Tweet
TURKEY HAD A HAND IN TRAGEDY IN KHOJALY
ArmInfo
2010-03-09 14:55:00
Interview of Aleksander Manasyan, political expert, Professor of the
Yerevan State University, with ArmInfo news agency
Mr Manasyan, on March 4 the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted
for affirmation of the H.Res.252 on Armenian Genocide. How probable is
it that the Resolution will be put to general voting in the Congress?
US President Barack Obama has already made the first step towards
deviation from his promises, and this policy of deviation under
Turkey's pressure is inseparable from Washington's policy. I doubt
that the H.Res.252 will be put to general voting in the US Congress,
as the USA thinks that it will thereby lose the lever of pressure on
Ankara. Therefore, the decision taken by the US House Committee is
rather declarative.
May Turks ratify the Protocols in exchange for Obama's silence on
April 24 and another failure of the H.Res.252 in the Congress?
This is quite possible; however, I believe that Turks will not do
this until next April at least, as ratification of the Protocols as
rather a tangible argument has now occurred in the political arsenal
of Ankara from Washington. Now it is Turkey's turn to exert pressure
on Washington demanding the Congress to reject the genocide fact.
Therefore, we should not expect ratification of the Protocols in the
near future, unless there are radical geopolitical changes.
Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Hovik Abrahamyan has recently
said that National Assembly of Armenia will ratify Armenian-Turkish
Protocols after their ratification by Turkey. How much expedient is
this position and what is it conditioned by?
There is certain logic in this statement. We are ready to ratify the
Protocols, but if Turkey does not ratify them, it is not our fault
that we cannot ratify them either. That is to say, we declare that
everything depends on them but not us. I think if Armenia is the first
to ratify the Protocols, it will show its weakness, whereas readiness
of the Armenian party to ratify them after Turkey is evidence of
the strong Armenian position. In this way Armenia fully disclaims
responsibility for delaying the process at the same time demonstrating
that only Turkey is responsible for it.
Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan has recently made several
statements, having voiced the problems of the Armenian refugees and
the requirements to return the Shahumyan region. Do these and other
statements testify to hardening of Armenia's stance in the Karabakh
peace process?
They have not yet testified to hardening of Armenia's stance, we
just present the essence and reasons of the Karabakh conflict to the
world more clearly and adequately via these statements. I qualify
the statements of our leadership as a movement to the real picture of
the conflict. Armenia just could not determine who was the refugee,
who suffered from the Karabakh war, and it could not solve the problem
of Armenians in Azerbaijan either. The country could not present to
the international community the fact that the Armenians of Soviet
Azerbaijan underwent genocide. In addition, the problems of the
Azerbaijani Armenians were just displaced from the negotiations on
the Karabakh conflict settlement. Moreover, the Armenian party had
never said that genocide policy with respect to Azerbaijani Armenians
was continuation of the Turkish Genocide in 1915-1923. Therefore, the
latest statements by the Armenian foreign minister are very important,
as we finally return to the problems of our refugees.
Does it also concern the statements on the real events in Khojaly?
It is especially important that moving towards the origination
and the core of the conflict the Armenian party considers also the
problem of Khojaly. The Turkey-orientated People's Front of Azerbaijan
(PFA) organized a massacre of the Azerbaijani population near Aghdam
since its hideout was in Aghdam. It was not accidental that all the
large-scale provocations with regard to Armenians came from Aghdam
where pro-Turkish forces were concentrated. This concerns not only
the events related to Khojaly, but also the very beginning of the
conflict when on February 20, 1988, the Regional Council of the
NK Autonomous Region applied for withdrawal of the NKAR from the
Azerbaijani SSR. The movement of the aggressive crowd from Aghdam to
Stepanakert immediately followed that peaceful appeal by Karabakh.
Journalist Chingiz Mustafayev, who declared that the massacre of
peaceful residents of Khojaly was organized by the residents of
Aghdam, was murdered in Aghdam. It was in Aghdam that the plane with
the ministers loyal to Ayaz Mutalibov on board was shot down. All
this proves that Khojaly was just a link in the chain of bloody
incidents and provocations by the PFA aimed at overthrowing Ayaz
Mutalibov whose nationality was doubtful for them. All those crimes
were committed to bring Abulfaz Elchibey to power, and Mutalibov
himself also declared that.
Does it mean that Turkey had a hand in Khojaly tragedy?
Naturally, it does. It could not be otherwise, as Turkey was the
ideologist and constructor of that criminal policy of the People's
Front of Azerbaijan.
Elmar Mammadyarov has recently stated that he expects Armenia to
specify its stance about the revised Madrid Principles. Doesn't the
return to the adequacy you are talking about show the true position
of Armenia concerning the conflict settlement?
