Turkish Forum

Category: Azerbaijan

  • The Azerbaijani people unfortunately did not have any defender

    The Azerbaijani people unfortunately did not have any defender

    SSSRPaul Goble

    Publications Advisor

    Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy

    As part of his plan to attract ethnic Armenians back to the Soviet Union after World War II and under pressure from both the leadership of the Armenian SSR and from Armenians in the top leadership of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin in December 1947 ordered the forcible deportation of 100,000 ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia to Azerbaijan, beginning a process which resulted in the departure of all Azerbaijanis from what had been part of their historical space and the creation of a mono-ethnic state in Armenia, according to Govhar Bakhshaliyeva, a Milli Majlis deputy. [1]

    Recently, the Day.az news agency reported, one of its constant readers sent in a photograph of a document signed by Stalin on December 3, 1947 calling for “the resettlement of collective farms and other Azerbaijani populations” from the Armenian SSR to the Kura-Araz region of the Azerbaijan SSR.  (The news portal reproduced that photograph.)  According to Stalin’s decree, this deportation was to be entirely “voluntary,” but both the provisions of the act and the way it was carried out show that it was anything but.

    Day.az asked Govhar Bakhshaliyeva, the director of the Baku Institute of Oriental Studies and a member of the Azerbaijani parliament for comment.  She suggested that, “this document most probably was signed under the pressure of the Armenian lobby, which at that time was well-represented in the leadership of the USSR.”

    The policy outlined in it, she continued, was “a crime against Azerbaijanis.  The Armenian lobby of that tie just as was the case with Gorbachev in 1988 step by step provided materials, which showed what they wanted them to in order to incline Stalin to their position.  They were in an even better position to do that in the earlier case, because Mikoyan was close to Stalin as were many other Armenian Bolsheviks, his former comrades in arms who conducted their dirty work at the all-Union level.  At that time, the Azerbaijani people unfortunately did not have any defender” there.

    According to Bakhshaliyeva, Mir-Jafar Bagirov, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Azerbaijan Communist Party, could not defend his people and the Azerbaijani population was deported from Armenia to Azerbaijan.  Those who were moved found themselves in extraordinarily difficult conditions.  Accustomed to the mountains, they found it hard to adjust to the heat of the lowlands.  As a result, many died.

    Bakhshaliyeva pointed out that there was nothing voluntary about this, noting that, “until today there remain people who recall these events who experienced this deportation during their childhoods, and who say that it was a barbarous act toward Azerbaijanis who were indigenous to Armenia.  They remember,” she continued, “that this was something unbelievable and a great injustice,” all the more so because their lands were quickly filled up by new ethnic Armenian arrivals.

    “Unfortunately,” the Azerbaijani parliamentarian says, “this unjust policy continued for decades and was completed in our times, at the end of the 1980s, after which there were virtually no ethnic Azerbaijanis remaining on the territory of Armenia.”

     

    Notes

    [1] See https://news.day.az/politics/407630.html (accessed 14 June 2013).

    AZERBAIJAN IN THE WORLD

    ADA Biweekly Newsletter

    Vol. 6, No. 12

    June 15, 2013

  • Create a situation which Tehran might find difficult to control

    Create a situation which Tehran might find difficult to control

    Rouhani 1Gulnara Inandzh

    Director, Ethnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az)

    An International Online Information and Analysis Center , mete62@inbox.ru

    (Baku- Tehran-Baku)

     

    The election of Hasan Rowhani as the new president of Iran is part of a much larger process: an effort by the political elite to recapture authority in the population by launching a top-down political transformation lest outside forces provoke one and create a situation which Tehran might find difficult to control.

    That transformation, one not often remarked upon by outsiders, reflects the fact that Iranian nationalism is today a more important force than is Islam and the country’s imperial ambitions are more important than Muslim brotherhood, however defined.  Those close to the Iranian political elite understand that, and they recognize as well that slogans against Zionism and the United States are no longer enough to satisfy the increasingly poor population of what should be one of the wealthiest countries on earth.

    The policies of incumbent Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which have simultaneously led to international sanctions and massive corruption, have left Iranians angry, because they are bearing the burdens of his policies without gaining any of the supposedly positive achievements he liked to point to.  Consequently, they voted for Rowhani, but despite what many observers have said, they did so with the full approval of many around the top leaders who recognize that Iran cannot and must not continue as it has.

