Tag: South Azerbaijan

South Azerbaijanis as a new bargaining chip in resolving the Iranian problem

Gulnara Inanch, director Online International Information and Analytical center Ethnoglobus.az, related info turkishnews.com, mete62@inbox.ru

On 12 and 13 April Ankara (Turkey) hold a forum of South Azerbaijanis. Public Forum was organized by the Organization of the Azerbaijanis in Turkey.
Director of the Center for Strategic Studies of Caucasian (Kafkassam) Dr. Hasan Oktay in an exclusive interview with AMI “News-Azerbaijan,” commented on the question of what was the purpose of this forum, and whyTurkey, afterIsrael, started paying attention to the issue ofSouth Azerbaijan.
– What are the goals of establishing in Turkey World Azerbaijani Congress (WAC)?
– World Azerbaijanis Congress has been active within recent years. Along with this, there are a number of similar structures. The Republic of Azerbaijan, developing close ties with the diasporas, through them, tries to promote the interests of the state. The successes of the Armenian and Jewish diasporas, which were taken as an example for Azerbaijan, has not yet borne fruit. It led to the occurrence of new organizations seeking funding proportions allocated for Azerbaijan, among them there is just a competition. This is the reason for creation of different organizations under the name of the World Azerbaijanis Congress (WAC). One can see that these different organizations, working with Jewish organizations in exchange for financial support create good relations between Jewish Organizations and southern Azerbaijanis.
Analogical efforts are short-term efforts. Here the main goal is money.
In order to get financing, WAC is divided into four parts. Israel also believes that through these organizations, establishes relationships with Iranian Azerbaijanis.
– The new Congress is established in Turkey, and what do you think, does it mean that Ankara, tries to take control of the organization of Iranian Azeris, like most of the world Azerbaijanism?
– We try to present the problem of Azerbaijan and southern Azerbaijanis to world community, in neutral and scientific manner. There are 35 million South Azerbaijanis in Iran and 9 million people live in the Republic of Azerbaijan. If we also add here the diasporas, then the number of Azeri Turks will be around 50 million people. Kafkassam, speaking more than a party, take into account the factor of this large ethnic group in the Caucasus, is trying to promote its activation and efficiency. Azerbaijan is trying to unite the world Azerbaijanis. At the same time carrying out activities in this direction not in Azerbaijan but in Turkey indicates the intention to rely on the strength of this country.
Therefore, the union of the forces ofAzerbaijan andTurkey in the diaspora, politics will be more effective. IfTurkey does not support this initiative ofAzerbaijan,Azerbaijan can expect disappointment. This is nothing more than an initiative. Such initiatives should be involved only non-governmental organizations.
– Jewish organizations and individuals representing Israel expanded the campaign to protect the rights of South Azerbaijanis. Do the Turkish non-governmental organizations coordinate the activities of Jewish organizations in this matter?
– The Iran-Israel tension covers a wide geographic region. This conflict will affect non-Persian ethnic as the elements of living in Iran.
Southern Azerbaijanis, as the most important element, coming to the first plan.
The main factor of the war is the exclusion of war opponents and forcing it into the peace on their own terms. It can be either by force or by using other methods, including outreach to compel the enemy to the peace negotiations.
Therefore, it is natural for Israel to use all non-military ways of forcing Iran to the peace. Southern Azerbaijanis and therefore go on the agenda.
Unfortunately, carrying on the agenda of the Iranian Azerbaijanis, are not considered internal conditions and other factors of Iran.
Azerbaijanis do not have to turn to the elements, such as the Kurds of Iraq, inviting Americans to the occupation of their homeland.
As a result, the future of the Kurds in Iraq is in doubt.
In its contacts with the Iranian Azeris we remind them of the Kurds, in what situation they were in the invasion of Americans in Iran.
They are warned to be more attentive to the issue of military operations in Iran.
Affirmation of Azerbaijanis as a significant element of Iranian democracy, it is very important from the perspective of the region’s future.