If we have decided to move towards the adequate perception of the
Karabakh problem, this does not at all show hardening of Armenian
party's positions at the talks with Azerbaijan. I think Azerbaijan
will continue focusing the international community's attention on
the decisions of UN Security Council, and in response to this, the
Armenian party should appeal to the documents signed by Yerevan and
Baku. Moreover, we can also refer to the Azerbaijani SSR Declaration
saying that Nagorno-Karabakh, Zangezour and Nakhijevan are recognized
an integral part of the Armenian SSR, or to the Azerbaijani Declaration
on Independence, in which Baku renounced the succession of the USSR. In
addition, there is the USSR Law dated 3 April 1990 "On withdrawal of
republics from the USSR". That is to say, we have got a package of
documents that can be used easily.
This means that the conflict settlement within the frames of the
Madrid Principles fails to meet our interests, doesn't it?
The matter is that the Madrid document admits possible diversity of
its interpretations. It contains reference to legal settlement of the
problem, which gives us an opportunity to develop our point of view
by appealing to the documents I have already mentioned. Therefore,
I can even positively estimate the principles; everything depends on
further actions of our diplomacy.
At the opening ceremony of a kindergarten Aliyev has recently expressed
threats towards Armenia and the NKR. What are these threats aimed at?
The purposes are obvious: strengthening of the image of the conflict,
according to which Armenia is an aggressor and Azerbaijan is the
victim which lost territories, and consolidation of the Azerbaijani
society in the matter of the Karabakh conflict. In addition, Aliyev
is striving not only to divert thoughts of inhabitants from the
oil incomes, but he has a more fundamental goal - to assimilate
the national minorities living in Azerbaijan in the face of general
threat. That is to say, they are acting for Turkization of all the
people which have Azerbaijani passport but are not Azerbaijanis.
Nobody can say what is the real number of Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan,
but the Lezgins say they are more than 900 000. The Talishes say
the same, though it is not clear how they from the map of Azerbaijan
after its getting independence.
Are the Talishes and Lezgins ready to fight for the mythical
"territorial integrity" of Azerbaijan by Aliyev's order?
I don't think that the national minorities still realizing their
national identity will fight for Azerbaijan as they will be the first
to be sent to the front line.
It is just the same way it was in the Karabakh war and with the
Armenians of Karabakh, which were directed to the fronts of the Great
Patriotic War, isn't it?
Certainly, it is. The same will happen now.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan, ArmInfo, 09.03.2010
ArmInfo
2010-03-09 14:55:00
Interview of Aleksander Manasyan, political expert, Professor of the
Yerevan State University, with ArmInfo news agency
Mr Manasyan, on March 4 the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted
for affirmation of the H.Res.252 on Armenian Genocide. How probable is
it that the Resolution will be put to general voting in the Congress?
US President Barack Obama has already made the first step towards
deviation from his promises, and this policy of deviation under
Turkey's pressure is inseparable from Washington's policy. I doubt
that the H.Res.252 will be put to general voting in the US Congress,
as the USA thinks that it will thereby lose the lever of pressure on
Ankara. Therefore, the decision taken by the US House Committee is
rather declarative.
May Turks ratify the Protocols in exchange for Obama's silence on
April 24 and another failure of the H.Res.252 in the Congress?
This is quite possible; however, I believe that Turks will not do
this until next April at least, as ratification of the Protocols as
rather a tangible argument has now occurred in the political arsenal
of Ankara from Washington. Now it is Turkey's turn to exert pressure
on Washington demanding the Congress to reject the genocide fact.
Therefore, we should not expect ratification of the Protocols in the
near future, unless there are radical geopolitical changes.
Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Hovik Abrahamyan has recently
said that National Assembly of Armenia will ratify Armenian-Turkish
Protocols after their ratification by Turkey. How much expedient is
this position and what is it conditioned by?
There is certain logic in this statement. We are ready to ratify the
Protocols, but if Turkey does not ratify them, it is not our fault
that we cannot ratify them either. That is to say, we declare that
everything depends on them but not us. I think if Armenia is the first
to ratify the Protocols, it will show its weakness, whereas readiness
of the Armenian party to ratify them after Turkey is evidence of
the strong Armenian position. In this way Armenia fully disclaims
responsibility for delaying the process at the same time demonstrating
that only Turkey is responsible for it.
Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan has recently made several
statements, having voiced the problems of the Armenian refugees and
the requirements to return the Shahumyan region. Do these and other
statements testify to hardening of Armenia's stance in the Karabakh
peace process?
