Tag: Azerbaijan and Armenia

Azerbaijani-Israeli Relations Enter a New Stage

Gulnara Inandzh

Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus,

related info

https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

mete62@inbox.ru

The upcoming June 28th 2009 visit to Baku by Israeli President Shimon Peres, a visit arranged during the May 6th meeting in Prague between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, opens a new stage in Azerbaijani-Israeli relations and reflects among other things Jerusalem’s desire to strengthen relations with former Soviet republics in the aftermath of Israeli operations in Gaza.

In support of that effort, one marked out in the middle of 2008, the Israeli foreign ministry has established separate departments to deal with the European portion of the CIS, the South Caucasus and Central Asia, regions that had been the responsibility of the ministry’s broader Central European and Eurasian Department. The new units are provisionally called Eurasia I (dealing with the European portion of the CIS) and Eurasia II (dealing with the South Caucasus and Central Asia). The head of Eurasia II, which will also deal with Azerbaijan, is Shemi Tsur, the son of a Jewish returnee from the Iranian province of Eastern Azerbaijan (Falkov & Kogan 2009).

Apparently, Israeli political technologists have been working on the strengthening of official contacts with Azerbaijan intensively. Jewish groups in the West have been playing a major role in this and have conditioned their support for Azerbaijani interests on Baku’s opening of an embassy in Israel. As official representatives of the two countries have noted, despite the absence of an Azerbaijani embassy in Israel and of a general treaty between Azerbaijan and Israel, there exist various interagency accords which are working extremely well. As a result, Israel receives 30 percent of the oil it needs for internal use through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, and bilateral trade is constantly expanding.

The absence of anti-Semitism in Azerbaijan, the good relations with Jews living in the country also help to fill the diplomatic vacuum. At the same time, the opening of an embassy of a Muslim-majority state in Israel and the visit of the Israeli president to a Muslim country are a moral support and example for Jews of the entire world and the Jewish state itself.

In this connection, it is worth noting that this is the second official visit of a senior Israeli official to Baku over the last decade. In 1998, Benjamin Netanyahu, then and now the prime minister of Israel, after completing a visit to China spent the night in Baku. After that time, no senior Israeli officials visited Azerbaijan for some years. But beginning in 2006, when Avigdor Lieberman, the chairman of the Our Home is Israel party became minister for strategic affairs, the number of visits increased. Lieberman himself visited Baku in the summer of 2007 just after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did.

These efforts by Israeli and Western companies and organizations in Azerbaijan have been viewed by Iranian ideologues as part of a network directed against Iran. One cannot deny that the overthrow of the current Tehran government or the forced change of its aggressive policy and the weakening of its position in the region are one of the key issues for Israel and the West and in particular the US. As a result, the concern of Iran on this score cannot be considered baseless paranoia.

On the other hand, with the assignment at the end of April 2009 of a new director of the Asian infrastructure of the Bureau for Ties with the Russian-language Jewish Diaspora Natif, Israel specified its policy concerning work with the diaspora in the CIS countries. In that, Azerbaijan is presented as a major focus of Natif’s activities (Izrus 2009). It could hardly be otherwise, given the Jewish communities of that country, as well as in Iran, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

The Jewish lobby and Israel in recent years have attempted to establish contacts with their compatriots living in Iran. In the meantime, the Southern Azerbaijanis who live in Iran represent another issue for relations between Baku and Tehran. With the goal of removing the World Congress of Azerbaijanis out from under the influence of Iran, for example, a change in the leadership of the organization has occurred. The Committee for work with compatriots was reformed into a structure for work with the diaspora, which thus reduced its focus on compatriots in areas adjoining Azerbaijan where Azerbaijanis have lived from time immemorial on their historical lands.

As was already noted, if the visit of Shimon Peres to Baku bears a moral character for Jews, for Azerbaijan it is one additional opportunity to attract the attention of the world community and the entire Jewish world to Azerbaijan and to define new patterns of cooperation and the inclusion of Azerbaijan in new major trans-regional projects. But as one might expect, Iran’s reaction has been aggressive, including overt threats to Azerbaijan. Baku responded diplomatically but made it very clear that it did not intend to retreat from the meeting or from its expanding ties with the Jewish state.

In spite of its threatening language, it is completely clear that Iran will not violate the borders of Azerbaijan as it did earlier. And clearly, Azerbaijan was prepared for such an Iranian reaction, but in preparing for it, Baku recognized that neither the US nor Israel could advance an effective policy toward Iran without taking Azerbaijan into account. Indeed, now economically and politically strong, Azerbaijan is capable of engaging itself in pro-active regional politics, as opposed to a defensive one it had adhered to before.

References

Falkov, Mikhail & Kogan, Alexander (2009) “Izrail’ otdel’no vzyalsya za Kavkaz I Tsentral’nuyu Aziyu” [“Israel Moved to Separately Deal with the Caucasus and Central Asia”], Izrus, 19 January, available at http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2009-01-19/3449.html, accessed 13 June 2009.

Izrus (2009) “’Nativ’ Izbral Kuratora po Tsentral’noy Azii I Kavkazu”, Izrus, 1 March, available at http://izrus.co.il/diasporaIL/article/2009-03-01/3883.html, accessed 14 June 2009.

source :

March 31, 2010
Turkish-Azerbaijani-Israeli Axis Revived

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

RELATED INFO

https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

mete62@inbox.ru

The visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to Baku on February 8-11, which has attracted so much comment and speculation, is a constituent part of Tel Aviv’s policy in the post-Soviet space. An analysis of the results of this visit shows that the resonance arising from the Baku meetings of the Israeli minister serves only as a cover for the discussion behind the scenes of issues, which have strategic geopolitical importance.

Azerbaijani and Israeli media in their discussion of these meetings devoted most of their attention to several questions, including the broadening of Azerbaijani-Israeli ties at a time when contacts between Ankara and Jerusalem are increasingly tense, Azerbaijani permission for Israeli use of the territory of the country in the event of military actions against Iran, and a mediating role of official Baku in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. The links among these various issues become obvious upon close examination.

