Tag: Nagorno-Karabakh

  • 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 – 

  • Why does Iran support Armenia about Karabakh issue?

    Why does Iran support Armenia about Karabakh issue?

    The balance in Caucasia that shifted with the collapse of the Soviet Union caused a big change in the foreign policy vision of the states in the region. While examining the problems that emerged between republics, which gained their sovereignty, it is possible to see the changes in foreign policy of neighboring countries. (more…)

  • Washington must concentrate on achieving breakthrough on Karabakh

    Washington must concentrate on achieving breakthrough on Karabakh

    ISTANBUL. – Washington should focus on a breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which will be followed by Turkey-Armenia reconciliation as a consequence, former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza said in an interview with Turkish Hurriyet Daily News.

    92904According to him, it is possible to work on a framework agreement on Karabakh.

    “Once you work hard to get the framework agreement, make clear you will do everything possible to make sure the framework becomes a final peace agreement,” he stated.

    Bryza also stressed that the sides are extremely close to a breakthrough.

    “There are a couple of core, key details that can only be agreed upon if the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan make a very difficult and risky political decision. They would not do that until they feel they receive political support from the U.S. and France,” he said.

    In response to the question if Washington is interested in Karabakh conflict settlement, Bryza said there is willingness, based on his conversation with the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton.

    via Washington must concentrate on achieving breakthrough on Karabakh – Bryza | Armenia News – NEWS.am.

  • Sign the petition for Khojaly Massacre

    Sign the petition for Khojaly Massacre

     

    hm gov

    Responsible department: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    On the 26th February Azerbaijan mourns the 20th Anniversary of one of the darkest days in its history. On this day in 1992 Armenian military forces brutally murdered 613 civilian inhabitants of the town of Khojaly in the illegally occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Twenty years after this fateful day we remember those who died during events which led up to the illegal occupation of around 18% of Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory, which still continues to this day in direct contravention of four UN Security Council Resolutions. We the undersigned urge the Prime Minister to condemn this shocking act and the continuing Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories which prevents the survivors from returning to their homes.

     

    Sign the petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27069

     

  • Armenia turned into puppet

    Armenia turned into puppet

    News.Az interviews Alaeddin Yalchinkaya, head of international relations department of Turkish Sakarya University, professor.

    Can political activeness of Turkey in Caucasus and Middle East cause negative reaction from Russia?
    Reflecting the level of relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan the slogan “One nation, two states” should not bother anyone. The continuation of occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia, with Russian support, is the result of a policy of hostility not only against Azerbaijan, but also other people of the region at the head of Armenia.

    As a result, the biggest harm comes to Armenia itself which is in the situation of a puppet. Such policy of Russia poses a threat to the security of Turkey and Azerbaijan. In this regard, Turkey has to play a more active role in the light of historical, cultural and religious realities in the region.
    What chances and opportunities does Turkey have to get further involved in processes of the South Caucasus including the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
    No other country guarantees final decision or control of the problem. Every state, every leader must analyze the extent of the problem, and not to overestimate the strength of the country. Overestimation of real strength may pave the way to tragedies but at the same time, disuse of this power when there is an opportunity may become a beginning of loss.

    The main geopolitical activity of Turkey in the Middle East, the Balkans and Turkish world, as well as in Caucasus is a search of such opportunities. The historical lie is Turkey allegedly opened its airspace to occupational and slanderous Armenia. It should not expect any smallest steps from the Turkish side unless it stops spreading such lies. Such expectations that we gave to Armenians opened a way to the fact that problems have remained unsettled for many years. This will continue if we give Armenia such kind of expectation.
    Does the fact that Armenian-Turkish protocols were removed from the agenda of Turkish Parliament mean that policy of Turkish government on ‘zero problems with neighbors’ failed?
    Slogans that ‘we don’t want presence of any problems in the region’ and ‘we want to solve all problems by peaceful means’ continue to bring points to Turkey. But positioning itself in foreign policy as a country, wishing to settle all problems which were not settled by previous leaders of states, led to formation of an opinion in the world that Turkey pursues unfair and belligerent policy. In addition, in terms of Armenia’s aggressive, occupational and slanderous policy, Turkey in the past didn’t give strong statements which led to the loss of support from the opposition of the country and international community. However, I would like to know that Turkey needs to yield support from friendly and neutral countries.

    Underestimating Armenian claims in Turkey is the result of a propaganda conducted in this sphere. Awareness of the delusiveness of “zero problems with neighbors” policy led to the fact that relations with Azerbaijan didn’t become victim of this policy.
    How do you assess the importance of decision of the Turkish Parliament to return Armenian-Turkish protocols to the agenda?
    The return of protocols to the agenda of the parliament is connected with procedures in the legislative body. They were brought back to the agenda along with 166 documents concerning international relations. However, it remains unknown whether they were brought back with the demand of the US. Along with this, the return of the protocols to the agenda may be a tactical step to neutralize Armenian diaspora which is activated each spring in connection with 1915 event. But anyway, it’s clear that Armenia will not ratify these protocols and Turkey will not take any action in this direction.

    21 December 2011
    F.H. News.Az