The Voice of Mirza Xazar

Provocative Referendum in Karabagh
By Faruk Akkan, Cihan News Agency, Moscow
Sunday, December 10, 2006
zaman.com

The Nagorno Karabagh region, the separatist Azerbaijani territory under Armenian occupation, held an independence referendum Sunday.

The referendum can be compared to those in Moldova’s Transdinyester and Georgia’s South Ossetia regions.

Azeri foreign minister Elmar Mehmedyarov called the referendum a disappointing move for the attempts to maintain peace in the region.

The minister warned that any referendum held prior to the return of the Azeri population removed from the region since the occupation would not be fair and legitimate.

Pro-Western GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) countries criticized the Karabagh referendum. The jointly issued statement raised concerns that the referendum would deteriorate the overall situation in the region.

Recalling that the referendum had no legal basis, the statement further noted that it would constitute a beach under Azerbaijan’s constitution and international law.

After a meeting in Minsk, Azeri and Armenian leaders had announced their optimism about peace. This referendum held at a time when prospects for a workable peace were most likely since the truce accord of 1994 raises serious concerns.

The Nagorno Karabagh region declared de facto independence from Azerbaijan after the dissolution of Soviet bloc in 1990. With its own army, flag, and government, the region acts like and independent state.

The international community recognizes the region as part of Azerbaijan. Russia has often threatened that if regions seeking independence through referendums were not recognized by the United Nations, it would veto Kosovo’s attempt to declare independence in the U.N. Security Council.

Roughly 140,000 Armenian residents in Karabagh depend on financial aid of the Armenian diaspora in Russia and Western countries.

No significant progress has been in the region since the truce. People have trouble meeting fundamental needs, such as heating, shelter and food.

The armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan erupted in the late 1980s. While more than 35,000 died in the fighting, nearly 1,000,000 Azeri had to migrate from the region. The refugees are trying to survive in camps under dire conditions and are looking forward to return to their homes.

(Zaman.Online)

At the Same Time Insisting on Opening Frontiers with Turkey 21.09.2006 Gallup poll (personal interview, 2000 respondents) was held in Armenia in spring 2006 by request of one of the governmental institutions of the USA (no name is mentioned). As poll materials gathered by “Regnum” informs, US government got following answers to the questions: - The attitude of Armenian population towards Russia (good – 79,6%), towards USA (good – 49,0%), towards Turkey (not good – 80,1%), towards Georgia (not good – 54,7%), towards Azerbaijan (not good – 86,5%); - The country which can ensure the most effective regulation of Garabagh conflict (Russia – 43,8%, USA – 33,3%, UN – 20,7%, France – 17, 9%); - The most appropriate way for regulation of Garabagh conflict (via international mediation – 41,6%, via compromise – 40,7%, force – 11,5%); - The best way of solving of Garabagh problem (Garabagh should be part of Armenia – 49,5%, Garabagh should be independent – 46,9%); - The necessity of referendum on status of Nagorni Garabagh (yes – 55,2%, no - 21,6%); - Who should be involved with referendum on status of Nagorni Garabagh (only present population of Garabagh – 56,7%, any other people – 15,6%, only refugees from Garabagh – 15,3%, population of Garabagh of 1991- 5,6%, people of Azerbaijan and Armenia together – 5,3%); - The necessity to open Armenian-Turkish frontier (yes – 57,7%, no – 33,3%). Head of Azerbaijani social service “Pulse -R”, Roman Shulman, gave his own opinion concerning answers of Armenian citizens. “Good attitude of Armenians towards Russia is easy to explain as Russia systematically provides Armenia with weapons. And Russia claims for neutral mediation while everyone knows that Putin has got the key of fair regulation of Garabagh problem. It is easy to understand why Armenians’ attitude towards Russian Federation is better in comparison with that of towards USA, as priorities of Azerbaijan are connected with USA. Official visit of President, Ilham Aliyev to Washington, direction of energetic projects, GUAM activities prove it. As for referendum in Nagorni Garabagh, recently we witnessed similar action in Transdnestr, and in this connection Armenian citizens give priority to Armenians living in Nagorni Garabagh only, where actually there is no Azerbaijani. That is, no referendum is needed for this. Now they declare that Armenians of Garabagh voted for independence or for annexation with Armenia. Sociology investigates problems which are in the depth and vague in order to clarify public attitude towards them. But here everything is clear. Problems should be solved only in accordance with accepted decisions of UN. Moreover, role and importance of Azerbaijan is rising at international level. That is why this poll has no interesting nuances”. On the one hand in general Armenians have no good attitude towards Turkey – 80,1%, on the other one, they prefer to open frontiers with this country – 57,7%. There exist contradictory political and economic peculiarities. Independent economist-expert Inglab Ahmadov explained situation for “Echo”. “First of all on the level of society and separate individual, such negative attitude towards Turkey on the part of Armenia is explainable. This feeling has been instilled in every Armenian. And even if they are not sincere, there is something in them that says – I, as Armenian, should answer this way only. In this case they associate themselves with patriots, the part of nation which experienced suffering. It is psychological, social or most likely cultural, historical aspect. As for frontiers issue I suspect that Armenians think about economic aspect, that is, if it will be profitable or not for Armenia. With all their antipathy to Turkey, at the level of government and NGO experts, they always say that it is necessary. And if it depended on them, the frontiers would have been opened. Turkey itself is hesitating but it still adheres the principle of not-opening frontiers with Armenia. In this situation common and social-economic factor plays its role. In this part of answer the matter concerns people who suffer from uncomfortable conditions taking into account deficiency of commodity flow. And it directly concerns family budget”. Leader of Humanistic Party of Azerbaijan, political scientist, Oktay Atakhan, stresses that “in Armenia even poll holding suffers from game of politics. Some given data do not reflect the sentiments of Armenian population, particularly, their trust towards Russia and USA. Most likely it is message for America to show that Armenia prefers Russia. Actually even during Soviet period Armenian had very negative attitude towards Russia and Russians. And I believe that this attitude hasn’t been changed with time. Present poll is a politics designed to frighten USA with increase of Russian impact, and to make USA to invest in Armenia, to support Armenia. It is another game. The so-called Armenian sociologists could make these figures themselves, as they perfectly blend with position of Armenian Government at international level. There is no reflection of any views of internal opposition, it is game of politics”. R. Orujev www.echo-az.com