As far as the first question is concerned, one should note that Israel and part of the Jewish lobby, which has spoken out against military actions in Iran, do not consider the territory of Azerbaijan as a place des armes for military actions against Iran. Related to this and as part of an effort designed to restrain Iran, the United States and Georgia have signed an agreement on the use of Georgia’s territorial waters in the Black Sea if US military bases in the Persian Gulf are used for an attack on Iran.

Correctly assessing the situation, Israeli political analysts understand that Azerbaijan will not under any circumstances agree to the use of its territory for an invasion of Iran but rather will do everything it can to prevent the beginning of military actions against its southern neighbor. Any military invasion, be it a broad scale military action or surgical strike, would entail a humanitarian catastrophe (including an incalculable number of refugees from the northern part of Iran), a collapse of the economy, and a growth of terrorism in Azerbaijan. These threats in turn are entirely capable of delivering a destructive blow to the security of Azerbaijan. Consequently, official Baku cannot agree to such a step even in exchange for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

There is, however, a plethora of other issues that invite attention of Baku and Tel Aviv, as well as Ankara, and could hence serve as a solid foundation upon which the relations among the three could develop further. Since Lieberman’s visit to Baku, there have been several extremely interesting events. On February 16, Pinchas Avivi, the deputy director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and head of that organization’s Division for Central Europe and Eurasia, made a working visit to Ankara. Not only did the two parties discuss bilateral relations, but they also touched upon the issues of cooperation and interaction in “third countries,” in particular those in the South Caucasus (Goldenstein 2010). That suggests that the meeting in Ankara represented a continuation of the Baku negotiations. The possibility of tripartite cooperation in dealing with the regional issues at a time when Turkish-Israeli relations appear to be in “conflict” is not fantastic if one comes to analyze more closely recent events. Despite a certain public cooling in recent months, both countries have enough in common that cooperation with regard to regional issues is far from impossible. As one Turkish official put it, “populism is part of contemporary politics,” but “Turkey was and remains a most serious guarantor of Israel’s security” (Oguz 2010).

Consequently, while some experts have hurried to bury the Azerbaijan-Israel-Turkish military-political union, it is obvious that precisely this union and not individual states are capable of being a key geopolitical center and playing a defining role in the region. And local conflicts, which are taking place in these countries, are considered not in isolation but as part of regional policies.

This nexus also reflects Azerbaijan’s interest in playing a larger international role. Indeed, many countries hope that it will. In May 2009, for example, when Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov was in Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Azerbaijan could take on itself greater responsibility and leadership in the resolution of important issues in the region of the South Caucasus. She stressed that “Azerbaijan is a strategic location which is important not only for Azerbaijanis, but also for the region and the entire world,” including not unimportantly not only the Caucasus but the areas to its south. [1]

Not surprisingly, therefore, during Lieberman’s visit to Baku, the two parties discussed in detail the possibility of Azerbaijan’s mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Baku’s growing interest in playing a greater role in the broader region to its south is also reflected in its continuous reluctance to open up its embassy in Tel Aviv. Experts in Baku often cite relations with the Organization of the Islamic Conference and with Iran as the reasons Azerbaijan has not taken that step, but the experience of Turkey and Israel suggests that in reality there is another reason at work: a desire, on the part of Baku, to demonstrate its respect for, and solidarity with, the Palestinians and the Islamic world more generally, something which will help increase the influence of Azerbaijan as a mediator in the Middle Eastern conflict.

As the situation around the region heats up, the links between Azerbaijan, Turkey and Israel seem certain to become closer, and this axis is destined to bear a direct effect on the broader region for years to come.

Note

[1] See (accessed 25 February 2010).

References

Goldenstein, Alexander (2010) “Турция и Израиль сохраняют координацию по Кавказу” [“Turkey and Israel keep coordination on the Caucasus”], Izrus, 17 February, available at http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2010-02-17/8651.html (accessed 25 February 2010).

Oguz, Dzhem (2010) “Есть причины, вынудившие Турцию изменить отношение к Израилю” [“There are reasons that prompted Turkey to change its attitude to Israel”], Regnum, 11 February, available at (accessed 25 February 2010).

source

March 16, 2010
Killing Two Birds With One Stone?

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

mete62@inbox.ru

RELATED INFO

https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia complicated the ethnic situation in the entire Caucasus by creating favorable conditions for the exacerbation of ethnic self-consciousness among many groups and for the manipulation of some of these groups by various countries both in the region and beyond.

The activities of the Circassians who hope to unite the members of their ethnos into a single republic have attracted a great deal of attention, but developments in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, a Georgian region populated largely by ethnic Armenians have not, although for many reasons, what is going on there may have even greater immediate consequences.

At the start of this year, the Georgian authorities – as they have in the past sought to prevent the situation in Samtskhe-Javakhetia from getting out of hand – arrested several activists, who Armenians said are completely “innocent.” But almost at the same moment this exchange occurred, an unusual declaration by Dashgyn Gulmammadov, the president of the National Assembly of Azerbaijanis of Georgia, was released.

That declaration [1] called for Georgia to be transformed into a confederation of Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians. But despite its Azerbaijani origin, it did not call for ethnic Azerbaijanis to gain autonomy, limiting itself to the demand that in this new state, Azerbaijani should be one of the state languages. A similar idea surfaced during the Russian-Georgian war of last August. At that time, its authors were citizens of the Russian Federation and an ethnic Azerbaijani from Iran now living in Sweden.

And this declaration, by a strange coincidence appearing at the time of the Javakhetia events but one not strange at all if these groups are being manipulated by Moscow and Yerevan, also called for giving the ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan, in particular the Talysh, Avars and Lazgis, similar rights. By putting out such statements, those who issue them and even more the people who are orchestrating this hope to weaken and fragment Georgia and Azerbaijan and to limit the options of both Tbilisi and Baku.

Confirmation of this is provided by the following: During the most recent arrests in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, Armenian commentators hurried to accuse Azerbaijan of being behind events there. In this way, Yerevan sought to take steps to give it greater freedom of action in the future. First of all, since Javakhetia organizations, in the opinion of Georgian experts, are directed by the Armenian special services and Russia, then the shift in rhetoric toward Georgia regarding its citizens of Azerbaijani nationality beyond any doubt indicates who compiled the “Azerbaijani” declaration.