    One area where change is now likely is the relationship between the religious authorities and the state that was set up by Ayatollah Khomeini more than 30 years ago and has remained largely unchanged.  Iranians can be dissatisfied with the religious authorities, but all those with whom I have spoken willingly reassert their love for their government.  The national policy of the Iranian state thus rests on an imperial ideology as a necessary response to the ethno-psychology of the population.  And that state is prepared to make a correction on religion-state relations by taking that factor into account.

    Iranians will not support any actions that they believe harm the interests of the state and thus oppose any moves from the outside to oppose it.  That is something the West does not understand, but there is something else the West has failed to notice: the authorities in Tehran have developed political strategies to make mid-course corrections and even fundamental reforms.  And right now, as the election shows, they are in the middle of something that we are justified in calling a top-down transformation, a change in the key arrangements of the state without violence.

    The first step in this direction was paradoxically made by Ahmadinejad who deprived the Muslim leaders of their immunity.  The second was the victory of the United Front of Conservatives in the March 2012 elections, which led Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to reappoint a number of reformers from the administration of former president Ali Rafsanjani.  And the third step in this process was the explicit call by Hasan Rowhani for political and economic reform and direct contacts with the United States, two issues that had earlier been taboo.

    Rowhani’s election and in the first round at that shows that Iranians are ready for reform, and the support he has received from Ayatollah Khamenei shows that the reformists are winning ever more positions in Tehran and Qum and that the governing structure of Iran that Khomeini put in place after the 1979 revolution is going to change, albeit slowly and carefully lest they trigger instability.  As these changes are put in place, the Muslim leadership and the secular politicians will work in parallel, dividing the social-political and economic spheres.  Polls of Iranians carried out in Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran show that a majority of them want to live in a secular society, but not to break altogether with their Muslim roots. 

    Anyone visiting Tehran can see evidence of that: The majority of women there wear not the chadra, but scarves and long dresses, but not those reaching the ground.  In some places, it is even possible to observe women who are not covering their heads, something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.  Such examples could be multiplied, and they suggest that Iran, all the rhetoric notwithstanding, is opening up to secular culture and lifestyle.

    Over the course of the last 30 years, a new generation of religious scholars in contemporary European dress has appeared in Iran.  Its members speak foreign languages, are not trapped by Muslim dogma, are open to Western scholarship, and are quite tolerant.  They and the new generation of Iranians, religious and non-religious alike, are going to lead Iran into a new stage of its history.  In sum, Iranians are effecting domestic transformation lest someone from the outside attempt to start that process.

    AZERBAIJAN IN THE WORLD

    ADA Biweekly Newsletter

    Vol. 6, No. 12

    June 15, 2013

  • The Azerbaijan-Turkey-Israel triangle both in Tel Aviv and in the Muslim Middle East

    The Azerbaijan-Turkey-Israel triangle both in Tel Aviv and in the Muslim Middle East