KARABAKH WITHIN THE AZERBAIJAN SSR After sovetization of Azerbaijan, Armenia, which remained independent for some time, didn't stop its attempts to annex Karabakh and other western regions of Azerbaijan. The XI Red Army was engaged more in disarmament of Azeris and reprisals over the protesters against the Bolshevik violence, rather than in protecting the civilian population from dashnaks. In summer 1920, the dashnak troops having benefited from the extremely difficult political situation that arose in Azerbaijan as a result of anti-Bolshevik riots in a number of regions, including Karabakh, attacked Zangezur, Karabakh, Nakhichevan and southern parts of the Kazakh district again. Self-defence forces with support of the XI Red Army expelled them only by the end of 1920. However, the most part of Zangezur remained under occupation. The head of the Azerbaijan SSR (chairman of the Sovnarkom) N. Narimanov informed in his telegram to Moscow in June 1920: «...As to the allegedly contested Zangezur and Karabakh, which are already part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, we categorically state, that these territories are indisputable and must remain within Azerbaijan in the future»1. Another telegram sent by Orjonikidze, the chairman of the Kavburo (the Caucasus section) of the Russian Communist Party (RCP(b)) and addressed to Lenin and to the minister (narkom) of foreign affairs of the Soviet Russia Chicherin informed: «the Soviet authority is declared in Karabakh and Zangezur and both mentioned territories consider themselves a part of the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic»2. With sovetization of Armenia on November 30, 1920 the hostilities between the parties ended but the territorial claims of Armenia to Azerbaijan gained further momentum. The December 1, 1920 declaration of the head of the Azerbaijanian Soviet leader Narimanov proclaimed that «from now on no territorial disputes can be a reason for bloodshed of two centuries-long neighboring peoples: Armenians and Muslims»3 [i.e. Azeris]. According to the same declaration, «as a jest of revolutionary solidarity» under pressure from Moscow, Zangezur was transferred to Armenia. Azerbaijan lost more than 10 thousand km2 of its territory and direct link with Nakhichevan, while Armenia increased its own territory as much as twice. Armenia laid claims also to Nakhichevan, which was occupied by the Turkish troops at that time. However, according to the Moscow Treaty signed in 1921, Turkey withdrew its troops from Nakhichevan only with condition that Nakhichevan remained a part of Azerbaijan. But Armenian territorial clams didn't ended yet. The communist leadership of Armenia demanded transfer of the mountainous part of Karabakh to Armenia and conducting a territorial demarcation based, exceptionally, on the national division. On June 27, 1921 the joint session of the Politbureau and Orgbureau of the Central Committee of the Azerbaijan Communist Party (CC AzCP) having considered these demands made a decision stating that «the suggestion to separate the territories with Armenian and Turk [i.e. Azeri] population, respectively, to Armenia and Azerbaijan from the view of the administrative and economic expediency...to consider unacceptable» and decreed: {[The only solution to the issue can be broad involvement of the Armenian and the Muslim masses to the process of the Soviet reconstruction»4. The final solution of this issue was to be discussed in the plenum of the Kavburo. On July 4, 1921 the session of the Kavburo began discussing the «Karabakh issue». In the session participated the members of the Kavburo Orjonikidze, Makharadze, Narimanov, Kirov, Myasnikov, Nazaretyan, Figatner and the member of the Central Committee of the RuCP, the commissar on the nationalities Stalin. The eighth member of the Kavburo Orakhelashvili was absent. Kavburo had to decide whether to leave Karabakh within Azerbaijan or whether to transfer it to Armenia. Narimanov, Makharadze and Nazaretyan voted in favor of Karabakh remaining a part of Azerbaijan; Orjonikidze, Myasnikov, Kirov and Figatner voted against this decision. Nazaretyan