Moscow is interested in the further dismemberment of Georgia and consequently views the efforts of the Javakhetia Armenians as a completely logical next step. Azerbaijanis, on the other hand and as Georgians recognize, do not have separatist ambitions and remain loyal to the Georgian government. Changing that by a few declarations of the type cited above won’t shift them from that.

Consequently, it should be obvious that claims to the contrary are simply intended to provide cover for Armenian plans. Equally indicative of what is going on is that the exacerbating of the ethnic situation in Georgia has slowed the process of the return of Meskhetian Turks to their historical lands in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, a return that Armenians of that region oppose.

And the sponsors of this exploitation of ethnic minority aspirations have promoted their ideas via scholarly conferences about these communities, propaganda about the dangers of Pan-Turanism and the assimilation of peoples living in Azerbaijan, and the creation of websites which speak out in defense of the rights of ethnic communities living there, to name just a few. Lazgis, Udins, Tats, Jews, and Kurds who alongside Azerbaijanis and Turks at the beginning of the 20^th century were killed by the thousand by Dashnaks have suddenly been transformed into the brothers of the Armenians. Indeed, Armenian websites are ready to post materials about the interrelationships of the indigenous peoples of Azerbaijan with the power structure which exists in this republic and about the means of expanding relations between them and the Armenian people. [2]

The latest and especially gratuitous example of this involves the dissemination by the Armenian information agency Panarmenian.net of reports about “Jewish pogroms” in Sumgait this month, events which someone at the agency or somewhere else invented out of whole cloth. There were no such “pogroms.” But reports that they were, however false, may help the Armenian lobby in the United States to push through a Congressional resolution about the Armenian genocide. And it is possible that they were directed at complicating relations between Israel and Turkey.

Armenia, even as it remains in occupation of Azerbaijani territory, has always sought to convince the world that the rights of ethnic minorities are not protected in Azerbaijan and consequently that it would be unthinkable to return the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to a position in which they would be threatened by discrimination and destruction. The ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan and “the defense of their rights” thus remain under the constant control of political operatives in Armenia.

Unfortunately, this effort is often supplemented by the dispatch of Islamic groups and even criminal elements into Azerbaijan where they pose as “defenders” of the interests of ethnic Daghestanis. Indeed, the appearance in Daghestan of the youth movement Anti-Turan, the goal of which is the struggle with the spread of Turkish throughout the Caucasus, is a measure of the lengths Armenia and its Russian backers are prepared to go to promote anti-Azerbaijani attitudes. [3]

Notes
[1] Regnum (2009), ‘Настало время добиваться своих национальных целей: президент Национальной ассамблеи азербайджанцев Грузии’, January 30, available at (accessed February 12, 2009).

[2] E.g. explore .

[3] Khabal.info (2009) ‘Заявление молодежного патриотического движения “Анти-Туран”’, January 18, available at (accessed February 12, 2009).

l

March 15, 2010
GENOCIDE OVER AZERBAIJAN NATION IN MARCH OF 1918

Tamilla Musayeva,

Doctor of history, professor

Adil Mammadov, Doctor of history

It’s already ten years since our nation has commenced building its sovereign state being in utterly difficult situation and surpassing incredible obstacles. Looking back to the passed way we observe both errors, shortcomings and those great achievements which were possible exclusively in terms of the independence. Among such achievements there is opportunity to see our nation’s history in new light, form objective approach to historical course of its evolution, reveal obscure pages of history, give proper, unbiased appraisal to its individual periods and events having been distorted, forged or just hushed up for long decades. One of the pages is March events of 1918 that were presented in soviet historiography as “civil war”, “musavatists’ counter-revolutionary rebellion” being allegedly provoked by “Musavat” party’s members with aim of overthrowing soviet regime in Baku. In present-day times owing to efforts of azerbaijani social scientists who found and analysed most archive documents being earlier thoroughly concealed, and also owing to current democratic processes in Azerbaijan there was created condition for public declaring the whole truth about the March events, qualifying them as genocide over Azerbaijanis, list the main ringleaders of this bloody massacre. February revolution and following October events, publication of such documents as “Declaration of russian nations’ rights” and “Appeal to moslem working people of Russia and East” were taken by Azerbaijan nation, intellectuals, national parties for opportunity of realizing “national autonomy within Russian Federation” idea.

“Musavat” party that appeared at the respective period on political struggle’s proscenium advanced “Azerbaijan’s autonomy” idea as one of the paramount programme demands. But provisional extraordinary commissar on Caucasian affairs, S.Shaumyan was ardent antagonist of the idea. He considered azerbaijani nation’s legitimate and natural demand of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy as “dream of azerbaijani nationalists” to make Baku “capital of Azerbaijan khanate” (S.G.Shaumyan, Selected works. Moscow, 1978, II v., p.257). The paradox is that flatly refuting possibility of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy Shaumyan at the same time took for due plan of establishing Provisional armenian government at its territory occupied russian troops. Moreover realization of this plan in accordance with decree dated by December 29, 1917, signed by V.I.Lenin and I.V.Stalin was charged to Shaumyan. He was also commissioned with leading over determination of this “autonomy’s” bounds especially of adjoining moot areas (Decrees of Soviet government. Moscow, 1957, p. 289-299).

The bolshevist government was pretty aware of Shaumyan’s approaches to most clue points of bolshevist party’s national programme, his radically hostile attitude to such items as granting of autonomy, nations’ right to self-determination. As far back as 1914 Lenin expressed in his letter to Shaumyan critical attitude to these views. “It’s shame on russian marxist to hold standpoint of armenian hen-coop… Because of “armenian” blindness you become apprentice of Purishkevichs and their nationalism” (Lenin V.I. Complete Works, v.48, p.302).

It’s very interesting that on the eve of March developments “Bakinskiy rabochiy” newspaper published in March, 15 Lenin’s letter to Shaumyan written as early as December, 1913 where the latter has been sharply criticized for non-recognition of autonomy and self-determination right ideas (CW, v.48, p.233-236).

Maximalism of Shaumyan’s views, obstinacy and strict methods during activities conducted by him were known to Centre. Right therefore Lenin wrote in his telegram to Shaumyan dated February 14, 1918 that along with “firm and resolute” policy it’s necessary to conduct very cautious diplomacy. The former took into account utterly complicated situation in this region, he demanded to solve very delicately and carefully most important problems (V.I.Lenin about Azerbaijan. Baku, 1959, p.75).

