Tweet
Nagorno-Karabakh compromise needs new atmosphere between Armenia and Azerbaijan
RIA Novosti.
14:4128/05/2010
Nagorno-Karabakh compromise needs new atmosphere between Armenia and
Azerbaijan Video:Nagorno-Karabakh will not be Azeri unless the last
ethnic Armenian leaves the region Samir Shakhbaz: Good afternoon, our
guest today is Afrand Dashdamirov, a professor at the Russian Academy
of Public Administration and a member of the Azeri Academy of
Sciences. Good afternoon, Mr Dashdamirov.
Afrand Dashdamirov: Good afternoon.
S.S.: Baku and Yerevan appear to have finally found a common ground
and a position of compromise and understanding, which will make
possible a dialogue in search of a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
dispute. Do you share this viewpoint?
A.D.: Unfortunately, I don't see any progress here. I think that that
they are just going around in circles.
S.S.: But they've recently visited Moscow...
A.D.: They've been making visits to Moscow since 1996 or 1997. These
visits have become regular, and every change in relations between Baku
and Yerevan is usually accompanied by a big publicity campaign. It
looks like new opportunities emerge, but in fact this impression is
made for the sake of the public, and does not mean that any headway is
actually being made...
S.S.: Do you agree with the opinion, which could seem a bit rough and
provocative, that it's easier to fish in troubled waters, and that
some western governments - I am not going to name any names - are
taking advantage of this unresolved issue to exert influence on
Armenia and Azerbaijan? Do you believe this holds true?
A.D.: It does hold true, of course. Moreover, observers and analysts
have no doubt that this is true regarding each participant of the
negotiation process, including the countries and international
organizations that took the trouble to set up the Minsk Group... Several
respected public figures and professional diplomats have been members
for a few years already. But this is the exterior of this process.
Inherently, it's a purely geopolitical issue. Unfortunately... I'm now
speaking as an Azerbaijani person.
S.S.: Oil?
A.D.: And not only oil. Azerbaijan has a very advantageous
geopolitical location and quite a lot of mineral resources. Armenia's
position is also of interest to Russia and the United States. But I
wouldn't reduce it to these factors only; there are certain aspects
that appear to have little significance on the surface of it but in
fact play a very important role. I'm referring to the attitude of the
international community toward the participants of the conflict, the
nature of the conflict and its causes. Unfortunately, my native
country falls short here. We've taken to the international stage only
recently, whereas Armenia has been promoting itself for almost 200
years. It's been striving for territorial integrity very persistently
and consistently, and it deserves all due respect for this. But before
this could happen, they first had to obtain this territory.
Yesterday I leafed through a few books on the history of the
development of Armenian statehood in the early 20th century and the
role of territorial issues in this process. The books mentioned the
lands that Armenia absorbed and the intense negotiations conducted by
peaceful powers. There was the rivalry and the cooperation needed to
create a starting ground for the nation-state of Armenia.
Azerbaijan never faced this sort of problem. It has always existed
within the boundaries of areas inhabited by Azerbaijani people.
Armenia laid its first claims to regions inhabited by Azerbaijani
people without even obtaining status as an independent state...
Armenian and Azerbaijani people have lived side by side in some
regions. This was the basis for making territorial claims. This
position is not new in history. The principle `Germany is where
Germans live' was widely used before WWII. The same approach is used
today.
S.S.: You've touched on the issue of propaganda. As the former head of
the Azerbaijani Communist Party's Department of Propaganda and
Ideology...
A.D.: ...and Agitation.
S.S.: So what mistakes were made in propaganda and agitation? How was
it possible that a conflict broke out, one of the bloodiest conflicts
in former Soviet republics?
A.D.: Yes, it's been the longest, toughest and bloodiest conflict to
date. The conflict has been dragging on for years. It was sparked by
the notorious riots and looting in the territories inhabited by
Armenian and Azerbaijani people in 1905. These tragic events recurred
after the October Revolution, in 1918-1920, and were always ignited by
land and territorial disputes.
The Azerbaijani government and its people have never laid any claims
to the areas inhabited by Armenian people. However, Armenia has been
constantly making such claims. You've brought up a very sensitive
matter. I'd like to remind you that in the Soviet Union nobody dared
to bring up issues of conflict between nations or undertake anything
serious in this sphere. Outwardly, all nations coexisted in
friendship. Maybe Armenia was just more skilled at finding effective
methods of mass propaganda throughout the Soviet Union, successfully
promoting its position and territorial claims against Azerbaijan and
Azeri people. Yes, it was really so.
