Category: Georgia

  • Georgia and Turkey plan defense cooperation

    Georgia and Turkey plan defense cooperation

    TBILISI, DFWatch–The prime minister and defense minister of Georgia will go to Turkey this week to discuss relations between the two neighboring countries.

    Defense Minister Irakli Alasania said on Monday that he and Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili will go to Turkey and discuss bilateral relations and plans for cooperation between their respective defense ministries.

    Alasania said he also plans to visit Armenia and Azerbaijan in March and hold talks about plans for military cooperation.

    “One country cannot provide security in the region. We need to reinforce every format to provide regional security and Georgia will be one of the leading cornerstones,” he said at Monday’s briefing.

    via Georgia and Turkey plan defense cooperation | Democracy & Freedom Watch.

  • Georgia Will Be A Model For The Region

    Georgia Will Be A Model For The Region

    jeffrey mankoffMr. Jeffrey Mankoff points out extremely important developments in Caucasus and Central Asia under different perspectives for followers of Strategic Outlook. (more…)

  • Quds, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh

    Quds, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh

    Jerusalem

     

     

     

     

     

    Gulnara Inandzh, Director of Information and Analytical Center Etnoglobus (ethnoglobus.az), editor of Russian section of Turkishnews American-Turkish Resource website www.turkishnews.com  , mete62@inbox.ru

    Since 1982 every last Friday of Ramadan, in the initiative of the leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran Imam Khomeini, “Quds Day” has been marked in a tribute to the solidarity with the Palestinian people.  This year it was marked on the 17th of August.

     

    According to wills of Imam Khomeini, spread of Islamic values is noted as one of the leading lines of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. “Quds Day”, as one of the wings of the spread of this policy, is of particular importance.

    Over the past 30 years, the collapse of the Soviet Union and political change in the Arab world have expanded the geography of the “Quds Day” as a branch of the policy of exporting the Islamic revolution and its ideology.

    The purpose of marking the “Quds Day” is to attract world attention to the occupied territories, includingPalestine. Loss of 20% of Azerbaijani territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh as a result of the war withArmeniaandAzerbaijan, also joined the list of states whose territories are under occupation.

    In recent years, the reason of activity of “Quds Day” is connected with the coming to power of Islamist forces in some Arab countries.

    OfficialTehran, using the favorable situation created by the so-called “Arab spring” to expand its influence in the region, expanded the range of “Quds Day”.Iranimprovises  the liberation of Muslims from tyrannical regimes, by expanding geographic scope of their mission as a protector of the Muslims and thereby trying to regain the Muslim world.

    “Arab Spring” changed the views regarding Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the West as well as in the East. Statement by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia Prince Khalid bin Saud bin Khalid, “the need in this stage to increase pressure of the international community on Armenia in order to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” confirms this position.

    Latest statement by supreme spiritual leader of Islamic Republic of Iran Ali Khamenei also draws attention in this regard: “Karabakh is Islamic land …. The Iranian parliament will support the fact that Karabakh belongs to Islam,Azerbaijan.

    With the elections in Nagorno Karabakh there are attempts to neglect the facts that these lands’ belong to Azerbaijan and Islam. No matter how much time has passed the reality that Karabakh is Islamic land will not be forgotten. Karabakh will be released by the Muslim Azerbaijanis.”

    Increase of reputation of Azerbaijanin the Middle East created good condition for leading Arabic countries andIran, along withIsrael, to take advantage of the situation.

    In order to attract the interest, Azerbaijanfirst of all needs to advance effective suggestions and support.

    Iranplan, within the framework of the “Qods Day”, to bring to the agenda the issue with respect to the liberation of occupied Azerbaijani territories byArmenia, including the Nagorno-Karabakh and to bring this conflict to the attention of the world Muslim community. The above statement by Ali Khamenei in connection with the Nagorno-Karabakh should also be seen on this plane.

    Official Baku recognizes independence of Palestineand supports the idea of partition of Palestine Qodsi on the western and eastern parts. Azerbaijanshall take advantage of imposition of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on account of the Islamic world along with the status of Gods.

    The processes in the Arab world, a tough fight of the regional states and world powers for the division of spheres of influence and control on the Middle East, creates condition for causing the conflict out of control in the Caucasus, including conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Violation of the last months of ceasefire by the Armenian side and the loss of our soldiers endangers the resumption of hostilities frontal zone, with difficulty repressed for 20 years. Taking into account the impacts of the Armenian communities of the Arab countries by the Armenian lobby in the policies of these countries, in the event of renewed hostilities on the Armenian-Azerbaijani front, position of the Islamic world towards the Nagorno-Karabakh issue will be of great importance forAzerbaijan.

    Under such circumstances,Azerbaijanis interested in delivering the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the Islamic world to the attention of world public opinion.

     

     

     

  • 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 – 

  • “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…)

  • 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  , (mete62@inbox.ru) 

     

    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.