It should be kept in mind that Shaumyan – “internationalist” regarded Azerbaijan nation highly malevolently attaching to it such labels as “Tatar (azerbaijani) mob”, “tatar ignorant masses”, “robber gangs”, “tatar ruffians” etc. It’s enough to read fluently his selected works for making sure of the above-mentioned. (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, I v., p.119, 129, 185; II v., p. 216). All of this accounts for Shaumyan’s behaviour in March days of 1918.

Considering March events in the light of contemporaneity we reveal the facts that used to escape our consciousness, weren’t paid due attention.

Among them – appointment of Kobozev P.A. as Extraordinary Commissar of government in Middle East and Baku province. The fact is mentioned in events chronicle from volume 36 of V.I.Lenin’s Complete Works (p. 684). In March 17, 1918 Lenin had conversation with Kobozev, signed and delivered him mandate for taking measures on securing local authorities, handed him letter addressed to Baku comrades. The letter mentioned in Complete Works is supposed to be written by Stalin on Central Committee and Lenin’s instructions. It was of great importance and provided guide to action, directed and anticipated prospects of the developments in the region. In view of the letter’s importance we’re citing it in more details: “To Stepan, Alyosha and other friends. We are sending comrade Kobozev to you as extraordinary commissar of Middle Asia and Baku. He’s resolute, has rich experience in struggle with counter-revolution in Middle Asia, knows the particulars of war art, he’s railway engineer and old party worker. Appointing him also as commissar of Baku we were guided by the fact that Stepan, Caucasian affairs commissar functions basically in Tiflis, while Baku, this central point of the entire south is already besieged from everywhere, therefore it’s impossible for Stepan to be both in Middle East and Baku at once. We are fully sure that Kobozev (he is warned by us) will act in concordance with Stepan. One thing is indubitable; in military and financial terms Baku should be fortified, if Moslems demand autonomy, we should grant it, ensure unconditional recognition of central and local soviet authorities, immediately establish within Baku Deputies Council Moslem department, highly develop Moslem literature… Kobozev will report you details. Faithfully yours, Stalin”. (Azerbaijan Republic Political Parties and Public Movements State Archives, copies fund № 453).

Thus all measures listed in the letter were aimed on fortifying soviet power in Baku and winning round large working strata of moslems. Confrontation with local inhabitants wasn’t necessary to Centre. Here in Baku, with its extremely motley population there was required delicate and cautious approach to many complicated problems and maximalism was absolutely irrelevant here. Appointment of Kobozev, experienced party member and military specialist was in our opinion careful attempt to restrict Shaumyan’s actions from making decisions on his own as Caucasian Extraordinary Commissar. Henceforth decisions were to be taken in concord. As further events showed Centre’s apprehensions were grounded.

If he knew about concrete resolution of Centre concerning autonomy for Moslems he would have come to an agreement with “Musavat” party’s leaders and solve the problem by peaceful means. Especially as before March events “Musavat” members publicly advanced idea of autonomy within Russian Federation. Unfortunately we don’t know exactly whether this letter reached Shaumyan before the March events (Kobozev was at this time in Baku), and how he took part in them.

Historians will have to study all of this thoroughly. One thing was undeniably obvious: Shaumyan went toward confrontation deliberately. It was necessary for realizing well-conceived plan. Frenzied atrocities over Azerbaijanis, cruelty and vandalism of dashnaks in March days in Baku give ground to suppose that it was Shaumyan’s “requital action” as stresses M.Rasul-zade in ‘Untorgettable tragedy’ article (“Azerbaijan” newspaper, March 31, 1919) on account of March developments’ first anniversary (quotation from “Historiography of March slaughter, 1918” book after A.Iskandarov, Baku, 1997, p. 103): action of cleaning Baku from Azerbaijanis because differently it’s impossible to account for mass slaughter of Azerbaijanis, absolutely innocent peaceful Azerbaijan population of Baku and other towns of the region in March days. The further course of developments confirms this.

At this period in Baku because of blocking Baku-Tiflis railroad there gathered several thousands of armed Armenians returning from battle-fronts. Besides here were thousands well-armed fighters who represented Dashnaksutun party. Shaumyan was perfectly aware of ardent nationalistic and counter-revolutionary orientation of dashnaks’ policy. Right therefore he had to hinder from their staying in the city. But this failed to take place.

By this time it was observed swift increase of “Musavat” party’s influence. Shaumyan admitted himself that “by the II year since revolution the party had become the most potent one in Transcaucasus” (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p.291). In these conditions he tried by any hooks to debar “Musavat” from political rival, discredit it.

Azerbaijanis in Baku and its vicinities were completely defenceless before armed to the teeth armenian military units. At that time “Musavat” failed to dispose of any units. Y.Ratgauzer writes in his “Revolution and civil war in Baku” book: “Musavat” party didn’t have available regular military units by the time of beginning events in the city. The Musavat forces located in provinces weren’t brought up to Baku in proper time. We suppose that “Musavat” party’s leaders didn’t expect commencement of battle in March 30” (Ratgauzer Y. Revolution and civil war in Baku. 1927, Baku, p.145). Presence of numerous armed dashnaks who inundated the city incandesced situation exceedingly. The fact attracts its attention that during recordings at different plants all except Azerbaijanis have been enrolled into Red Army. Most detachments raised in that way almost completely consisted of Armenians. In many respects it was favoured by Avakyan, military commandant of Baku city who raised the detachments.

Besides in March 29, 1918 due to Shaumyan’s order there began disarmament of “tatar regiment’s” (being part of “Wild division” raised during I World War) soldiers and officers who were on the board of Eveline ship that sailed toward Lankaran-its dislocation point.

A small-numbered detachment of the division’s officers and soldiers headed by general Talyshinski was in Baku in view of H.Z.Tagiyev, eminent Azerbaijan oil industrialist-magnate’s tragically perished son’s funeral. Why Baku council obstacled the sole armed groups of moslems from peaceable leaving the city and failed to disarm armenian military units located in great amount in Baku that days? Haven’t all national units been liable to abolition and withdrawal from Baku in accordance with Baku Soviet’s resolution dated from March 15, 1918 on the base of Shaumyan’s report? It applied to all armed forces dislocated in the city. However Shaumyan neglected the directions given by his participance (SPIHDA,[1] fund 276, errata 3, addendum 272, sheets 5-6). This action caused discontent and protests of Baku’s moslem population. In March 30 in mosques, different parts of the city there began spontaneous movements, meetings of Azerbaijanis who demanded return of armament and withdrawal of national armenian units. These days “Achyg soz” (“Speech freedom”) newspaper-publication of “Musavat” party-addressed to local inhabitants appeal of resisting emotions, remaining calm.