Since you reminded me of my previous position, I'd like to mention
that I regularly received letters and documents from the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that asserted the
right of Armenian people to certain territories, Nagorno-Karabakh and
even the entire Karabakh. We even had to write letters of explanation.
You know, I read archival documents to find out that Baku received
such letters before the war, after it, and even immediately after the
end of World War II, in 1945-1946. At that time the country was ruled
by Joseph Stalin, and Armenian leaders wrote letters with their claims
to him directly. Such issues were addressed in a very plain manner at
that time: Moscow simply asked Azerbaijan's opinion. It was then
governed by the famous politician and party activist Mir Dzhafar
Bagirov. He wrote a reply to Malenkov, who was to report to Stalin. In
his letter, Bagirov wrote something along the lines that if Armenia
wanted the part of Karabakh settled by Armenians, Azerbaijan didn't
mind it. At the same time, he reminded him that several thousand and
even several thousand hundred Azerbaijani people lived in Armenia,
Georgia and Daghestan. Why not use this principle for these cases? I'm
now just giving my own interpretation of Bagirov's idea... The question
was closed.
Unfortunately, we're living in a difficult time. I don't have anything
against perestroika, and I believe that democratic changes are
essential factors in the successful development of society, nations
and the world in general, but we've been unable to understand what
democracy is and how to handle it. This is why our neighbors felt free
to act at their own discretion and carried out a propaganda campaign.
And the entire Soviet Union sided with Armenian people, who were
portrayed as victims, unable to reunite with their motherland.
Historically, it had nothing to do with reunification; there was no
ground for it.
S.S.: You've just mentioned letters from Moscow. Do Armenian and Azeri
leaders follow Moscow's influence now? What role does Russia play in
conflict resolution? Has it changed over the past years?
A.D.: Russia plays a very important role, and not only because it is a
major power. Russia has been historically involved in these areas: the
Russian Empire established its presence in the Caucasus, especially
the southern Caucasus. Since the so-called divorce of Soviet republics
and the formation of a series of independent states in post-Soviet
territories, Russia has retained its leading role. Russia is an
absolute leader not only because of its size and power but also
because it's been so involved in our shared history. It did
significantly influence political and economic matters in these areas.
Also, it's no secret that soon we'll mark the 16th anniversary of the
truce between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This agreement was signed at a
time when Armenia occupied seven regions inhabited by Azerbaijani
people and Azerbaijan was a sovereign state. But it was a matter of
the liberation of those people. Armenia suggests recognizing the
independence of Nagorno-Karabakh as a sovereign state, or what it
believes to be a sovereign state, to solve the problems of the
occupied territories. Russia shares this position, and so do other
powers, including the U.S., France and other European countries. They
all say, `You reach agreements on your own, and we will support your
decision whatever it is.' This is a misleading position. Everyone is
aware of Armenia's attitude. And it feels free to have it since it
feels no pressure. It's virtually blackmail. Let them recognize it
first, and then we'll return them their territories. So, Azerbaijan's
current stance is the only one that it can have in such a situation.
The Azeri president says he can give Nagorno-Karabakh the status of
autonomy, ensure direct links between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia,
and resolve other issues, but Armenia craves more than this. Judging
by articles in the Armenian press and the programs of its political
parties, both the ruling and opposition parties, it has quite
different plans and attitudes to Azerbaijan and its territories.
S.S.: As far as I can understand from what you've just said,
Azerbaijan will never agree to recognize the independence of
Nagorno-Karabakh. And on its part, Armenia will never abandon its
ambitions. Do you really think that compromise or dialogue is possible
in such a situation?
A.D.: A compromise is always possible if states that waged war
yesterday manage to reach a certain level of trust today. We should
consider different methods to create a candid atmosphere between the
participants of the negotiation process. The gestures of trust in the
past few years have been reserved and sporadic. It is easy to forget
about cultural exchanges that have happened between Yerevan and Baku
because they seemed somewhat artificial. Maybe that's because there
were artists participating in this? The question is about who defines
public opinion. In a broad sense, it's well-educated, intelligent and
concerned people. But before holding any meetings, these issues must
be discussed at home. How far can we go? The Nagorno-Karabakh dispute
concerns all Azerbaijani people, and Azeri politicians understand it
fairly well.
S.S.: Mr Dashdamirov, thank you for sharing your opinions and for
finding time to visit us.