– Meanwhile, an Israeli social activist Avigdor Eskin is carrying out campaign with a group of Russian experts, including ethnic Jews for the rights of Iranian Azerbaijanis. It is believed that by this way, Israel and Jewish organizations, by protecting the rights of Iran’s Azeri nationalists, are trying to manipulate them. How can you comment on this campaign?
– We are closely watching activity of Avigdor Eskin. This is passing interest. Some Azeris are trying to capitalize on this partnership. They have no place in the South Azerbaijani politics. Azeri Turks of Iran will not get into the situation of the Kurds of Iraq. Israel should not turn into an instrument of Azeri Turks in a war with Iran. But it is a psychological operation. Israel, being in confrontation with Iran will use all non-military tools. The easiest of which are the Azerbaijani Turks.
Can Iran be drawn into a civil war in South Azerbaijan? This is the most important point on which most anti-Iranian forces sharpened. Unfortunately, many Iranian Azerbaijanis were forced to leave the country under pressure from the authorities, not finding shelter, are drawn into these games. It comes from the frustration of South Azerbaijanis. But such attempts have no chance to share Iran.
Southern Azerbaijanis, fighting for their basic rights and freedoms in Iran, can achieve the rule of democracy in the region. The biggest problem of Iran is the lack of democracy. Democratic Iran is a favorable country for South Azerbaijanis living here. Iran is the birthplace of South Azerbaijanis. Before the 1924 Iranian Turks were in power in Iran. Problems of Iranian Turks can be solved in a democracy.
Iran must take this into account. IfTehran continues to use unequal policy against Azerbaijanis, then later on the agenda may withdraw part ofIran. Iran, instead of the disturbances should be made available to Azerbaijanis for their rights.
– For a long time there are discussion on the possibility of abolishing the Committee on Diaspora in Azerbaijan and the creation of the department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in charge of the Diaspora. Because world organizations of Azerbaijan, in contrast to diaspora organizations of other nations, equal in Baku, between the creation of the World Azerbaijanis Congress and the rumors of the Committee on the Elimination of the Diaspora can be traced some connection …
– Azerbaijan Diaspora issues created considering Armenian activity. If Azerbaijan is going to really control the diaspora in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is quite normal. Because Armenia under the name of Diaspora Ministry manages the Armenian Diaspora. Individual Azerbaijanis in many places, act as opponents to the Azerbaijani authorities that concerned the official Baku.
Therefore, the intention of diaspora activities in the government structures is natural. But if we consider the terms of the diaspora and its benefits to the Azerbaijani authorities, it does not lead to a very healthy results. Providing diaspora freedom and support their activities will be more useful to Azerbaijani state.
– How are Iranian issues seen from Turkey?
– Iran is a large and specific country. Iran has invisible influence over Azerbaijan: no matter what angle Azerbaijan is interested in the South Azerbaijanis, Iran through the southern Azeris can create problems for Baku. Iran, by supporting Armenia in the Garabagh conflict may close the path of Azerbaijan interest in his Iranian compatriots. In the Iranian-Azerbaijani relations there are a lot of unresolved issues. Iran has every opportunity to use them in their favor.
Settlement of status of the Caspian Sea is also in the hands ofIran andAzerbaijan can not use the pool to the fullest. InTurkey, where it is easy to operate non-governmental organizations, it is easier to carry out the activities of the South Azerbaijanis.
– Will the World Azerbaijanis Congress be engaged in protecting the rights of South Azerbaijanis?
– Keep in mind the sensitivity of Iran in this regard. Turkey initially experienced difficulty with the name “Friends of Syria” which has not yet dissipated.
Excessive activity of WAC on the South-Azerbaijani issue, considering the sensitivity of Azerbaijan in the region, could prompt Iran to the use of leverage. We have to consider these issues and power of damage.
Of course, it is necessary to maintain the democratic rights of South Azerbaijanis, but that interest should not be a tool to invade Iran.
During a meeting with Iran on any platform, social, political and social demands of the southern Azeris should be tabled. Azerbaijan does not need to pass the constitutional framework. Features pressure Iran on Azerbaijan is based on probabilities. Do not ignore this reality, as it may become unhappy adventure.