The provocative firing of a small-numbered Red Army detachment executors of which remained unknown was initial point of the terrible bloody action victims of which were peaceful azerbaijani inhabitants. Shaumyan wrote himself that they needed just a slightest cause for realizing their plan. “We took opportunity of the first attempt of armed attack to our cavalry and passed to offensive on a wide front. We already had 6000 amounted armed forces. “Dashnaksutun” also counted 3-4 thousands national units. The latter’s participance attached to the civil war national carnage feature but it was nevitasible. We did it consciously. If they (Musavatists) gained the upper hand in Baku the city would have been proclaimed as capital of Azerbaijan” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works, Moscow, 1978, v. II. p.246). Here as it’s said commentaries are needless.

Under pretext of struggle with musavatists bolshevist-dashnak detachments practically started single-minded slaughter of peaceful Azerbaijan population. Their dwellings were bombarded from sky and sea. It was armenian units that took especially active part in atrocities over Azerbaijanis. Not the least was the fact that this time chief of Red Army’s headqu arters in Baku was Tsarism Army’s former colonel, member of dashnaks party Z.Avetisyan. For several days the outrages have lasted in the city. Stubborn fighting had been taking place in its most central part, Ichari Shahar (Inner City) area. A.I.Mikoyan commanded personally by offensive to this historical place. In March 30 one of commissars Tatevos Amiryan entered building of moslem charity “Ismailiya” with gang of armed dashnaks and set fire on it. Theatre of G.Z.Tagiyev being first one in the East was also burnt, Taza-Pir mosque seriously damaged. “Struggle with counter-revolution” turned into unprecedented carnage. S.M.Afandiyev stressed that “dashnaks slaughtered not only musavatists but also generally moslems…” (Nationalities life, 1919, July 6).

Trying to involve into their sloven actions Caspian fleet dashnaks resorted to their pet method-provocations. Among sailors they began spreading rumours that Azerbaijanis allegedly kill Russians in the city. Therefore at the action’s beginning there thundered gun salvoes from Caspian fleet’s ship toward azerbaijani dwellings. But soon these rumours proved to be utter fiction and dashnaks’ provocation.

Not only national armenian units but also those of Red Army took active part in violences over peaceful Azerbaijanis. In these terms the fact should be stressed that the latters consisted of armenians at 70%. According to G.Avetiysn, corresponding member of Armenian Republic Academy of Sciences, “for Baku Army battled 4 brigades of Caucasian Red Army consisting of 25 battalions and 18000 soldiers. About 70% of the latters were Armenians” (“Communist”, Yerevan, August 26, 1989, №199).

Even after accepting Baku Council ultimatum by Azerbaijanis murders and robberies by Armenian units continued. Only after interfering of Japaridze who noted events march to go extremely far, and also order of 36^-th Turkestan regiment about stopping moslems’ carnage and threat of gun firing at armenian dwellings the massacre was ceased.

Much more atrocities inflicted during punitive raid to Shamakhi and Guba where over 50 villages had been set on fire and sacked.

The great-numbered detachment expedited to Guba commanded by Dashnaksutun Amazasp consisted solely of Armenians being members of Dashnaksutun party. The detachment was raised under the personal control of G.Korganov, chairman of war-revolutionary committee of Caucasian army, Armenian by nationality.

Beside of murders Amazasp’s punitive detachment marauded and robbed Azerbaijanis’ property.

In result of the punitive action about 2000 peaceful azerbaijanis were killed in Guba. Speaking before local inhabitants Amazasp declared: “I’m hero of armenian nation and protector of his interests… I’m sent here not for establishing order and Soviet power but for taking vengeance for murdered Armenians, I had commandment of killing all moslems from Caspian coasts to Shahdag and razing your dwellings to the ground. History of Azerbaijan in documents and publications, Baku, 1990, p. 185;

Before events in Guba armed forces of Baku council commanded by Amazasp Avetisov commited io the flames and completely burnt Shamakhy town (A.Balayev. Azerbaijan national movement in 1917-1918, Baku, “Elm” p.h., 1998, p. 175).

Punitive operations were conducted in Lankaran, Khachmaz, Hajigabul, Salyan provinces. Direct participation of S.Shaumyan in bloody March events of 1918 and dashnaks’ atrocities in Baku and province were reported in “Azerbaijan” newspaper dated October 8, 1918. There was founded special provinces commission on investigating these crimes. Shaumyan cynically confessed that “in result of civil war suffered mass of poor and homeless moslems”. He stressed they “had to make use of armenian regiment. We even couldn’t permit ourselves luxury of neglecting its services. It was necessary to use the regiment’s services, and the victory is so much great that it slightly clouds reality” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p. 249, 250). Even “Nash golos” (“Our voice”) menshevist newspaper characterized the events as national massacre. The eyewitness of March events People’s Enlightenment Commissar of Baku People’s Commissars Council N.Kolesnikova wrote in her memoirs that “dashnak groups commenced in the town massacres, arsons of houses, robberies, murders of innocent peaceful citizens, mainly Azerbaijanis” (Kolesnikova N.N. About history of struggle for Soviet power in Baku, Moscow, 1960, p. 71). In letter addressed to Council of People’s Commissars, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic dated from April 13, 1918 Shaumyan trying to justify heinous crimes of Armenian units in Baku in March days and conceal from bolshevist authorities the real scales of Azerbaijanis slaughter made under his leadership falsified death roll, facts of threatenings by the side of moslems. Realizing that it’s impossible to conceal everything and aspiring to calm down Centre he wrote: “Moslem mass heavily suffered but now it’s consolidating around bolshevists and council”, that “oil is already at our disposal”. Here was also especially stressed role of armenian national units in defence of Soviet power (“Historical archives”, №2, 1957, p. 55-57).