also joined the last four, when voting for conducting a plebiscite only among Armenians. According to this voting the Kavburo adopted a decision «On inclusion of the Mountainous Karabakh to the Armenian SSR». Thus, the Mountainous Karabakh was transferred to Armenia and considered its territory for almost 24 hours. But discussion didn't end here. This Kavburo decision triggered the head of the Azerbaijan SSR Narimanov's decisive protest. Having pointed out that this decision is fraught with political instability in the region, he proved it to be unjustified and demanded the transfer of the discussion to the Central Committee of the RuCP- the highest instance of the Soviet government. Narimanov's position played a crucial role in further events. On July 5 the session returned to the discussion of the «Karabakh issue». The new session made decision: «Proceeding from the necessity of national peace between the Muslims and Armenians, and economic links of the upland and lowland Karabakh, its constant link with Azerbaijan, to leave the Mountainous Karabakh within the Azerbaijan SSR, having granted it a broad regional autonomy with the administrative center in the town of Shusha included in the autonomous region»5. Definition of the concrete questions and forms of the autonomy was entrusted to the CC AzCP, stipulated with its consequent approval in the Kavburo. Today the Armenian historians write a lot that, ostensibly, the Kavburo decided to «annex» Karabakh to Azerbaijan «under pressure from Stalin». This is a substantial mistake, since the question was not about annexing Karabakh to Azerbaijan at all. The question was posed as following: to leave Karabakh within Azerbaijan or to transfer it to Armenia, and, as seen from the Kavburo's decision, it voted to «leave» (and not to «annex») Karabakh within Azerbaijan. As to the Kavburo's first decision on July 4, it should be noted that it gave no argument in favor of Karabakh's transfer to Armenia. Most probably, the Kavburo members voting in favor of Karabakh's transfer to Armenia were guided by two arguments: firstly, Armenians constituted the majority in Karabakh's mountainous part, and secondly, after war with Turkey in September 1920 the territory of Armenia considerably decreased and was not more than 10 thousand km2. Some people even noted, that by the size of its territory and population Armenia was too small to fit under the notion of not only a state, but even of a union republic. Thus some soviet leaders thought about expanding the territory of Armenia on the expense of the Azeri lands of Zangezur, eastern bank of the Gekcha lake (present-day Sevan), Karabakh and Nakhichevan. And as history showed, Armenians considerably succeeded in achieving these goals. And finally, as to Stalin and his alleged role in the Kavburo, it's not a secret that he had sympathized neither Azerbaijan, nor its leader Narimanov. Simply, he, as well as other members of the Kavburo, didn't want prolongation of the discussion and aggravation of the situation over Karabakh. Transfer of the discussion of the Karabakh problem to Moscow to the Central Committee wouldn't have satisfied many members of the Kavburo, as well as Stalin, who, at that time, had been continuously criticized for his erroneous positions regarding the national problems. All of these, as well as Narimanov's resolute position, predetermined the further discussion of the Karabakh issue. ________________________________________ Azerbaijan Central State Archive, reserves 410, inventory 2, folder (delo) 69, lists 181-187 / also: I Aliyev «Nagorno Karabakh» op cit. [20] p. 80; Archive of the MFA of USSR, folder (delo) 54882, list 20 / also: Id. p. 81; The «Communist» newspaper (in Azerbaijan) No 178, December 2, 1920; [Azerbaijan Communist] Party Archive [PAAF IML] reserve 1, inventory 74, folder 123, list 64 / also: J. B. Kouliyev «Regarding the history of the establishment of the MKAR» (Is istorii obrazovaniya NKAO- in Russian) Information bulletin of the Azerbaijan SSR Academy of Sciences (series of history, philosophy and law) No 3, p. 12, 1973; Id. rese (source: karabakh.org)