– From what prism does Turkey consider the rights of Iranian Azerbaijanis and how does Turkey plan to use these plans?
– First, Turkey, in principle, rejects the interference in the internal affairs of its neighbors. Along with this, Turkey considers the rights of South Azerbaijanis in the framework of democracy and the Iranian laws, on all platforms met with Iranian officials. Thousands of Iranian Turks emigrated to Turkey, whose fate is closely interested in the Turkish authorities. South Azerbaijanis came to Turkey with some hope which facilitate the work of Turkey, and at the same time made it more difficult. It is easy, because Turkey has control over the subject, and in a lawful manner to protect the rights of Iranian Azerbaijanis, who emigrated to the country. Difficulties in the fact that Iran is afraid that Turkey by the help of Iranian Turks will try to interfere in their internal affairs. This creates a problem for Turkey.
Turkey defends the legal rights of their fellow residents in this location, without interfering in the internal affairs of its neighbors. And this protection will continue.
The requirement of the South Azerbaijanis allowing them to live in human conditions is a fair request. Iran can no longer delay in granting them this right. Otherwise, it will give his enemies a big trump card and this card will forever be used.

May 11, 2012
WE NEED SCHOOLS IN TURKMEN LANGUAGE!

WE NEED TO BE LITERATE, WE NEED SCHOOLS IN TURKMEN LANGUAGE!

According to some reports, Ayatollah Montazeri who had been prevented from replacing the leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, wanted an educational opportunity in Turkish language and invited the leaders of the Islamic Republic to grant Turks their basic rights.

All nations, Turkmen, Azeri Turks, Kashghai Turks, Arabs, Baluchis or Kurds, living in Iran, have had to live under the oppression of a group of chauvinists for eighty years. The regime of the Islamic Republic is not at all more different than regimes of kingdom. The traitor Pahlavi regime tried to represent the multi-national country of Iran as a country of Persians, deceiving the world with historical lies.

The Islamic Republic has not given the rights of the nations, either. On the contrary, it established an oppressive and extreme religious Shiite regime and embedded hatred among the nations. This regime added religious and sectarian discrimination to the lingual and ethnic discrimination. Thus, the chauvinists have had a much more perfect record!

Turkmens were slaughtered because they screamed the slogan “We need to be literate; we need schools in Turkmen language”. Azeri Turks were imprisoned and tortured since they wanted “madrassas in Turkish language”. Baluchis were executed because they insisted on protecting their own traditions, language and sects and…

Now, according to some information, a Shiite leader wanted free education in Turkish in Iran and said that nobody could exploit a religion and race as a right to be superior to others!

Although it is a bit late, the fact that Ayatollah Montazeri defends the rights of Iranian Turks deserves appreciation. Iranian Turks constitutes nearly the half of the country’s population. Azerbaijani Turks, Turkmens, Kashghais and the others have been struggling for years to gain their rights. A Turkmen child and the children of an Azerbaijani Turk, Kashghai, Arabic, Kurdish and Baluchi should be able to call their mothers as not “madar” but “ene, ana, um, mat”. It is a natural right of all oppressed nations to wish to maintain their traditions, languages and cultures, and deprivation from this right is racial discrimination and genocide. The Iranian regime has now become the symbol of racial, lingual, sectarian, political, cultural, social and sexual discrimination.

The fact that Ayatollah Montazeri defends the rights of Iranian Turks is appreciated but is not enough. Ending the oppression can merely be possible through the complete annihilation of the factor that causes the oppression. The oppressed nations of Iran fight for to this end and they will reach their right by exterminating this regime that has deprived them of the rights of life, language, sect and gender.

As Turkmensahra Liberation Organization, we believe that rights cannot be gained only through words. Turkmen population will maintain their fight until they have gained all their rights.

سازمان آزادیبخش ترکمن صحرا – تورکمن صحرا آزادلیق قوراماسی

TURKMENSAHRA AZADLYK GURAMASY

TURKMENSAHRA LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

November 7, 2009
Azerbaijan: the next flashpoint between the U.S. and Iran

by Maksud Djavadov

“The most widely propagated idea by the state controlled media in Azerbaijan is not the liberation of occupied Karabakh but the “unification” of Tabriz with the Republic of Azerbaijan: essentially, the partition of Iran. In the coming years, if not sooner it will not be surprising to witness Azerbaijan as the next U.S. theatre from which political, social and economic pressure will be exerted on Iran. The U.S. knows that Azerbaijan is Iran’s vulnerable spot.”