In Shaumyan and Japaridze addressed letter published in “Gummat” newspaper in April 3, 1918, Narimanov mentioning March events wrote: “This smirches Soviet power, casts slurs upon it. If the next few days you don’t tear the black veil and don’t remove the stain bolshevist idea and Soviet power will fail to consolidate here…”

You know that power won by means of arms failing to be supported by people can’t stay long (N.Narimanov. Selected works in 3 vol., II v., Baku, “Azernashr” p.h., 1989, p. 122-123). These words turned out to be prophetic. After March events despite of Shaumyan’s allegations broad masses of azerbaijani people turned away from Soviet power. In “Baku organization of bolshevists in 1917-18” article published in 1923 A.J.Mikoyan had to admit: “March events also resulted in much more estrangement of moslem working” masses from Soviet power (“Bakinski rabochiy” (Baku worker), March 14, 1923, №57). March events had serious public repurcussions. S. Ter-Gabrielyan, notable bolshevist wrote in letter addressed to S. Shaumyan sent by him from Astrakhan in April 28, 1918 that the local community and newly arrived Russians who left on a mass scale Baku for Astrakhan regarded developments in “Baku not as struggle “ for Soviet power, but national carnage, and that “this carnage was organized by Armenians” (Sur. Shaumyan. The Baku Commune. Baku, 1927, p.94).

Armenians’ outrages in Baku since March 30 till April 2, then continued in provinces were none other than massacre on national basis or more exactly – genocide over azerbaijani nation. Right therefore Soviet power in Baku held out not long and ignominiously quitted the stage in 1918.

Today we can definitely say it was well-conceived and well-planned action prepared by Shaumyan and victims of which were Azerbaijan moslems. With armenian troops and Dashnaksutun party’s cut-throats Shaumyan vented his hatred toward musavatists by massacres in azerbaijani dwellings of Baku, Azerbaijan provinces. Just in Baku that days were murdered over 10000 peaceful inhabitants, in Shamakhy-7000, Guba-2000, Lankaran and Astara – more than 1000, Salyan and Hajigabul – almost 1000. In March – April, 1918 armenian – bolshevist detachments killed in Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Mugan, Lankaran districts more than 50000 Azerbaijanis (“Statement of Azerbaijan Republic National Council” article in “Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 2001).

Using bolshevist power and slogans as a cover Shaumyan betrayed Soviet power discrediting it by his actions. But this wasn’t principal for him. His purpose was another-extermination of Azerbaijanis. All his efforts were aimed that March days on deporting Azerbaijanis from the lands for their further joining to “armenian autonomy” establishment of which was charged to Shaumyan due to decree of People’s Commissars Council dated December 29, 1917.

The prominent german researcher Erikh Figle in his “Truth terror. Armenian terrorism – roots and reasons” (Baku, “Azernashr”, 2000) speaking of Shaumyan’s activity in 1918 stresses that Stepan Shaumyan was leader of armenian communists in Baku where he formed bolshevist government tyranny of which intended to expatriate or exterminate Azerbaijanis. His aim was “Baku’s armenianizing by any hooks or crooks” (p. 101, ibid).

Unfortunately these heinous crimes commited in Baku and provinces in March, 1918 received in due course proper and objective appraisal neither by world society nor republic’s authorities. For sake of internationalism and consolidation of nations friendship these facts were painstakingly kept silent, concealed. Right this gave full scope to nationalist – separatistic forces. In 1988 as a result of the so-called Highland Garabagh problem a great number of Azerbaijanis were killed and expatriated from their primordial lands of Armenia because of their national belonging, in January of 1990 savage crimes were committed over people who expressed protest against the actions, in 1992 bloody Khojaly genocide took place. Adventurous actions of armenian aggressors and “Great Armenia” ideologists on ethnical mopping – up resulted in expatriating more than millions of our countrymen from their motherland and their superhuman sufferings. Just in XX c. as it’s stressed in “Appeal to Azerbaijan nation in view of March 31, day of Azerbaijanis Genocide” over 2 millions of Azerbaijanis became victims of loathsome genocide policy pursued by our enemies in one or another form” (“Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 1999).

Current advancing of Armenia’s claims to Nakhchivan being primordial azerbaijani land, calls to abolishing Gars treaty concluded in October of 1921 between Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Turkey, claims to Georgian, Turkish landsall of this are after-effect of impunity reigning in world society respect to aggressive Armenian Republic.

Today our major task is forming in present and future generations eternal memory of genocide committed over Azerbaijan nation in the last century, attain political and legal appraisal of these events from international community, avert its grave consequences and do the all best for this never recur.

Our long silence and tolerance costed us dear. Right therefore republic government adopted resolution of declaring March 31 as day of Azerbaijanis Genocide.

In these terms important are monumental works and documentary archives revealing dashnak terrorists, their heinous crimes on azerbaijani land during the last century. Committing genocide over Azerbaijanis they represent themselves as innocent victims having been subject to genocide. As early as July 15, 1918 due to decree of Azerbaijan Republic under the leadership of Foreign Affairs Ministry there was established extraordinary “Inquiry Committee” on investigating violences made by Armenians over moslems within the entire Transcaucasus since I World War. In the committee’s materials there was stressed that in March days basically suffered Azerbaijanis, their properties were plundered and dwellings burnt out. In State Archives of Republic there are kept materials of the committee which are impossible to be read without shudder, scales of vandalism displayed by Armenians that bloody days are incommensurate. The documents were drawn up on hot trails, March events described by eye-witnesses. Today when our state is member of many in ternational organizations, the committee’s materials must be published and become possessions of the world society. Let it know the real executors of genocide on our land, those who through XX c. claimed to our areas, who hold the region’s inhabitants in permanent tension can’t go on any longer. The Armenians’ claims must be repulsed finally and decisively.

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

History Institute named after Bakikhanov A.A.

Historical Facts of Armenia’s Actions in Azerbaijan Land

Baku – Елм – 2003

[1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

[1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

March 11, 2010
Information of Echmiadzin Synod
Azerbaijan SSR. The News of ANAS.

History, philosophy and rights series in 1989 N2

Information of Echmiadzin Synod Prosecutor A. Frenkel, submitted in 1907 to the Most Holy Synod.