They have not yet testified to hardening of Armenia's stance, we
just present the essence and reasons of the Karabakh conflict to the
world more clearly and adequately via these statements. I qualify
the statements of our leadership as a movement to the real picture of
the conflict. Armenia just could not determine who was the refugee,
who suffered from the Karabakh war, and it could not solve the problem
of Armenians in Azerbaijan either. The country could not present to
the international community the fact that the Armenians of Soviet
Azerbaijan underwent genocide. In addition, the problems of the
Azerbaijani Armenians were just displaced from the negotiations on
the Karabakh conflict settlement. Moreover, the Armenian party had
never said that genocide policy with respect to Azerbaijani Armenians
was continuation of the Turkish Genocide in 1915-1923. Therefore, the
latest statements by the Armenian foreign minister are very important,
as we finally return to the problems of our refugees.
Does it also concern the statements on the real events in Khojaly?
It is especially important that moving towards the origination
and the core of the conflict the Armenian party considers also the
problem of Khojaly. The Turkey-orientated People's Front of Azerbaijan
(PFA) organized a massacre of the Azerbaijani population near Aghdam
since its hideout was in Aghdam. It was not accidental that all the
large-scale provocations with regard to Armenians came from Aghdam
where pro-Turkish forces were concentrated. This concerns not only
the events related to Khojaly, but also the very beginning of the
conflict when on February 20, 1988, the Regional Council of the
NK Autonomous Region applied for withdrawal of the NKAR from the
Azerbaijani SSR. The movement of the aggressive crowd from Aghdam to
Stepanakert immediately followed that peaceful appeal by Karabakh.
Journalist Chingiz Mustafayev, who declared that the massacre of
peaceful residents of Khojaly was organized by the residents of
Aghdam, was murdered in Aghdam. It was in Aghdam that the plane with
the ministers loyal to Ayaz Mutalibov on board was shot down. All
this proves that Khojaly was just a link in the chain of bloody
incidents and provocations by the PFA aimed at overthrowing Ayaz
Mutalibov whose nationality was doubtful for them. All those crimes
were committed to bring Abulfaz Elchibey to power, and Mutalibov
himself also declared that.
Does it mean that Turkey had a hand in Khojaly tragedy?
Naturally, it does. It could not be otherwise, as Turkey was the
ideologist and constructor of that criminal policy of the People's
Front of Azerbaijan.
Elmar Mammadyarov has recently stated that he expects Armenia to
specify its stance about the revised Madrid Principles. Doesn't the
return to the adequacy you are talking about show the true position
of Armenia concerning the conflict settlement?
If we have decided to move towards the adequate perception of the
Karabakh problem, this does not at all show hardening of Armenian
party's positions at the talks with Azerbaijan. I think Azerbaijan
will continue focusing the international community's attention on
the decisions of UN Security Council, and in response to this, the
Armenian party should appeal to the documents signed by Yerevan and
Baku. Moreover, we can also refer to the Azerbaijani SSR Declaration
saying that Nagorno-Karabakh, Zangezour and Nakhijevan are recognized
an integral part of the Armenian SSR, or to the Azerbaijani Declaration
on Independence, in which Baku renounced the succession of the USSR. In
addition, there is the USSR Law dated 3 April 1990 "On withdrawal of
republics from the USSR". That is to say, we have got a package of
documents that can be used easily.
This means that the conflict settlement within the frames of the
Madrid Principles fails to meet our interests, doesn't it?
The matter is that the Madrid document admits possible diversity of
its interpretations. It contains reference to legal settlement of the
problem, which gives us an opportunity to develop our point of view
by appealing to the documents I have already mentioned. Therefore,
I can even positively estimate the principles; everything depends on
further actions of our diplomacy.
At the opening ceremony of a kindergarten Aliyev has recently expressed
threats towards Armenia and the NKR. What are these threats aimed at?
The purposes are obvious: strengthening of the image of the conflict,
according to which Armenia is an aggressor and Azerbaijan is the
victim which lost territories, and consolidation of the Azerbaijani
society in the matter of the Karabakh conflict. In addition, Aliyev
is striving not only to divert thoughts of inhabitants from the
oil incomes, but he has a more fundamental goal - to assimilate
the national minorities living in Azerbaijan in the face of general
threat. That is to say, they are acting for Turkization of all the
people which have Azerbaijani passport but are not Azerbaijanis.
Nobody can say what is the real number of Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan,
but the Lezgins say they are more than 900 000. The Talishes say
the same, though it is not clear how they from the map of Azerbaijan
after its getting independence.
Are the Talishes and Lezgins ready to fight for the mythical
"territorial integrity" of Azerbaijan by Aliyev's order?
I don't think that the national minorities still realizing their
national identity will fight for Azerbaijan as they will be the first
to be sent to the front line.
It is just the same way it was in the Karabakh war and with the
Armenians of Karabakh, which were directed to the fronts of the Great
Patriotic War, isn't it?
Certainly, it is. The same will happen now.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan, ArmInfo, 09.03.2010