Iran has played an important role in the crucial events affecting global politics for at least 3,000 years. At no time in history, however, has Iran been more important in global politics than since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Some historians might contend that during the rule of Cambyses II in 530 bc, Persia was at its peak because of the vast territory it controlled and the great power it wielded. But the Persia of those days was only first among equals. Indeed it controlled vast territory but it was a pagan state ruled by an absolute monarch with a hierarchy of social values and a political system similar to most other existing states at the time.

Thus, it was simply part of an established political order lacking its own unique character and an alternative system. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 is radically different because it challenged the Western-imposed political order by demolishing many key pillars of its control through the implementation of an alternative system of governance. At no time since the victory of the Islamic Revolution has Iran been more of a challenge to the colonial powers, especially the U.S., than it is now. This challenge manifests itself at different levels globally. The next most probable point where this confrontation will heat up will be the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-Iran confrontation in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq must be briefly analyzed in order to understand the potential for a new flashpoint. Before its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan the U.S. did not have direct military presence in regional conflicts. Prior to 9/11 the U.S. was mostly involved through its proxies, namely the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia. The only occasion when it became directly involved in a Middle Eastern conflict before the invasion of Afghanistan was the Gulf War of 1991, but even then Washington tried to reduce its involvement by making other countries pay 85% of the total war bill of $61 billion and by not marching on Baghdad.

After 9/11, the U.S. became a direct party to conflicts in the region. Many US officials thought that after invading and occupying Afghanistan, that borders Iran, Washington would gain the upper hand vis-a-vis Iran. In reality, the U.S. weakened its most powerful anti-Iranian partner in Afghanistan, namely the pro-Wahhabi movement of the Taliban. After the fall of the Taliban, Iran quickly moved into Afghanistan by investing over $600 million into the reconstruction of Afghanistan and strengthening the Hizb-e Wahdat Party, which shares similar ideals to that of Islamic Iran. Tehran also engaged selected elements in the newly formed Afghan government and secured some support. Through careful use of ideological and cultural bonds that unify the people of Iran and Afghanistan, Tehran managed to isolate the U.S. both politically and socially in Afghanistan. Washington tried to correct and compensate for its failure to pressure Iran through Afghanistan by occupying Iraq.

Official thinking in Washington was that by deposing Saddam Husain so easily and installing a new government, the U.S. would whip up Arab and Kurdish nationalist sentiment to exert pressure on Iran. Again the U.S. failed to see the strong Islamic bond between Muslims in Iraq and Iran. Elimination of the former U.S. ally Saddam, created a political, economic and social vacuum in Iraq. Islamic movements who shared the same political and existential ideals of Islamic Iran quickly filled the vacuum. Once again, the U.S. became isolated politically and socially and had to rely entirely on its military to pressure Iran. However, after targeting those forces the US deemed “pro-Iranian” and triggering Islamic resistance spearheaded by the Mahdi Army, the US realized the limits of its power due to its political and social isolation and halted its military offensive. The U.S. desperation forced its military and intelligence services to establish links with former al-Qaeda members. This new structure came to be known as al-Sahwa whose main purpose was and remains countering political movements in Iraq that are not hostile to Iran. This also backfired and the mighty “superpower” was for the first time accused by its allies in the region of incompetence due to its inability to fully control former al-Qaeda members. Nevertheless, the U.S. has not given up on its desire to dominate the region.

The U.S. launched its most desperate attempt to make up for losses against Islamic Iran by supporting Israel’s July 2006 aggression in Lebanon. Again, the US plan implemented by the Zionist military suffered a historic defeat at the hands of Hizbullah’s valiant resistance. The U.S. is currently trying to make up for its defeat by instigating armed conflict in Lebanon. This too is doomed to fail because of Hizbullah’s popularity among all segments of Lebanese society owing to its courageous defence of Lebanese territorial integrity.

The foregoing review brings us to the next point where another U.S.-Iran conflict, this time in Azerbaijan, is a strong possibility. No two countries bond more strongly religiously, culturally and historically than Iran and Azerbaijan. Although ethnic Azeris inhabit a large part of Iran where they have always played a key role in various aspect of the Islamic Republic, Tehran appears not to have paid as much attention to securing its interests in Azerbaijan as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. Azerbaijan is the only country where Iran’s interests are vulnerable while the U.S. has struck deals with Baku to secure its interests. Azerbaijan alone openly supports the presence of forces hostile to Islamic Iran despite no direct U.S. military presence on its soil. Anti-Iranian forces are protected by the current regime in Azerbaijan. All other strategic locations bordering Iran that host opponents of Islamic Iran, also host U.S. military personnel because the proxy governments alone are not able to fully secure American interests. This is not the case in Azerbaijan.