After liquiditation of Echmiadzin patriarchate in 1826 and Albanian patriarch throne in 1836, the Most Holy Synod established several consistories in Transcaucasus.
1. Frenkel who was appointed by the Most Holy Synod as Echmiadzin Synod prosecutor, in 1907 submitted to the Most Holy Synod for handing over to the Russian Emperor rather curious document characterizing Gregorian church condition in the early 20 th century.
A.Frenkel, Echmiadzin Synod Prosecutor

Historical Great Armenia which adopted Christianity in IV c., in V century already lost any political independence and was simultaneously reigned by Persians (Zoroastr tenet), Byzanty, Arabians, Saljug Turks and other conquerors.

Different provinces of former Armenia separated under rule of winners developed and built their special and church relations dependantly on conditions and state order of their rulers, gradually loosing links between each other; by force of such circumstances every province going on to uphold purity and inviolability of Armenian Gregorianism tenets, became extremely denationalized in language, laws and traditions.

Not to mention Turkish, Egyptians, Persian and Indian Armenians-if to take our Transcaucasus alone we’ll note rather interesting fact: Tiflis Armenians (Georgian influence), Akulis, Yelisavetpole and Karabag Armenians (Persian influence) and Akhalkalak Armenians (Turkish influence) almost don’t understand each other and marriages between them take place rarely.

Historical fortunes of Armenian people proved with undeniable exactness absolute unability of the people to set up independent state, state organism, proved their absolute unability to comprehend true fundamentals of high civilization, because through several millenia history hadn’t written down any name among leading lightsin science and art . Old Great Armenia didn’t leave after itself any code of national laws except collection of Laws by monk-scholar Mkhitar Gosh, being piteful compilation of Moisey laws, Byzantine and some Armenian folk traditions.

This fact nowise can be related to unfavourable domestic and political conditions,

contrary example of which are Jews who gave to the world outstanding painter-thinkers. If to read the best Armenian historians, classical and contemporary ones, you become surprised with those gloomy views to Armenian reality, which environed prominent thinkers of the people. Aim-seeking intrigues, perjuries, venality, servility seem to be basic national traits of the tribe. Due to such qualities Armenian people were always close to assimilation with dominant nation, and ‘national-religious problem’ which was popular several years ago, has acquired its true importance enough lately, and before this Armenians always paved up auspicious ground for renegatism, since honours and personal material incentives were connected with the fact.

Unfortunately, when appeared idea of Emperor Nikolay the First about division of ‘big man’, Armenians immediately assumed high significance and absolute unjustified hopes pinned on. Our envoys in Ottoman empire and together with them Foreign Ministry suggested to the Government idea about extreme importance policy in the East, and ,by the way, such support could be rendered, providing: 1) if to the catholicos rank there is promoted candidate being devoted to interests of Russia; 2) if such candidate is able to subordinate in moral terms Turkish Armenians. This fully erronious idea generated a number of compromises, indulgences from our government, which were pretext for the future solicitations of Armenian catholicoses about granting exclusive status to their congregation regulated by law of 1836 and still more sanctioned by the present Caucasian authorities. Taking into account potential advantages from promoting quazi-governmental candidate to catholicos, didn’t understand that had deal with cunning Asians who were rottened by slovery and only slightly touched with civilization, not to mention that no real advantages should have been expected from Armenians contempted and hated by the whole Christian and Moslem East. This ground paved up by us ourselves, long-year practice of unpunished opposition to the government-created among Armenian people very opportune field of action for anti-governmental communities of the local and foreign origin of every type.

Until XVIII century when began onward movement of Russia to the Near Moslem East, most Armenians separated between Turkey and Persia nowise had been reacting against Moslem dominion, because Armenians lived not worse than other subjects to Sultan and Shah. Armenians quickly penetrated governmental and financial spheres of their conquerors, having appropriated almost completely trade and credit.

Moslem rulers acknowledged sovereignty of Armenian catholicoses in the church administration, and Armenia history knows many patriarchs who collected from their congregation big sums through Turkish zaptis and Persian farrashes. It should be considered that such specific order even flattered national Armenian pride, because in the person of mosterful catholicos there was created illusion of people head.

Neither Turks, nor Persians interfered Armenian Traditional law and order of self-administration by small elective district councils.

The first one third of XIX century being notable for national self-consciousness rousing among minor people couldn’t pass by tracelessly for Armenians, all the more that after a number of Russia’s successful wars against Turkey and Persia, which ended in seizing several provinces with Armenians couldn’t help to pin hopes on complete liberating from Moslem yoke.

National self – consciousness feeling which aroused among Armenians, took direction being similiar to all people enslaved by foreigners. Patriots and public figures, first of all, paid attention to restoring and founding literature, national pride through bringing up youth on examples (even if apocryphal) of ancestors’ valour etc. Later, surely, active struggle against Government, in this case Turkish one was to be included to program, because that time Armenians regarded Russia for saviour.

In this view all secret and legal Armenian national-religious societies of the past century can be divided on two below groups:1) Armenian communities in Russia with respect to Armenians of Russian citizenship had purely religious-enlightenment character. All their aspirations were aimed on founding literary-colloquial, common to all Armenians language which hadn’t existed before, setting up national schools for Armenian people, and raising prestige of catholicos as head of people, elected by the whole nation. Being safe in Russia, these communities were closely linked with such organizations in Turkish Armenia, making for realization of revolutionary actions against Turkish government; 2) Armenian communities in Turkey had obviously revolutionary character. They were interested with active struggle against Turkish government rather than perspective results of enlightening activity, especially when Armenians ensured virtual support of European revolutionary bodies in London, Lozanne, Geneve, and first of all, new Turks. We have grounds to tell that our government through 1830-1880-ies at least had been ignoring (and maybe considering profitable) close inter connection of Armenian organizations in Russia and Turkey. From Russia to Turkey there were conveyed without any obstacle arms, ammunitions and rendered extensive help by money and Armenian volunteers.

