Speeches, articles and interviews
Azeri historian: The term “Azerbaijanis” was coined in 1930’s
10.08.2009 20:10
/PanARMENIAN.Net/“We cannot have national ideology unless we are certain about our national self-identification,” Doctor of History Farid Alekperli, Department Head at Azerbaijan’s National Academy of Sciences, says in an article entitled “Who are We? Where do we come from, and Where do we Go”. The article was published in Saturday’s issue of “Zerkalo” Azerbaijani newspaper.
Before the 1930s’ Stalin reforms, the notion “Azerbaijanis” did not simply exist, Azeri historian says, noting further that the term was coined in the late 1930s by the great repressor’s will. Until 1936, People in the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (1918-1920) and Azerbaijani Soviet Republic were officially known as Turks, he notes.
“Having lost their national self-identification, we got stuck in debates on who we are, i.e. whether we descend from Sumerians, Talish tribes, Albanians, Medes or some other ethnic group. There’ll be no end to such tiresome and stupid debates unless we recognize that our true ethnic origins are disguised behind the featureless term ‘Azerbaijanis’. We descend mostly from Turks, as well as Kurds, Tats, Lezghins etc.”
“Armenians, Persians and other nations still call us Turks,” Alekperli underlines.
Bringing the example of Arab states and Iranian Azeris, who “have been calling themselves ‘Turks’ from time immemorial”, the historian expresses conviction that no one confuses them with the Turks living in Turkey.
Alekperli is concerned that use of the artificial term “Azerbaijanis” may result in the loss of national identity, assimilation to Russians and Western nations and eventually, it may lead to mancurtization, especially under the pressures of globalization policy.
The New York Times archive – misinformation and propaganda source for Azerbaijan, truth source for Armenia
14:22 / 07/25/2009
Haykaram Nahapetyan
Global economic crisis has affected even the sacred sector of the Azeri economy – oil industry. Nonetheless, the industry of misinformation and “false-news” still exists and, moreover, it flourishes.
Azerbaijan has convinced its audience that Zori Balayan - Armenian writer and public figure - had allegedly described the Armenian violence towards Azerbaijani prisoners of war in his monograph called “Resurrection of Our Souls” (1) ( the book never existed). Then Azeri sources discovered the name of the publishing house - “Vanadzor” (it never existed either). After, Azerbaijani authorities flared up tension by spreading to pieces of “reliable news” that “Hayastan” Hungarian-Armenians organization (2) (again, there is no such organization in Hungary) demanded to execute the Azerbaijani officer Ramil Safarov in Yerevan (currently Safarov is behind Hungarian bars for beheading his sleeping Armenian fellow-student during a NATO training program in Budapest in 2004). And finally, Azerbaijani propaganda claims that Armenia first appeared as such on a world map in May of 1918 (no comments).
Eventually, Azerbaijan took up ‘The New York Times’ archive.
On March 29, 2009 the Day.az Azeri news portal published the most recent masterpiece, written by the Generals of Azerbaijan’s information, or better say - misinformation war. According to the agency, “The New York Times’ August 4, 1920 publication (available on the agency’s website http://day.az/news/politics/151388.html) ‘convincingly proves that Karabakh and Zangezoor were parts of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920’. “There is another historic evidence that these regions belonged to Azerbaijani Democratic Republic in 1918-1920, and the world community had acknowledged them as such”, Day.az reports referring to a press-release of the ‘Near East Relief’ US-based humanitarian organization.
Well, let’s look what is said in the ‘Near East Relief’ report that NYT published? The report reads: “Armenian-populated Karabakh and Zangezoor regions were not under Armenia’s government’s control, as they were separated from the Armenian republic due to the lack of roads and any means of communication”. That is it. I wonder which part of the report represents the “historical proof” the Day.az is writing about? Moreover, the word ‘Azerbaijan’ is not mentioned in the press-release at all.
In 1918-1920, the existing communication system in Armenia did not allow effective government of mountainous regions, and interim commissars with extended authority and certain autonomy from Yerevan were delegated to govern the hard-to-reach parts of the republic. The leader in Zangezoor - Garegin Nzhdeh retained the national power here till July 1921, almost half year after the Soviet regime was established in Yerevan. Chronologically, Zangezoor became the last spot in South Caucasus to become Soviet. Bolsheviks could never forget Nzhdeh’s firmness; he was arrested in 1943 in Bulgaria and sentenced to 25 years in prisons and camps.
Anyway, let us go back to The New York Times archive.
Every issue of “The New York Times” since July 18, 1856 is scanned and available digitally on the U.S. Congress Library and other libraries and websites. The search system can find all the articles of New York Times on any subject for the mentioned period. Apparently, the only way Azerbaijan could find the mentioned article was by entering the word “Karabakh” in the search tab. Otherwise, that’s really very complicated to find the article you may look for.