Over the years, the U.S. has built two radar stations in Azerbaijan. The first is located north of Baku while the second is near Azerbaijan’s southern border with Iran in the region of Astara. Officially, the American sponsored radars are designed to monitor the movement of weapons of mass destruction; unofficially, they are there to spy on Iran. The current Azeri regime has been a staunch supporter of U.S. strategic advances in the region. Baku supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by contributing troops and therefore conferring legitimacy on the fiction that the US had international support. Apart from siding with Iran’s political rivals, the Azeri regime that maintains tight control over the media has also been bolstering anti-Iranian sentiment inside Azerbaijan for over a decade.

The most recent example was the anti-Iranian propaganda played out on September 3, 2007. From this date onward, major Azeri media sources continuously reported “breaking news” about alleged Iranian citizens serving with armed gangs of Armenian nationalists in Karabakh. The propaganda portraying Iran as an ally of the occupation forces in Karabakh is an old stunt, but one that has a strong effect. Iran has so far not countered even such false reports by simply reminding the Azeris that it was Iran that aided the arrival of 1,300 Afghan volunteers to fight for Azerbaijan during the war with Armenia. The Azeri regime blocks all information that may show Iran as a friend of the Azeri people.

On the political landscape in Azerbaijan, Iran lacks the kind of allies it has in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Most socio-political NGOs in Azerbaijan and the so-called political “opposition” groups are funded by the U.S. and its allies. However, any contact between Azeri socio-political movements with Islamic institutions in Iran is immediately branded as espionage by the Baku regime and the people involved are punished harshly. In addition to the government’s systematic policies against Islamic Iran, the regime has also managed to create a strong sense of Iranophobia in a small, but significant portion of Azeri society.

The U.S. knows that unlike Iraq where Iran has the support of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Lebanon where Hizbullah is a committed ally of Iran, in Azerbaijan Iran has few allies to counter U.S. pressure. Perhaps there is inadequate realization in Tehran that the Azeri government has supported all of the strategically important U.S. policies aimed at exerting pressure on Iran. The most widely propagated idea by the state controlled media in Azerbaijan is not the liberation of occupied Karabakh but the “unification” of Tabriz with the Republic of Azerbaijan: essentially, the partition of Iran. In the coming years, if not sooner it will not be surprising to witness Azerbaijan as the next U.S. theatre from which political, social and economic pressure will be exerted on Iran. The U.S. knows that Azerbaijan is Iran’s vulnerable spot.

Source: usa.mediamonitors.net/, October 4, 2009)

October 5, 2009
Stalin Planned to Annex Parts of Iran, Turkey and China Using Molotov-Ribbentrop ‘Model,’ Azerbaijani Scholar Says