From: A. Papazian
RIA Novosti.
14:4128/05/2010
Nagorno-Karabakh compromise needs new atmosphere between Armenia and
Azerbaijan Video:Nagorno-Karabakh will not be Azeri unless the last
ethnic Armenian leaves the region Samir Shakhbaz: Good afternoon, our
guest today is Afrand Dashdamirov, a professor at the Russian Academy
of Public Administration and a member of the Azeri Academy of
Sciences. Good afternoon, Mr Dashdamirov.
Afrand Dashdamirov: Good afternoon.
S.S.: Baku and Yerevan appear to have finally found a common ground
and a position of compromise and understanding, which will make
possible a dialogue in search of a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
dispute. Do you share this viewpoint?
A.D.: Unfortunately, I don't see any progress here. I think that that
they are just going around in circles.
S.S.: But they've recently visited Moscow...
A.D.: They've been making visits to Moscow since 1996 or 1997. These
visits have become regular, and every change in relations between Baku
and Yerevan is usually accompanied by a big publicity campaign. It
looks like new opportunities emerge, but in fact this impression is
made for the sake of the public, and does not mean that any headway is
actually being made...
S.S.: Do you agree with the opinion, which could seem a bit rough and
provocative, that it's easier to fish in troubled waters, and that
some western governments - I am not going to name any names - are
taking advantage of this unresolved issue to exert influence on
Armenia and Azerbaijan? Do you believe this holds true?
A.D.: It does hold true, of course. Moreover, observers and analysts
have no doubt that this is true regarding each participant of the
negotiation process, including the countries and international
organizations that took the trouble to set up the Minsk Group... Several
respected public figures and professional diplomats have been members
for a few years already. But this is the exterior of this process.
Inherently, it's a purely geopolitical issue. Unfortunately... I'm now
speaking as an Azerbaijani person.
S.S.: Oil?
A.D.: And not only oil. Azerbaijan has a very advantageous
geopolitical location and quite a lot of mineral resources. Armenia's
position is also of interest to Russia and the United States. But I
wouldn't reduce it to these factors only; there are certain aspects
that appear to have little significance on the surface of it but in
fact play a very important role. I'm referring to the attitude of the
international community toward the participants of the conflict, the
nature of the conflict and its causes. Unfortunately, my native
country falls short here. We've taken to the international stage only
recently, whereas Armenia has been promoting itself for almost 200
years. It's been striving for territorial integrity very persistently
and consistently, and it deserves all due respect for this. But before
this could happen, they first had to obtain this territory.
Yesterday I leafed through a few books on the history of the
development of Armenian statehood in the early 20th century and the
role of territorial issues in this process. The books mentioned the
lands that Armenia absorbed and the intense negotiations conducted by
peaceful powers. There was the rivalry and the cooperation needed to
create a starting ground for the nation-state of Armenia.
Azerbaijan never faced this sort of problem. It has always existed
within the boundaries of areas inhabited by Azerbaijani people.
Armenia laid its first claims to regions inhabited by Azerbaijani
people without even obtaining status as an independent state...
Armenian and Azerbaijani people have lived side by side in some
regions. This was the basis for making territorial claims. This
position is not new in history. The principle `Germany is where
Germans live' was widely used before WWII. The same approach is used
today.
S.S.: You've touched on the issue of propaganda. As the former head of
the Azerbaijani Communist Party's Department of Propaganda and
Ideology...
A.D.: ...and Agitation.
S.S.: So what mistakes were made in propaganda and agitation? How was
it possible that a conflict broke out, one of the bloodiest conflicts
in former Soviet republics?
A.D.: Yes, it's been the longest, toughest and bloodiest conflict to
date. The conflict has been dragging on for years. It was sparked by
the notorious riots and looting in the territories inhabited by
Armenian and Azerbaijani people in 1905. These tragic events recurred
after the October Revolution, in 1918-1920, and were always ignited by
land and territorial disputes.
The Azerbaijani government and its people have never laid any claims
to the areas inhabited by Armenian people. However, Armenia has been
constantly making such claims. You've brought up a very sensitive
matter. I'd like to remind you that in the Soviet Union nobody dared
to bring up issues of conflict between nations or undertake anything
serious in this sphere. Outwardly, all nations coexisted in
friendship. Maybe Armenia was just more skilled at finding effective
methods of mass propaganda throughout the Soviet Union, successfully
promoting its position and territorial claims against Azerbaijan and
Azeri people. Yes, it was really so.