After spending several days in the library it became obvious that there is not a single article in the archive that mentions Karabakh, Zangezoor and Nakhijevan to be parts of Azerbaijan in any historical period. Not a single one. Otherwise, Azerbaijan would definitely use them for propaganda.
So what did “The New York Times” write about Karabakh region in 1918-1921?
July 26, 1920 article titled “Bolsheviki march to join Turks” reads: “Considerable Russian Bolshevik forces, mainly cavalry, are overrunning the Karabagh district of Armenia with the clear intention to join the Turkish Nationalists” (3).
March 17, 1918 article on the Russian-Persian and Russian-Turkish wars of the 19th century reads: “…Armenian regions Kars, Erivan and Karabakh are attached to Russia.” (4).
July 19, 1919 U.S. Air Force Major Joseph Greene reports from Tiflis: “Turks and Tatars are advancing towards Karabakh and Alagez. The considerable part of Russian Armenia is occupied. Armenian Government called for military mobilization” (5).
On July 16, 1921 during the revolt against Bolsheviks in Armenia, New York Times writes: “Radiogram from Armenian Cabinet Chairman Simon Vratsian reports: Bolsheviks are defeated and all the country from Karabakh to Alaghez, i.e. the territory not under Turkish occupation, is controlled by the Armenian Government” (6).
And we can go on with examples.
Obviously, the aforementioned publications could not remain unnoticed by the Azerbaijani expert who worked in the archive. However, Azeri “researchers” decided to disregard the numerous articles in the U.S. newspaper with information about Karabakh, and promote the press-release with the “proof of Azerbaijan’s authority over these regions” (meanwhile Azerbaijan is not even mentioned though). It is nothing but a deliberate and targeted deception of their own society.
Also it worth mentioning that searching of articles on Azerbaijan itself bring to quite a curious results: not a single article in the U.S. newspapers before 1918 contains the geographical name “Azerbaijan”, as an area known today as Republic of Azerbaijan. Till 1918, Azerbaijan was referred as Northern part of Persia, not Apsheron, let alone Karabakh. The word ‘Azerbaijani’ is not mentioned at all. The newspaper writes about Caucasian Tatars or more generally — Muslims.
But, Day.az did not mention theese facts, of course not…
References:
1.http://www.azeriunited.com/content/blogcategory/21/52/lang,english/
2.“Hayastan organization demands Ramil Safarov to be executed in Yerevan”, “Ekho” 17.02.2005
3. “Bolsheviks marching to join the Turks”, “New York Times”, July 26, 1920.
4. “New situation in Turkey”, 17.03.1918, “New York Times”
5. “Turkish army moves to destroy the Armenians”, 31.07.1919, “New York Times”
6. “Greeks said to plan new drive on Turks”, by Edwin James, “New York Times”. 16.03.1921
NKR FOREIGN MINISTER, “THE STATUS OF NAGORNO KARABAKH IS THE KEYSTONE TO THE SETTLEMENT”
“To briefly characterize the 15-year cease-fire, it is extension of the Karabakh statehood’s formation and alignment of a dynamic system, which has proved its vitality so far”, stated NKR Foreign Minister Georgy Petrossian in his interview to the NKR Public Television Vestnik (Reporter) program.
“Surely, there are things, which are not going in the way we’d ideally like to, but I believe that we have succeeded in solving the most fundamental issues, such as creation of an army – one of the most important security guarantees, and alignment of a domestic system of state administration. All this, actually, took place in the conditions of war and post-war armistice”, noted the NKR Foreign Minister.
At the same time, Georgy Petrossian emphasized that for the Karabakh party, the future status of Nagorno Karabakh was the keystone to the settlement.
18. 05.2009
“Achievement of mutual recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the Azerbaijani Republic is needed”
NKR Foreign Minister Georgy Petrossian’s answers to the mass media questions
These days, in a conversation with a BBC correspondent, a representative of the Azerbaijani MFA stated that the status of Nagorno Karabakh can be discussed only after the liberation of some territories and return of the Azerbaijanis to Nagorno Karabakh. What is the NKR position on this issue?
This discourse reflects the traditional approach of the Azerbaijani policy on misinterpretation of the grounds, core, and consequences of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict.
We believe that for creating a basis for the final settlement of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict and establishing stable peace in the region, first of all, achievement of mutual recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the Azerbaijani Republic, as well as mutual rejection of any attempts of a military solution to the conflict is needed. Mutual recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan and rejection of any war gamble should become the start point of the negotiations and not the final.