Paul Goble

Vienna, August 31 – Stalin viewed the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which allowed Moscow to seize the Baltic countries, Bessarabia, and part of Poland as “a model” for the subsequent annexation of portions of Iran, Turkey and China, an Azerbaijani scholar has suggested.
And while the Soviet dictator did not succeed in doing so in any of these cases, largely because of Stalin’s dependence on the West after Hitler invaded his former ally in June 1941 and because of Western opposition in each, the existence of these plans demolishes the arguments of those who insist that the pact was only a defensive rather than also an offensive accord.
In an analysis of recent research on these questions posted on the 1news.az site over the weekend, Jeyhun Najafov calls attention to an aspect of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that has attracted little attention during this year’s debate on the 70th anniversary of the accord between Hitler and Stalin (1news.az/analytics/20090829104314684.html).
As almost all sides in that debate concede, the secret protocol attached to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact put part of Poland, Finland, Bessarabia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in Moscow’s sphere of influence, opening the way for the Soviet Union to expand it borders to the West.
Stalin’s supporters argue that this was a defensive maneuver, designed to protect the Soviet Union from what the Soviet dictator assumed would be an eventual German attack on the USSR, while critics of Stalin argue that the Soviet agreement with the Nazis was simply about the territorial aggrandizement of Stalin’s empire.
Research conducted by Dzhakhangir Nadzhafov, a scholar at the Moscow Institute of General History, clearly shows that Stalin’s critics have the better argument, given that documents he published in Moscow’s “Voprosy istorii” show that Stalin planned to use the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as “a model” for annexing other neighboring regions.
Not surprisingly, Nadzhafov focused on Stalin’s plans to annex the northern regions of Iran, the population of which was and remains predominantly ethnically Azerbaijani, but he also explored the Soviet dictator’s plans to annex the Xinjiang Region of China and some of the eastern districts of Turkey.
In 1941, Nadzhafov wrote, Mirdzhafar Bagirov, the Communist Party boss of Azerbaijan, invoking Stalin, said that “in Iran it is necessary to undertake the tactic and strategy of the model of uniting Polish territories to Ukraine and Belorussia,” an indication that Moscow’s plans for annexing portions of Iran were “practically ready.”
Additional evidence of the way in which Stalin viewed the secret protocols as a model concerns Xinjiang and the eastern portions of Turkey, Nadzhafov pointed out. “The Politburo planned to annex completely the Turkish districts of Kars, Ardahan and part of Avdina and divide the 26,500 square kilometers of territory between Armenia and Georgia.
Moscow had also defined the exact dimension of the territory of Iran that would be united with the Azerbaijan SSR, so all three of the republics of the South Caucasus would have expanded significantly, Armenia by 80 percent, Georgia by eight percent, and Azerbaijan more than doubled.
The Politburo was so committed to these territorial transfers and so certain that it they would take place that it had the foreign ministry work up the necessary documents and had decided on both the exact dates – the Iranian provinces were to be absorbed on November 7, 1941 – and the names of the Communist officials who would be assigned to these places.
Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 put all these plans on hold. Stalin needed Western assistance, and much of it flowed through Iran. As a result, the British insisted that Moscow recognize the territorial integrity of that country, something the Soviet Union did in a trilateral agreement with the US and the United Kingdom in January 1942.
But as Soviet forces moved westward and victory over Hitler seemed assumed, Moscow appears to have taken up the Southern Azerbaijan project once again, not only because many ethnic Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border were interested but because of the growing importance of oil, large amounts of which were located in this region.
Toward that end, the Soviets created the Democratic Republic of Southern Azerbaijan, a regime backed by the present of Red Army troops. But after the end of World War II, those troops were withdrawn, and the Soviet-backed puppet government of Southern Azerbaijan collapsed.
As Najafov noted in his article on Saturday, “certain [Azerbaijani] scholars connect the fall of the Democratic Republic of Southern Azerbaijan with what they see as a manifestation of the negative attitude toward Azerbaijan by Stalin, Beria, Mikoyan” and other Soviet leaders. But, the journalist says, such conclusions “do not have any basis in fact.”
Instead, he writes, “the Western powers considered that Stalin and the Soviet leadership had received an enormous zone of influence in Europe and therefore must not be permitted in any way to expand into Central Asia.” Indeed, Najafov argues, “the West was united on this question.”
“For Azerbaijanis,” he says, Southern Azerbaijan “was a question of the future of the nation. For the USSR, Iranian Azerbaijan was about the annexation of new territories, but for the West this was the expansion of communism.” And the West, possibly according to some accounts using the threat of a nuclear attack against the USSR, was not prepared to tolerate that.
But however that may be – and this question is still a matter of dispute – the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact not only was the product of a far more aggressive Soviet policy than its defenders want to admit but also cast a larger and more ugly shadow than even the victims and opponents of the Hitler-Stalin accord had thought.

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/08/window-on-eurasia-stalin-planned-to.html

August 31, 2009
IRAN: AZERIS CAUTIOUS ABOUT SUPPORTING NATIVE SON MOUSAVI

Shahin Abbasov 6/23/09

Iran’s ethnic Azeri community numbers roughly 15-20 million, or almost a quarter of the country’s overall population. Most Azeris harbor deep feelings of resentment toward Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration in Tehran, and they are believed to have voted strongly for the aggrieved presidential challenger, Mir Hussein Mousavi, who is himself an Azeri from Tabriz. Even so, most Azeris remain unwilling to take an active part in the continuing battle for control of Iran’s social and economic agenda.

