaijan.

     

    As we remember, along with speculations around adoption of the law prohibiting denial of “Armenian genocide” in French Senate, “genocide” issue was also brought to the focus of attention in Israel Knesset.

     

    The fact that discussion of “genocide” issue in Knesset is due on June 18, on the eve of meeting between Azerbaijan and Armenian Foreign Ministers in France, is the another proof that this is the pressure method on Azerbaijan during negotiations.

     

    Source New Baku Post (bakupost.az)

  • Azerbaijan’s SOCAR sees $17B Turkey investments

    Azerbaijan’s SOCAR sees $17B Turkey investments

    socarBAKU, Azerbaijan — Azerbaijan’s state oil and gas company says it plans to invest up to $17 billion in energy projects in neighboring Turkey over the coming eight years.

    SOCAR vice president Suleyman Gasimov said Thursday that investments will include $5.5 billion on a new refinery and $800 million on a power station.

    Another major, still-unconfirmed goal mentioned by Gasimov is the construction of the proposed Trans-Anatolian natural gas pipeline, which Azerbaijan hopes could be used to carry gas from its Shah Deniz offshore field to Europe. Under current plans, Azerbaijan would take a lead in the project, known as TANAP, and provide several billion dollars for its completion.

    SOCAR is investing aggressively overseas, in countries like Turkey and the former Soviet republics, as it tries to diversify its sources of revenue.

    via Azerbaijan’s SOCAR sees $17B Turkey investments – Wire Business News – The Sacramento Bee.

  • Armenia waits for formation of a new coalition

    Armenia waits for formation of a new coalition

    Armeniya

     

     

     

     

    Gulnara İnanch,

     

    Director of Information and Analytical Center Etnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az), editor of Russian section of website www.turkishnews.com  , ([email protected]

     

    Declaration of statement by the chairman of “Bargavac Ayastan” (Prospering Armenia)

     

    (PA) party Gagik Tsarukyan not to form a coalition with the ruling Republicans Party has yet proved to be a game. Upon PA party officials statement that they will not agree on coalition with the ruling party and that they will declare their decision regarding minister portfolio in the government until May 31 enables us to think that Tsaraukyan is conducting discussions with ruling party.

     

    Next year’s presidential elections and ruling party’s wining 30% against the 44% increased the pretention of PA party. Party, for the purpose of justifying the confidence of voters, attracting those hesitating for presidential elections to OY and consequently obtaining majority of votes, demonstrates its power in this way.

     

    Head of Armenian government Tigran Sarkisyan in his response to the question who can hold the post of Prime minister confirmed that OY chairman Gagik Tsarukyan can lead the new government answering that he is happy to have people to hold high posts.

     

    Afterwards, Armenian government head Tigran Sarkisyan’s statement “who said PA would go to opposition” indicate how the ruling party is aware of processes and secret negotiations are under way.

     

    G. Tsarukyan’s name is mentioned among the presidential candidates along with L.Ter-Petrosyan, R.Kocharyan and S. Sarkisyan.

     

    The fact that Tsarukyan won the votes of half million of citizens enables him to be more confident in presidential elections along with flirting with the Republicans fearlessly and being pretentious for prime minister in the newly formed government.

    To change the situation to his benefit G.Tsarukyan may form a coalition lead by himself creating a new plan for presidential elections.