This approach will allow to create favorable conditions for solving the most complicated issues: territories, refugees, and borders. They must be mutual and brought into step with the course of the peace process. The key issue among the noted ones is the issue of the Armenian refugees from the former Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic. Exclusion of the Armenian refugees from the context of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement, suppression of their legal rights is a way to nowhere. Without solving the issue of the Armenian refugees from the Azerbaijani SSR, solution of the issue of any other refugees or some other issues is impossible.
At a public meeting in Vienna on supporting the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, with the participation of public representatives from Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno Karabakh, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairman from France Bernard Fassier stated that “a new war can be initiated both by the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh as an independent state, which isn’t done even by Armenia, and any attempt of unconditional return of this territory to Azerbaijan”.What is your assessment of the discourse of the OSCE MG Co-Chairman from France?
We flatly reject the statement that a new war can be initiated also by the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh as an independent state. A new war can be initiated by the tolerance of the world policy centers towards the warmonger, leading to an ironic situation that the direct threats to peace by official Baku, in fact, don’t result in tangible political or legal responsibility. This policy will only strengthen the Azerbaijani elite’s conviction of its own impunity, which is just the basic threat to the regional peace.
In due time, Azerbaijan’s aggression against the Nagorno Karabakh Republic became, in a greater extend, possible due to the international community’s recognition in 1991-1992 the right of Azerbaijan to independence and non-recognition of the similar right of Nagorno Karabakh, although the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the Azerbaijani Republic were formed from the former Azerbaijani SSR, basing on general principles of law. Continuation of this policy and especially any opposition to the recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic represent a serious threat to peace and stability in the region, as they encourage the Azerbaijani party for false imagination that they can get away with a new war gamble.
In this regard, we consider it important to emphasize that the world policy centers’ refusal of the formula of “parity approach” to the parties’ actions will not only allow strengthening our confidence of their ability to fairly and impartially assess the situation, but will also become a guarantee for progress in the negotiation process.
The OSCE MG Co-Chairman also stated that “the most real option now is to return the Azerbaijani territories under the current control of the Armenian armed forces, to specify a medium status for Nagorno Karabakh, with consideration of its security guarantees, which would be acceptable both for Baku and Yerevan. The second part of the issue is not solvable now, and the self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh is possible only in 5 or 10 or 15 years, after the Azerbaijani community’s return to the region”. How will you comment on this position?
Mr. Fassier voiced the elements of the so-called “basic principles”, which the OSCE MG proposes for consideration of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents. The consultations between Armenia and Azerbaijan on these principles take place on the formula “nothing is agreed and solved until everything is agreed and solved”. Due to this, it seems untimely to comment now on the functional elements of these consultations, which may not get their final shape introduced by the mediators. Consequently, when the consultations give specific results, then we’ll assess if they are acceptable for our people or if they are generally realizable, because achievement of the final settlement of the conflict and stable peace is impossible without taking into consideration the position of Nagorno Karabakh.
02.04.2009
The Armenian Reporter
Defending Artsakh’s Interests in the United States
Published: Saturday March 07, 2009
Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh - After I served nearly a decade as NKR permanent representative (ambassador) to the United States (August 1999-January 2009), President Bako Sahakian recently asked me to return to Artsakh to continue my carrier at the NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where I have since been appointed deputy minister.
Taking the opportunity of this medium, I want to, first of all, express gratitude to everyone who have contributed to the work of the Office of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the United States (Artsakh's Embassy) and extended their friendship to me and my family throughout these years. I look forward to a continued engagement with all our well-wishers and to seeing you in Artsakh frequently.
This commentary will recap some of the accomplishments and offer a look to the future of Artsakh's diplomatic mission in the United States now led by my able successor Robert Avetisian.
Throughout my posting in Washington, the focus of our work has been on defending and advancing Artsakh's political and economic interests in the United States, on expansion of ties between our two countries, and on promotion of our shared objectives of regional peace, democracy, and prosperity.
We engaged with the State Department, Congress, policy and academic circles, media, and the Armenian-American community to build support for Artsakh's aspirations to live in freedom and secure from aggression, to facilitate humanitarian and investment projects that have helped rebuild Artsakh's war-torn infrastructure and also spurred economic development.
We worked closely with our allies on Capitol Hill and the Washington-based Armenian-American organizations to ensure continuation and expansion of U.S. direct economic assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh. It is fulfilling to see that in the fiscal 2009 budget, Congress allocated up to $ 8,000,000 for aid programs in Nagorno-Karabakh. I thank the U.S. government and the American people for this critical assistance.
On political front, we continually educated members of Congress about Artsakh's ongoing struggle for freedom. As a result, over 100 members of the House of Representatives signed letters urging the U.S. president to take note of Artsakh's progress and to promote formal U.S. recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. In cooperation with Armenian-American organizations and our congressional friends, we organized several Capitol Hill events dedicated to Artsakh, bringing together members of Congress, prominent human rights advocates and lawyers, and hundreds of activists.