Mousavi’s lackluster record on promoting civil rights for minority groups in Iran is the main reason why many Azeris are currently sitting on the sidelines. Iranian Azeris see little to gain from getting involved. Regardless of the outcome of the power struggle in Tehran and Qom, few Azeris expect that their quality of life will improve significantly.

Yashar Hakkakpour, spokesperson for the Association for the Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners in Iran, an unofficial organization based in Tabriz, explains that Azeri activists see no advantage to be gained from pushing for Mousavi, or opposing Ahmadinejad.

“The Tehran-based organizations that back Mousavi do not report on the activists arrested in Azeri cities. Persian-language media ignores minorities. Why would Azeris support their cause?” asked Hakkakpour in a telephone interview from Van, Turkey. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

“It does not mean that Azeris support the current regime,” he added. “They just do not see a big difference.”

That situation, argues another activist, explains why the reaction to events by Azeris in Azerbaijan proper has been relatively muted. For example, there have been no pro-Mousavi protests staged outside the Iranian Embassy in Baku.

One Tabriz-based Azeri cultural rights activist concurred with Hakkakpour. “We [ethnic Azeris] have decided not to interfere in the confrontation between the regime and Mousavi,” said the activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The activist pointed out that some prominent Mousavi backers today endorsed the use of coercive measures to contain Azeri protests in Tabriz and other cities in 2006. The protests erupted after an Iranian youth magazine published a cartoon in which an Azeri was depicted as a cockroach.

While most Azeris may not feel inclined to publicly display support for Mousavi, some did take to the streets following the June 12 rigged presidential election. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Media outlets in Azerbaijan reported that five people were killed and dozens injured in mass protests on June 13 and June 15 in Tabriz and Orumieh, the capitals of Iran’s East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan provinces, respectively. [For additional information click here].

In general, many areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities — not just East and West Azerbaijan, but also Kurdistan, Baluchistan and Khuzestan — have been quiet amid the post-election tumult in Tehran. Minority groups, including Azeris, Arabs, Kurds and Baluchis, have long resented systematic discrimination carried out by authorities in Tehran, in particular restrictions on cultural and linguistic rights. But they don’t see the present crisis as an opportunity to seek redress for their grievances.

Hardliners in Tehran are doing all in their power to make sure ethnic minorities don’t become more active. The ethnic minority issue is a potential powder keg for Iran, and if it were to blow up at this time, it could completely alter the nature of the country’s power struggle. Just as hardliners have flooded Tehran with security forces, they have placed the regional capitals of ethnic minority enclaves under lockdown conditions. Hardliners also reportedly told the Mousavi camp that security forces would take drastic action if it appeared that the opposition was trying to stir up trouble among ethnic minority groups.

During the presidential election campaign, both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad promised to expand civil rights for Azeris. Ahmadinejad, who claimed to speak Turkish, promised to allow Azeri-language classes in universities and schools, the Tabriz source told EurasiaNet. Mousavi, meanwhile, promised to designate Azeri as Iran’s second official language and to grant greater financial autonomy to Azeri-populated regions.

But few Azeris treated these campaign pledges as anything more than empty rhetoric. “Every election, candidates come to Tabriz, Orumieh and other cities and make similar promises. However, once they win the elections, they immediately forget their promises,” Hakkakpour said.

“Mousavi during his entire career has never shown concern about [Azeri language rights and pressure on ethnic Azeris] and there were no signs he is willing to bring changes,” added Agri Garadagli, an Azeri activist now living in exile in Baku as the spokesperson for the South Azerbaijani National Awakening Movement.

Editor’s Note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance correspondent based in Baku. He is also a board member of the Open Society Institute-Azerbaijan.

Posted June 23, 2009 © Eurasianet

June 25, 2009
A Brief Report on Azerbaijanis in Iran Prepared by The World Azerbaijanis Congress June 1st, 2009 To Switzerland Parliament members and United Nations High Commission on Human Rights
01 June, 2009

by Professor Gholam-Reza Sabri-Tabrizi, President of World Azerbaijanis Congress

Cartoon showing an Azerbaijani Turkish-speaking cockroach, from a Tehran-based government-owned periodical called 'Iran' newspaper

The Special Representative of Switzerland Parliament members and The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights

The situation on Islamic Republic of Iran, With special reference to South Azerbaijan,

First, we deeply appreciate your giving us an opportunity to bring our peoples’ deep grievances to your attention. We also would like to thank you for defending all those whose basic and ethnic human rights have been grossly violated, especially millions of Azerbaijani Turks that have been exposed to forced assimilation and Persianization. We hope you will give due voice to over 30 million Azerbaijanis in your reports to the UN General Assembly. Helping us in our efforts to fight the systematic destruction of ethnic identities will promote freedom and equality worldwide. Only if you report these injustices to the world community can proper actions be taken to terminate the systematic destruction of ethnic identity and gross violation of human rights in Iran over the last 70 years. Azerbaijanis are looking for your help.

Iran is a multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual country. Persians (Farsis), Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijani Turks), Kurds, Arabs, Loris, Beluchies and Turkomans have lived in Iran for thousands of years. Until the 1920s, they all retained and promoted their unique culture, history and language, without harming each other’s identities. However, the inception of the Pahlavi dynasty’s supremacist policy in the 20s has endangered this semi-harmonious way of life.

With his alleged national unity policy, Reza Shah Pahlavi designed a plan, forcing all non-Persians to sacrifice their ethnic identity and language, in order to fulfill his vision of purely Persian Iran.
Unfortunately, his successors, including the Islamic Republic, followed and perfected his inhumane conduct. Subsequent results have been brutal against all persons not of Persian descent. Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Loris, Beluchis, Arabs and Turkomans have been under tremendous Persianization.

Iran’s reformist leader, President Khatami, deceived the global community with his talk of “dialogue between civilizations,” meanwhile suppressing the people of Iran by ignoring Human Rights in general and Azerbaijani Turks in particular. However the reaction of World Human Rights’ organizations to this assimilation and rather cultural genocide has been very slow and ineffective due to lack of objective information from South Azerbaijan (Iran).

More than 30 million Azerbaijanis are on the verge of losing their language and rich cultural heritage, which they have preserved for thousands of years. They are paying heavy tolls to obtain Iran’s purported “national unity.” This “national unity” with “Islamic” and fanatically supported theocratic government is determined to annihilate Azerbaijani national and ethnic identity, the Iranian government has participated in forced assimilation and other methods of Persianization to create a monolingual “national unity.” We would like to briefly highlight some of them:

Policy on Language

The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran in the article 15 claims: “The state and common language and script of Iran is Persian. Documents. Correspondence, official texts and text books shall be in this language and script. However, the use of local and ethnic language in the press and for the mass media and the teaching of their literature shall be allowed, besides the Persian language.”

The Constitution Revolution in 1905-1911, the Democratic movement in 1945-46 and subsequent agreement by the Iranian government to guarantee ethnic rights as well as the constitution of Islamic Republic have for some degree taken ethnic grievances into consideration. However, the Iranian governments have all been against honoring their promises and the constitution.

The Iranian government has banned the Azerbaijani Turkish language in schools. Education is available only in the Persian language. Many first grade school children struggle to understand school books written in Persian. Those children unaccustomed to Persian suffer high drop out rates. To prevent this, some parents teach their children Persian as their primary language, rather than their native Azerbaijani Turkish. Said Persian instruction usually comes at the expense of children’s mastery of Azerbaijani Turkish, thus children are encouraged to replace Persian with their mother tongue for social and job advancement.

Television and radio broadcasts help to propagate the hybridized Azerbaijani Turkish, considered a local language. So-called “local languages,” however, are rarely used and thus marginalized, with Persian predominating Iranian media. Azerbaijani Turkish, in fact, has no place in Islamic Republic’s media.

Discrimination operates in other ways, as well. In cities like Tabriz, where Azerbaijanis comprise more than 99% of the population, the judiciary and government systems still must operate solely in Persian. Incredulously, proceedings for a lawsuit comprised of a Azerbaijani plaintiff and an Azerbaijani defendant in a Azerbaijani city, with an Azerbaijani judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer, must be conducted in, not Azerbaijani Turkish, but Persian.

The Iranian government’s destruction of language is one part of the multi-pronged attack to eliminate Azerbaijani ethnic identity. If this policy persists, Azerbaijani identity is doomed to perish.

The following CARTOONS show the attitude and view of Iran Islamic Republic and Persian chauvinism

CONTINUE >>> [download id=”4″]
June 16, 2009