    Gulnara Inanc
    Director, Ethnoglobus
    An International Online Information and Analysis Center
    (mete62@inbox.ru)
    The first ever visit by an Azerbaijani foreign minister to Israel and Palestine, a visit all sides called historic, underscored the growing strategic partnership between Baku and its two partners in the Middle East.  The first person Elmar Mammadyarov met in Israel was the chairman of the Knesset Commission on Foreign Affairs and Defense, Avigdor Lieberman, who had long lobbied for close cooperation and a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan.  In large measure as a result of his efforts, earlier attempts by the Armenian lobby to raise the so-called “Armenian genocide” in the Knesset were blocked.  Last year, in response to the latest such attempt, Israeli President Shimon Peres and A. Lieberman, who was then Israeli foreign minister, openly declared that because of the country’s strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, the issue of the “Armenian genocide” would not be discussed in the Knesset.
    Mammadyarov arrived in Tel Aviv on March 24th, the very day Armenians have declared a memorial day for the “genocide.”  Armenian media on that occasion put out information about a Knesset discussion of the “genocide,” but that did not happen.  Undoubtedly, it was very important for Azerbaijan to receive reassurance that the recognition of the so-called “Armenian genocide” would not be considered in the Knesset.
    Among the notable outcomes of the Azerbaijani foreign minister’s visit to Israel was Baku’s declaration on his return that Azerbaijan is ready to sign a broad agreement concerning the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [1] Israel beyond any doubt is not in a position to promise something regarding that conflict or to resolve it in some way.  But Tel Aviv is in a position to seek the broader support of Jewish groups around the world regarding the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict.  And consequently, the growing ties between Azerbaijan and Israel open the way for progress in the talks just as was the case some five years ago.
    Earlier this year, the Jewish community of the United States held a conference on “Israeli Relations with the States of the South Caucasus.”  Avigdor Lieberman, with whom Foreign Minister Mammadyarov met in Israel, and President Shimon Peres have been devoting particular attention to the development of relations with the South Caucasus countries in general and Azerbaijan in particular. [2] Following his meeting with Lieberman, Mammadyarov went to Ramallah where the Palestinian authority declared its support for Baku’s position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and on the issue of the so-called “Armenian genocide.”
    Azerbaijan supports the independence of Palestine and the division of Jerusalem, and in response to this support, it is seeking Palestinian backing on the two issues of greatest importance to itself.  A conference in Baku scheduled to be held later this summer can be considered part of the result of the Ramallah talks.
    Palestine enjoys authority and is at the center of attention of the Islamic world.  Azerbaijan, in turn, has grown into an economically and politically powerful country not only in the South Caucasus, but more broadly as well.  Rid al Maliki, the foreign minister of the Palestinian Autonomy, stressed this in his meeting with his Azerbaijani counterpart, noting that Azerbaijan enjoys authority in the leading international organizations. [3] Therefore, the support of Ramallah is significant, because it brings with it the attention of the Islamic and international community.  Thus, Azerbaijan was able to achieve its goal of gaining Palestine’s support for its positions.  In view of this, it is worth recalling the declaration made by Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Haled ben Saud ben Haled, that the international community must mount pressure on Armenia to secure a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [4] and a second declaration by Iranian leader Ali Khamenei that “Karabakh is a Muslim land … something that is supported at the highest levels.”
    Both of these declarations can be seen as the result of Baku’s careful and balanced foreign policy.  Of course, one should focus attention on the fact that this historic visit to Israel took place after the Turkish-Israel rapprochement.  Interestingly, one of the clearest opponents of that rapprochement, A. Lieberman, nonetheless agreed with it.  The Israeli media suggested that he had not been informed about the plans for this new coming together.  Lieberman thus had to “close his eyes” and put out the red carpet for Mammadyarov.  Having lost its Arab partners after the Arab spring, Israel had no choice but to return to strategic relations with Turkey.  That, in turn, has increased the importance of the Azerbaijan-Turkey-Israel triangle both in Tel Aviv and in the Muslim Middle East.
    Azerbaijan’s geographic location next to Iran also increases its strategic significance, something that Israeli President Peres went out of his way to stress.  This does not mean that Baku offered or is planning to offer its territory as a place des armesfor a military operation against Iran.  Baku has repeatedly indicated that cooperation with Israel does not include that and is generally not aimed against Iran, even though many observers tend to see Baku’s cooperation with Israel as the former’s way of restraining Iran.
    Notes
    [1] See https://www.amerikaninsesi.org/a/elmar_memmedyarov/1649480.html (accessed 28 April 2013).
    [2] See http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2012-02-28/17144.html#ixzz2QngVkiJZ (accessed 28 April 2013).
    [3] See  (accessed 28 April 2013).
    [4] See  (accessed 28 April 2013).
    AZERBAIJAN IN THE WORLD
    ADA Biweekly Newsletter
  • Azerbaijan and Turkey to cooperate in defense industry

    Azerbaijan and Turkey to cooperate in defense industry

    Azerbaijan and Turkey are going to cooperate in the sphere of defense industry. The corresponding document has been signed by the 2 countries during the IDEF-2013 exhibition.

    The exhibition held in the Turkish city of Istanbul has just ended. Azerbaijan has presented 130 products during the event.

    The exhibition is held once in 2 years. Azerbaijan takes part in the event for the third time.