Since you reminded me of my previous position, I'd like to mention
that I regularly received letters and documents from the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that asserted the
right of Armenian people to certain territories, Nagorno-Karabakh and
even the entire Karabakh. We even had to write letters of explanation.
You know, I read archival documents to find out that Baku received
such letters before the war, after it, and even immediately after the
end of World War II, in 1945-1946. At that time the country was ruled
by Joseph Stalin, and Armenian leaders wrote letters with their claims
to him directly. Such issues were addressed in a very plain manner at
that time: Moscow simply asked Azerbaijan's opinion. It was then
governed by the famous politician and party activist Mir Dzhafar
Bagirov. He wrote a reply to Malenkov, who was to report to Stalin. In
his letter, Bagirov wrote something along the lines that if Armenia
wanted the part of Karabakh settled by Armenians, Azerbaijan didn't
mind it. At the same time, he reminded him that several thousand and
even several thousand hundred Azerbaijani people lived in Armenia,
Georgia and Daghestan. Why not use this principle for these cases? I'm
now just giving my own interpretation of Bagirov's idea... The question
was closed.
Unfortunately, we're living in a difficult time. I don't have anything
against perestroika, and I believe that democratic changes are
essential factors in the successful development of society, nations
and the world in general, but we've been unable to understand what
democracy is and how to handle it. This is why our neighbors felt free
to act at their own discretion and carried out a propaganda campaign.
And the entire Soviet Union sided with Armenian people, who were
portrayed as victims, unable to reunite with their motherland.
Historically, it had nothing to do with reunification; there was no
ground for it.
S.S.: You've just mentioned letters from Moscow. Do Armenian and Azeri
leaders follow Moscow's influence now? What role does Russia play in
conflict resolution? Has it changed over the past years?
A.D.: Russia plays a very important role, and not only because it is a
major power. Russia has been historically involved in these areas: the
Russian Empire established its presence in the Caucasus, especially
the southern Caucasus. Since the so-called divorce of Soviet republics
and the formation of a series of independent states in post-Soviet
territories, Russia has retained its leading role. Russia is an
absolute leader not only because of its size and power but also
because it's been so involved in our shared history. It did
significantly influence political and economic matters in these areas.
Also, it's no secret that soon we'll mark the 16th anniversary of the
truce between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This agreement was signed at a
time when Armenia occupied seven regions inhabited by Azerbaijani
people and Azerbaijan was a sovereign state. But it was a matter of
the liberation of those people. Armenia suggests recognizing the
independence of Nagorno-Karabakh as a sovereign state, or what it
believes to be a sovereign state, to solve the problems of the
occupied territories. Russia shares this position, and so do other
powers, including the U.S., France and other European countries. They
all say, `You reach agreements on your own, and we will support your
decision whatever it is.' This is a misleading position. Everyone is
aware of Armenia's attitude. And it feels free to have it since it
feels no pressure. It's virtually blackmail. Let them recognize it
first, and then we'll return them their territories. So, Azerbaijan's
current stance is the only one that it can have in such a situation.
The Azeri president says he can give Nagorno-Karabakh the status of
autonomy, ensure direct links between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia,
and resolve other issues, but Armenia craves more than this. Judging
by articles in the Armenian press and the programs of its political
parties, both the ruling and opposition parties, it has quite
different plans and attitudes to Azerbaijan and its territories.
S.S.: As far as I can understand from what you've just said,
Azerbaijan will never agree to recognize the independence of
Nagorno-Karabakh. And on its part, Armenia will never abandon its
ambitions. Do you really think that compromise or dialogue is possible
in such a situation?
A.D.: A compromise is always possible if states that waged war
yesterday manage to reach a certain level of trust today. We should
consider different methods to create a candid atmosphere between the
participants of the negotiation process. The gestures of trust in the
past few years have been reserved and sporadic. It is easy to forget
about cultural exchanges that have happened between Yerevan and Baku
because they seemed somewhat artificial. Maybe that's because there
were artists participating in this? The question is about who defines
public opinion. In a broad sense, it's well-educated, intelligent and
concerned people. But before holding any meetings, these issues must
be discussed at home. How far can we go? The Nagorno-Karabakh dispute
concerns all Azerbaijani people, and Azeri politicians understand it
fairly well.
S.S.: Mr Dashdamirov, thank you for sharing your opinions and for
finding time to visit us.
From: A. Papazian