Political refugees-Armenians found reliable asylum in our boundary provinces and presently in Caucasus concentrated more than 50 thous. Of such refugees. Half criminals in Eastern Caucasus are Turkish Armenians. Indifference to solidarity of Russian and Turkish Armenian organizations resulted in other dangerous phenomena. During 70years 3-4 generations of opposing government (even if Turkish one), obtaining political perception, trained to idea of potentiality and legality of struggle against government. After closing of Armenian schools in Caucasus, most Armenian youngsters left for Switzerland and Germany, whence returned as ready socialists. Sosializm propaganda was fruitable among Armenian urban residents, because Armenian-town inhabitant hasn’t homeland of which he would be proud, but only bitter consciousness of the fact that his people has been slave and paraside being hated by everyone through already 1300 years. Under such historical legacy and national baggage transition to Internationalism, to propagating connection of Proletarians from all countries looks very easy. There appeared pretext for Armenian revolutionaries. In 1880-1890ies there had been paid attention to harmful character of studying at Armenian schools, noted obvious connection between Echmiadzin parriarch and foreign, as well as local revolutionary organizations, revealed shortages in administration over church and cloister Armenian territories.

In view of general character of policy conducted by Caucasian authorities in that period, these circumstances evoked appearance of certain decrees about Armenian schools, depriving the Patriarch right to personally undertake matters about nuptials, language, oath, church possessions confiscation etc. It was sufficient for rousing Armenian people masses against Russian government. Armenian revolutionary forces by this period had been already enough trained both morally and materially. In leaflets ‘Turkey” word was changed to “Russia”. And just like several years before Armenian subjects of Russia conveyed arms and volunteers to Turkey, so now Turkish Armenians “Fidan” began passing Russian frontier. Presently all Armenian political groups: !) nationalists (old Dashnaktsakans). Their key aim is retaining Armenian tribe, language, religion, potentiality to implement cultural-tribal tasks under the aegis of mighty government; 2) new Dashnaktsakans –all leftist Armenian fractions, from Social democrats to anarchists. They are true masters of situation in Echmiadzin patriarchate.

Conclusions from this shot note are the below ones: !) Armenian people in their mass are absolutely unrevolutionary and confine themselves to minimum economic demands; 2) Armenian people and Armenian public opinion are influenced by a small group of impudent revolutionaries who seized the press, Echmiadzin patriarchate and representation in Duma; 3) servility with respect to the patriarch, compromising government, results in extreme harm.

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

History Institute named after Bakikhanov A.A.
March 11, 2010
Iran’s Growing Role In The South Caucasus

source

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

mete62@inbox.ru

ethnoglobus@rambler.ru

In the aftermath of the Russian-Georgian war, Iran has assumed a greater role in the calculations of all the states of the South Caucasus as well as in the thinking of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel, on the other. Its location alone makes it a key player, especially given the disruptions in trade routes that the war has caused. And its growing power – including its moves toward the acquisition of a nuclear capability if not nuclear weapons – means that it can no longer be ignored.

But precisely what role Iran will be able to play depends not only on its own resources but also on the attitudes of other players, and they are much divided. On the one hand, Russia and Armenia would like to see Tehran brought into discussions about the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and about the formation of the Ankara-proposed Platform for regional security. On the other, the United States and Israel hope to continue to isolate Iran and to use Turkey as their agent in the region, although it appears that the two have dropped any immediate plans to use force against it lest such actions further destabilize the entire region.

Whether Turkey will be willing to be used in this way, of course, is far from clear. It has its own economic interests in the region which are better served by a cooperative relationship with countries nearby rather than by following the lead of its traditional partners further away. And its government is now committed to a more independent foreign policy, one that means it may sometimes support Washington and Jerusalem and sometimes Moscow and Tehran.

But in addition to questions about Turkey’s role in this situation, there is another factor at work. Many outside powers, and the United States in particular, have tended to ignore Iranian moves other than in the nuclear area. And consequently, Tehran has been able to expand its influence under the radar screen not only among Shiite groups across the Middle East but with other governments there that it has long been at odds with. And that is reinforcing its own view of itself as a major regional power.

These new realities appear likely to lead to a correction in the policies of the United States after Barak Obama assumes office. His personal background is generating great hopes for the resolution of Middle Eastern and Iranian problems, including in Tehran. President Ahmadinejad welcomed Obama’s victory as a possible turning point in relations between Washington and Iran.

And there may be changes in the year ahead from within Iran. That country faces a presidential election, and at least some of the key leaders in the country are unhappy with the aggressive approach Ahmadinejad has adopted toward Israel and the United States. Consequently, Iran may prove more open to a new approach, especially if its leaders believe that an end to their diplomatic isolation in the West will pay dividends in the region, such as an invitation to be a participant in discussions about the resolution of local conflicts.

One of the wild cards in this situation is the possibility that the United States and Israel will try to play the Azerbaijani card against Tehran. Nearly a third of Iran’s population consists of ethnic Azerbaijanis. Most of them are well integrated into Iranian life: indeed, the supreme ruler Ayatollah Khamenei is an Azerbaijani. Baku has been reluctant to cooperate with any Western projects in this regard, but the danger exists that efforts by the US (broadcasting) or Israel (agricultural cooperation) could lead the Iranian government to revise its approach to the Caucasus.

And Israel’s interest in developing contacts with the 20,000 Jews of Iran, combined with its close relations to Baku could also play a role in changing Iran’s approach, possibly in quite unpredictable ways in the coming months. Interestingly, the Jewish community in Azerbaijan is also keen to make its contribution to the further developments in the region. In this context, the following appeal of the chairman of the religious community The Jews of Azerbaijan, Director General of the Jewish educational complex Habad or-Avner, and the chief rabbi of the Ashkenazim Jews of Azerbaijan Meier Bruk to Iran’s ambassador in Baku, Nasiri Hamidi Zare, is a logical extension of the actions of the other Jewish organizations in the broader region:

“The development of relations between the two countries has always been based on mutually profitable and vitally necessary conditions and as a rule the principles of public diplomacy have provided the foundation of these ties… In the Islamic Republic of Iran are living a sufficiently large Jewish community, and according to reports by its members, all the conditions for fruitful activity exist….” Also, the Jewish educational complex Habad or-Avner whose construction began in 2007 in Azerbaijan is envisaged to have an intake of Jewish students from the entire region, including Iran.

In this situation, because it enjoys good relations with both, Azerbaijan has the chance to serve as an intermediary between the West and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran and other Muslim countries, on the other; or it might be expected to in one quarter or another, expectations that could drive policies as well.

March 3, 2010