    Source – vestnikkavkaza

  • Visit of E.Mammadyarov to Tel-Aviv is very important for Azerbaijan

    Visit of E.Mammadyarov to Tel-Aviv is very important for Azerbaijan

    Азерб ИсраэльGulnara Inanch, director of Information and Analytical Center Etnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az), editor of Russian section of Turkishnews American-Turkish Resource website www.turkishnews.com

    Since the declaration of Azerbaijan as an independent country, the visit of an influential political-diplomatic head of state body to Israel on April 21 can not be estimated as a simple event. Usually, the President of Azerbaijan and minister of foreign affairs meet with their colleagues in the international ceremonies. But as we stepped to new stage in geopolitics, the terms of game have been changed. In this regard the visit of Elmar Mammadyarov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, to Israel should be explained from different standpoints.

     

    First of all, some months ago, during the US President Barrack Obama’s visit to Tel-Aviv it was achieved to warm the Turkey-Israel relations. Tel-Aviv had initially refused to apologize and to compensate the events that occurred during the attack of “Blue Marmara” (Mavi Marmara) ship that carried humanitarian aid to Gazza district which is under block. But, the reason of persuading Israel by B.Obama to change its views to the very issues is not just related with that Turkey is strategic country. I think that, the main purpose is to warm the relations between Turkey and Israel, another powerful country in the area, and bring to position of strategic cooperation as it was some years ago.

     

    The main purpose in this project is improvement and propaganda of importance and authority of each country, jointly and separately, in their place of location.

     

    It should be mentioned that until deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey there was Turkey-Azerbaijan-Israel strategic trio. These three countries maintain their specific geopolitical code in their area. Following collapse of Soviet Union, blocking and two-pole world factor have been weakened for some period. But, all processes that have occurred within recent years lead to blocking and grouping of countries again. While B.Obama was solving the problem in regard to Ankara-Tel Aviv relations discussion of terms of Azerbaijan’s place in Turkey-Israel strategic duet are said to have been discussed.

     

    The second issue is the first visit of Azerbaijani official to Palestine. Though official Baku established close and development-inclined relations with Israel, Azerbaijan maintains positive image in Arabian world thanks to recognition of the independency of Palestine and supporting division of Quds in two – eastern and western parts.

     

    At the end of last year, Khaled bin Saud bin Khaled, the Prince, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, confirmed that it is necessary that international community should increase the pressure over Yerevan in order to solve Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

     

    Israel officials have repeatedly confirmed their interest in increasing the authority of Azerbaijan in Middle East adding that they do their best for this purpose. One of the reasons is the need of availability of any other alternative country to Turkey in the area. As a result of this, imperial claims of Turkey are back, Azerbaijan is a small country and it does not have any imperial ambitions. By the way, in Northern Caucasus policy Russia bases on this factor referring to Azerbaijan. That’s why, in some regional issues official Baku can be a mediator.

     

     

    Official Baku tries to draw Islamic world’s attention to Karabakh conflict in parallel with Quds problem. In this case, Ramallah meetings would be an important step in order to draw Islamic world’s attention to Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

     

     

    I would like to draw your attention to another interesting issue. Nowadays, John Kerry, the Secretary of State of USA, stated that Nagorno Karabakh conflict is being discussed with Turkish officials which I can say that, is thanks to US’s Jewish lobby.

     

     

    Decisions made for the benefit of Azerbaijan by the US Department of State include two key issues – good attitude to the Jewish in Azerbaijan and relations between Azerbaijan – Israel.  Azerbaijan managed to prevent the recognition of “Armenian genocide” only thanks to the support of Jewish lobby representing Israel’s interests. Despite Armenian lobby’s attempts to raise the “Armenian genocide” issue in Knesset, officials of Israel declared that they would never give an opportunity for it as they highly appreciate relations with Azerbaijan.

     

     

    Basing on analysis, we can say that Azerbaijan is working with diligence in respect to release the occupied regions within Nagorno Karabakh conflict according to offer of stage-by-stage solution to Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Some years ago military-political platform was created for its realization.

     

     

    It seems that this issue is again in the focus of attention. Azerbaijan is not indebted to Israel for the strategic relations. Azerbaijan protected the arm industry of Israel from being collapse by purchasing arms in large parts from this country. Because military industry of Israel is deprived of its potential buyers in West as a result of economic crisis in Europe.