The office arranged and facilitated dozens of visits by senior NKR officials to the United States. These included bilateral visits and those in the framework of annual Armenia Fund telethons that have generated over $ 150 million for major infrastructure projects in Artsakh and Armenia.
Seeking to raise international awareness about our struggle for freedom, we launched a first-ever comprehensive English-language website about Artsakh at www.nkrusa.org. Thanks to this website we met many well-wishers worldwide. Some of these new friends ended up sponsoring projects in Artsakh; many also volunteered their skills and time.
Mindful of the importance of the modern media in our outreach efforts, we launched ArtsakhOnline, a YouTube channel. One of our first installments, a short documentary film "Struggle for Freedom," produced in cooperation with Los Angeles filmmaker Peter Musurlian, has been watched over 10,000 times.
Since 1999, we have published a monthly newsletter distributed in print in Washington, the United States, and around the world. The newsletter was also available online. Last year, the newsletter transitioned to a more frequent electronic-only format distributed by email.
Our office monitored major media outlets, reacting when necessary to misrepresentations of Artsakh, while also promoting objective coverage. My letters to the editor appeared repeatedly in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and Christian Science Monitor. In Washington our work has been covered by the Washington Diplomat, Diplomatic Traffic, Voice of America, and Eurasia Net.
I had opportunities to speak at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Texas, the Zoryan Institute in Toronto, and elsewhere. Under my leadership, the office facilitated expert research, conferences, visits to, and publications about Artsakh.
We worked closely with the Detroit-based Armenian Children's Relief Fund and other supporters to sponsor medical treatment for dozens of Artsakh children, as well as wounded veterans; we also connected benefactors to humanitarian projects in Artsakh.
More recently, in cooperation with the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) and the Americans for Artsakh (AFA) we launched a series of professional training seminars for NKR officials. The first session successfully concluded last summer; the second session, focused on effective communication and conflict resolution, is currently underway in Stepanakert.
Hundreds of friends, Armenians and non-Armenians alike, have stood by the office throughout these years, providing financial support, volunteering their expertise and time, and helping to advance our common objectives.
On behalf of my government, I thank again the Armenian Assembly of America, the Cafesjian Family Foundation, the AGBU, and the Armenian Missionary Association of America and their leadership for extending critical financial and technical support throughout these years. Special thanks to Armen Kanayan of Stratomedia for his tireless volunteer efforts to develop and maintain our website; I also want to single out Joan Ablett and Emil Sanamyan for their support.
This is the short list of our efforts so far. What is next for Artsakh advocacy in America?
As with any institution, greater financial security of our office remains a priority to be able not only to maintain but also to expand our operations. It is also time for Artsakh's diplomatic representation to have its own roof in Washington.
Our political agenda should remain in focus. The United States remains a global leader and one of the lead mediators in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, and that means a sustained and deepened engagement with all branches of the U.S. government is needed. In Congress, that means reaching out both to our friends and opponents, as we have done in the past.
Speaking with one voice on Artsakh is critical to success. Through collaboration with the Armenian Embassy and Washington-based Armenian-American organizations, we have established this common agenda on Artsakh: (1) expansion of U.S.-NKR relations; (2) continuation of U.S. direct aid to Artsakh while transitioning from humanitarian to development projects; and (3) safeguarding regional peace.
Artsakh and the United States share universal values of freedom, democracy, and peace. We both fought fierce wars (although some 200 years apart) to free ourselves from foreign tyranny, to be the masters of our own destiny, and to enjoy the promise of liberty, equality, and justice for all.
Sharing many of the modern challenges, we are also partners in advancing common goals of peace and economic development. This is a great foundation to take the U.S.-NKR relations to the next level, ensuring unhindered communication and collaboration.Expansion of U.S. economic aid to Artsakh while transitioning from humanitarian to development projects is critical to ensuring that all parts of the South Caucasus region receive equal opportunities to rebuild war-damaged infrastructure, providing aid to refugees and internally displaced persons, and ensuring steady economic development. Drinking water, healthcare, and mine clearance remain on the top of our priorities and Artsakh will continue to be an effective and responsible partner in advancing all aid programs.
At the same time, considering the genocidal rhetoric and increasing capabilities of our opponents, the possibility of renewed aggression against the Armenian nation is unfortunately all too real.
We are confident in our ability to defend ourselves, but our overriding diplomatic priority is to preempt a new war, saving lives on both sides of the current divide while building on a promise of a peaceful future for all.
Artsakh's noble struggle is continuing on political, diplomatic, economic, informational, and cultural fronts. Unity in purpose and action remains the key to our sustained success in Washington and elsewhere around the world.
Contents: