Subject: NAGORNO KARABAKH
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
KARABAKH: IT IS NECESSARY, FINALLY, TO CALL THINGS BY THEIR NAMES
Nikolaj Khramov (Moscow)
member of the General Council of the Transnational Radical Party
-----------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The war is raging for more than five years. It is waged, by and
large, on the territory of Azerbaijan - not a single Azerbaijanian soldier
stepped on the Armenian territory. The Armenian troops have already
captured 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan, the number of refugees in
Azerbaijan approaches one million (1/8 of the republic's population).
Resolution 853 of the U.N. Security Council adopted on the 25th of July
1993 calls for the "complete and unconditional withdrawal of all occupation
troops from Agdam region and all other captured territories of the
Azerbaijanian Republic." Then why nothing happens? Why then, what in all
other cases - Kuwait, Croatia and Bosnia is justly characterized as a
military aggression of one state against the other, in the case of the
Armenian-Azerbaijan war to date has not been called by its proper name? Do
not we betray Azerbaijanians as we betrayed Bosnia before only because they
are Muslims? It would be monstrous if this statement contains even a
smallest fraction of truth... If the international community, the UN, CSCE
actually, not on paper, want to stop the war, to return hundreds of
thousands of refugees to their homes, not to admit a virtual annexation of
a part of the territory belonging to one of the UN member-states, they
should, at last, call things by their proper names. The measures which
would force "the war lords" to respect the will of the world community
should include: forming the UN forces to protect civilian population in the
protective areas of Azerbaijan similar to such areas in Croatia; effective
prevention of any assistance except humanitarian one to Karabakh Armenians
from the Territory of Armenia; in case these measures are ineffective the
introduction of international sanctions against Armenia similar to those
imposed against Serbia; as need be, to take Azerbaijanian air space in the
area of the conflict under control and suppress the Armenian artillery
firing positions; demilitarization of the Nagorno Karabakh Region of
Azerbaijan and establishment of the UN temporary trusteeship over it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Again pages of newspapers are filled with the so familiar military reports
from the Karabakh military scene. The Armenian army and military formations
of Nagorno Karabakh having violated the temporary cease-fire agreement have
started an offensive, captured the village of Goradiz located far from the
borders of the Nagorno Karabakh region and destroyed it. 60,000 inhabitants
of the Zangelan region of Azerbaijan were cut off the mainland of
Azerbaijan and made their way to the Arax river to the Iranian territory.
Shells of the Armenia artillery flow over the borders to Iran.
All this took place before the ink on the UN Security Council Resolution
874 dried out. This Resolution was the third after Resolutions 822 and 853
also intended to put an end to the war in Nagorno Karabakh.
Resolutions which nobody is going to implement
The content of Resolution 874 just like that of Resolution 853 preceding it
was not widely highlighted in either Russian nor Ukrainian press.
Nevertheless, it would be worth if permanent political observers writing
about this conflict, quite boring for the public at large, between two
Caucasian nationalities look at this resolution. All three resolutions
confirm the territorial integrity of Azerbaijanian Republic and all other
states of the region and once again declare such generally recognized
standards of international law as inviolability of state borders and
inadmissibility of obtaining territories by using a military force.
Resolution 853 adopted on the 25th of July 1993 calls for the "complete and
unconditional withdrawal of all occupation troops from Agdam region and all
other captured territories of the Azerbaijanian Republic."
Resolution 874 confirming the resolutions adopted earlier and "expressing
its serious concern about the continuing conflict in and around Nagorno
Karabakh region," calls, in particular, to observe the agreed schedule of
urgent measures to fulfill Resolutions 822 and 853 worked out by the CSCE
Minsk group for Nagorno Karabakh which, as is known, includes
representatives from Germany, the USA, Belarus, France, Sweden, Czechia,
Italy, Russia, and Turkey.
However, it should be noted that the schedule itself providing for the
withdrawal of the occupation troops behind the limits of the respective
sectors of the borders of 1988 simultaneously insists on the unblocking of
transportation lines, i.e., on the lift-off of the blockade of Armenia by
Azerbaijan. Evidently, that here we find a veiled contradiction with the UN
Security Council calling for the withdrawal of troops without any
conditions whatsoever which in full conformity with the UN Charter.
Azerbaijan is quite justified indicating this contradiction and insisting
on such "trifle" as the fulfillment of the UN Security Council Resolution.
"Geopolitics" and "war lords"
The arguments of the official Yerevan are simple and are well known:
Armenia in fact is not involved in the war raging in Karabakh - the war is
between Azerbaijan and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (by the way, to date
have not been recognized by Armenia itself). This position for all intents
and purposes is identical to the Belgrade regime's excuses in answers to
the accusations in the direct involvement in the war in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and by itself is in contradiction with the reality just like
the Serbian positions. Even if one agrees that regular Armenian units do
not participate in the military operations in Azerbaijanian territory (it
is very difficult to neglect numerous evidences of such a participation)
then an indisputable fact remains that Yerevan provides a massive and
comprehensive economic, military and diplomatic support to the leaders of
the Armenian community in Nagorno Karabakh. How can we speak about
something else if the Armenian Parliament has not yet repealed (at any rate
the press did not contain any reports to this end) its decision "to satisfy
the request of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO) of the
Azerbaijanian SSR to become part of the Armenian SSR" adopted in 1988! The
tactics were changed later when on the 2nd of September 1991 the NKAO was
unilaterally declared as an "independent" "Nagorno Karabakh Republic"
having its capital in Stepanakert which was confirmed by the referendum
(certainly, without the participation of the Azerbaijanian citizens of this
autonomous Region who by that time had became refugees) held on the 10th of
December 1991 when the war was in full swing. It has been since then that
the appeals to "both parties involved in the conflict" were heard from
Yerevan. However, Stepanakert leaders still rejecting the UN resolutions
and the Minsk Schedule play the role of "the war lords" given to them with
satisfaction without looking back at the international community and scraps
of paper coming from time to time from New York.
Anyway, the declarations of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are
what can be referred to as export products. While in the news stands of
Yerevan, judging by what eye-witnesses say, one can bye maps from which it
becomes clear what are the borders within which "Great Armenia" is to be
created. Including its eastern part with the city of Baku purportedly on
whose territory "the second Turkish state called Azerbaijan" was
artificially set up. However, the state emblem of Armenia depicts the holy
mountain of Ararat situated, as is known, in Turkey.
So far it has been assumed that the Nagorno Karabakh war has been
fundamentally different from conflicts in other places of the former Soviet
empire - from Transnistria to Abkhazia where the Russian interests and
Russian participation are too evident. However, perhaps, there is some
reason in the considerations of those who link the recent resumption of
hostilities in Azerbaijan with the refusal of the latter to place the
Russian troops on its territory to guard the Azerbaijanian-Iranian border
similar to what these troops do in Armenia. Such link, by the way, is not
ruled out by Haidar Aliev, the president of Azerbaijan. Certainly, the
Russian military interests in those countries which Moscow refers to as
"neighboring foreign countries" (even if they do not have common borders
with Russia) are clear and especially in the Trans-Caucasian region. Nobody
has any doubts, at least Georgian refugees from Abkhazia have no such
doubts, about that special role played by Russian (and in fact Soviet) top
brass in the politics of Russia. In this connection interesting are links,
in fact not very extensively advertised, which the representatives of one
of the most militant Armenian nationalistic parties - Dashnaktsutyun -
maintained (have maintained?) with the leadership of the Russian red-brown
ranging from the "Russian Unity" to the "Front of National Salvation". But,
why not advertised? Everybody who watched TV news from the Moscow Ostankino
TV studio could see the other day Stepan Grigoryan, an Armenian parliament
deputy having a warm talk with Nikolai Baburin at the banquet thrown by
"Russian Unity".
Certainly, as unforgettable Kozma Prutkov used to say "nobody is denied to
lift up a dog pulling either its head or tail". Certainly nobody objects
against drinking with Baburin. Another thing is more important. The most
favorite word (after "the right of the nation for self-determination") for
the Armenian propagandists is the word "geopolitics". These are
geopolitical considerations that they use to explain the necessity for
Armenia, Russia, Iran and even China to oppose America, European Community,
Turkey and "its puppet Azerbaijan" ostensibly seeking to set up "Great
Turan" after the breakup of the Soviet Union for even tighter isolation of
Russia. The champions of geopolitical structures do not like to speak about
the international law, inviolability of the frontiers and the collective
security system. Well, they have chosen good allies for Russia. However,
having chosen this logic typical of the end of the last century, continuing
openly or covertly to support its "historical ally", Russia sooner or later
will have to confront the whole international community. For today there
are no Entente nor the Fourth Union but there is the international
community which in the course of the 20th century worked out generally
accepted standards of behavior though imperfect and requiring reforming.
Does Russia need such confrontation? The answer, I believe, is clear for
every Russian unless he or she is a supporter of Zhirinovskii, Prokhanov or
General Makashov who is now under investigation.
In this connection Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's answer to Russia's proposal
to give the status of the UN blue helmets to the Russian troops in the
ex-republics of the Soviet Union (which would contradict the status of the
UN peace-keeping troops manned from the contingents of the countries that
are not directly concerned in this or other conflict) is interesting. On
October 27 in the interview to Reuters the UN Secretary General welcomed
Russia's readiness to take part in the UN peace-keeping operations,
however, he said that the Russian troops should be used in Latin America,
Africa, and Asia while the blue helmets from Latin America, Africa and Asia
should be placed in the ex-USSR countries. It is difficult to devise a
better answer for the champions of the "Russia's special mission" and the
Russian-Soviet empire whose restoration would be imposed under force
although disguised under a different name which is provided for in the
schemes of the Soviet Union's "unbending welder" Sazhi Umalatova.
To call things by their names
Resolutions are adopted, the Minsk group is in session fighting its own
indecisiveness and cat Leopold's (a familiar animated cartoon character)
desire not to offend anybody while the war follows its own course.
Moreover, one more cease-fire agreement is violated each time one more
resolution is adopted, as it, in fact, happened this time. The war is
raging for more than five years. It is waged, by and large, on the
territory of Azerbaijan - not a single Azerbaijanian soldier stepped on the
Armenian territory. The Armenian troops and "the self-defense forces" of
the "so-called the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" (in fact, one hardly draw a
line between the two) have already captured 20 % of the territory of
Azerbaijan, the number of refugees in Azerbaijan approaches one million
(1/8 of the republic's population). Just think, for the 8 million
Azerbaijanian population these figures are more terrible than those which
accompanied the Hitler's Germany attack against Stalin's Soviet Union! A
million of people abandoning their homes in Shusha, Agdam, Mardakert, and
other towns and villages, fled, trying to evade death - is not it a real
ethnic cleansing? Shall not the slaughter carried out by the Armenian
gunmen in Khodzhali become an item for investigations at the international
tribunal for war crimes being set up at present by the UN?
Then why nothing happens? Why does the democratic public opinion in Russia,
Ukraine, other countries of the CIS and international community keep
silence? Why does the Russian intelligentsia "possessed by the universal
anguish" also keep silence? Though some of their representatives and,
regrettably not the worst ones, do not keep silence. At least, they were
not silent before. Although, frankly speaking, it would be better if they
were silent... It is interesting if the "Committee of the Russian
Intelligentsia "Karabakh" still exists. It was set up, unfortunately, not
to defend the Law including the international law and the right of every
man to live irrespective of the nationality but... to support "the just
national-liberation struggle of the Armenian people"? Why then, what in all
other cases - Kuwait, Croatia and Bosnia is justly characterized as a
military aggression of one state against the other, in the case of the
Armenian-Azerbaijan war to date has not been called by its proper name? Do
not we betray Azerbaijanians as we betrayed Bosnia before only because they
are Muslims? It would be monstrous if this statement contains even a
smallest fraction of truth...
The gist of what is going on should be extremely clear to everybody for
whom such concepts as "law", "inviolability of borders" and territorial
integrity of states" are not just meaningless words. Everyone who is
convinced that human rights have priority over fictitious collective
"rights of the nations" and the falsest of them, repeatedly used in the
history to justify the most blatant violations of democracy and rights of
the individual, the so-called "right of the nations for
self-determination".
Certainly, we have no right to forget anything: including the tragedy of
the Armenian people who experienced genocide early in this century,
perhaps, no less terrible than Jewish Holocaust and recently the tragedy of
Sumgait (whose true organizers, by the way, have not been found yet).
However, any allusions to the past sufferings (as, by the way, in the case
with Serbs irrespective of the fact whether the Ustashi pogroms of World
War vintage were the truth or a fabrication of Tito's propaganda) could be
used as a justification for an open aggression against the neighboring
state, for the flagrant violations of the international law including the
humanitarian law.
To act without delay
If the international community, the UN, CSCE actually, not on paper, want
to stop the war, to return hundreds of thousands of refugees to their
homes, not to admit a virtual annexation of a part of the territory
belonging to one of the UN member-states, they should, at last, call things
by their proper names. However, this is not enough. A package of decisive
measures is necessary to fulfill Resolution 853. And it should be this
resolution rather than other instruments which claim to replace the
Security Council resolutions.
The measures which would force "the war lords" to respect the will of the
world community are not something unusual. They should include the
following:
- forming the UN forces (certainly, without Russian contingents) to protect
civilian population in the protective areas of Azerbaijan similar to such
areas in Croatia and the UNPROFOR forces placed there;
- effective prevention of any assistance except humanitarian one to
Karabakh Armenians from the Territory of Armenia and to this end it is
necessary to place the UN "blue helmets" along the internationally
recognized borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan;
- in case these measures are ineffective the introduction of international
sanctions against Armenia similar to those imposed against Serbia;
- as need be, to take Azerbaijanian air space in the area of the conflict
under control and suppress the Armenian artillery firing positions;
- demilitarization of the Nagorno Karabakh Region of Azerbaijan and
establishment of the UN temporary trusteeship over it with unconditional
respect for the principle of the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijanian
Republic with the aim to secure in this region international safeguards of
peace and democracy and to protect human rights including the rights of all
ethnic and religious minorities.
Without decisive measures to implement the UN Security Council Resolutions
they would not be worth more than a piece of paper on which they are
printed.
If not the world community ...
A few days ago after the start of the Armenian offensive in Zangelan
district Haidar Aliev stated that in Azerbaijan the disappointment is
growing in the ability of the world community to stop aggression and he did
rule out that his country would have to ask individual states to provide
military assistance, for instance, Russia or Iran. Certainly, Russia was
mentioned by Aliev as they say in vain. Who can imagine the Russian army
fighting one member of the CIS against the other! However, the Iranian
president Rafsanjani has already said during his visit to Baku that the
Islamic world would not be standing away and the request for help would be
heard. If the world community wants to pass the initiative to Teheran's
hands and the hands of Islamic fundamentalists then it is difficult to
devise a better policy than the one we have been witnessing so far.
It is necessary to act urgently. Otherwise we shall betray not only
Azerbaijan as we betrayed Bosnia before. We, once and for all, will turn
into the laughing stock all the principles on which we are trying to build
international relations at the time following the end of the cold war.