     

     

    Oil fields of Israel in Mediterranean Sea have already been discovered and Israel involved Azerbaijan to the exploitation of abovementioned fields, and requests to build gas line from Turkey.

     

     

    In general, it should be noted that, Jewish lobby played leading role in realization of projects such as “Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan”, “Baku-Tbilisi-Gars” and at present TANAP.

     

    No doubt that another important issue that will be discussed in Tel-Aviv is Iran. Besides, Azerbaijan will officially declare that it will not let using its territory for attack against Iran. Thus, it will draw Islamic world’s attention. By the way, I have to say that, visit of E.Mammadyarov to Tel-Aviv is very important for Azerbaijan at present. Because everything that will be stated in Israel and Palestine that focused the attention of the world will be delivered to international society as well as Islamic world and Jewish lobby by world’s media. It should be noted that, this visit occurs in the period when ideological fight is intense of in Azerbaijan-Iran relations.

     

    It should be noted that Israel does not need any territory in Azerbaijan in order to attack Iran. For the first, it is known that Baku will not agree with it as it may cause consequences for Azerbaijan. For the second, Israel considers the territory of Azerbaijan suitable for intelligence activity against Iran. It helps to pass on technical equipment installed within the scope of projects which are realized by Israel in the territory of country to neighboring countries from the nearest areas to Iran. In addition, Israel and Jewish organizations are trying to raise the issue of South Azerbaijan in the territory of Azerbaijan to have relations with the Jewish people living in Iran, to contact with representatives of organizations representing nations living in Iran and Azerbaijan and political-religious communities in Azerbaijan.

     

    I must say that Azerbaijan’s answer to objections of Iran to the visit of Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, to Baku was that it will not let the dictation of directions of foreign politics. In addition to abovementioned, Azerbaijan may act as mediator between Iran-Israel relations. This thought has also been expressed by different officials of Israel many times. I think that, new role of Azerbaijan and new progress of Turkey-Iran relations will be determined in Tel-Aviv. I remember, some years ago, when Bashar Asad visited Baku, presence of Azerbaijan in Syria-Israel relations as a mediator was considered possible.

     

  • Ex-minister rules out Turkey’s opening border with Armenia without Azerbaijan’s consent

    Ex-minister rules out Turkey’s opening border with Armenia without Azerbaijan’s consent

    Opening Turkey’s border with Armenia is only possible after an agreement with Azerbaijan, former Turkish Foreign Minister Hikmet Cetin told Trend news agency on Thursday.

    Hikmet_Chetin_040413_2

    According to him, Azerbaijan and Turkey have a very close relationship, and Turkey can not unilaterally open the border with Armenia.

    “Turkey and Azerbaijan have a special relationship. Nobody has described it better than the great leader Heydar Aliyev: “One nation – two states.” Turkey’s border with Armenia can not be opened unilaterally. This is very important in terms of relations with the South Caucasus, in particular with Azerbaijan. The border was open back when I was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, we shut it down when Armenia occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

    The opening of the border between Turkey and Armenia is only possible after an agreement with Azerbaijan has been reached. Turkey should not make any decision potentially harmful for Azerbaijan,” Cetin said.

    With regard to the opening of the Van-Yerevan flight, the ex-minister said that was a decision of a private company, not the Turkish government.

    “Turkey is an open country, and private companies can make any decisions. However, observing Azerbaijan’s concern on the issue, the decision was canceled,” Cetin said.

    According to him, peace must be established in the region. However, this peace must be consistent with international laws and the UN resolutions.

    “The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should be solved step by step. At the first stage, at least five regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh must be freed. This would mark a sign to promote the settlement of the conflict,” Cetin said.

    Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a lengthy war in the early 1990s. Armenian armed forces have since occupied over 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent regions. The UN Security Council has adopted four resolutions on Armenia’s withdrawal from the Azerbaijani territory, but they have not been enforced to this day.

    A precarious cease-fire was signed in 1994. However, units of the Armenian armed forces commit armistice breaches on the frontline almost every day.

    Russia, France and the U.S. — co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group — are mediating peace negotiations. Peace talks have been mostly fruitless so far.

    via Ex-minister rules out Turkey’s opening border with Armenia without Azerbaijan’s consent – AzerNews.