Tweet
Armenians informs The New York Times editors of situation in Nagorny Karabakh
arminfo
Friday, June 3, 17:01
A message is spread by Facebook social network, which informs about an
anti- Armenian article published in New York Times on May 31. The
article is named "Frozen Conflict Between Azerbaijan and Armenia
Begins to Boil" and aims to present Azerbaijanis as victims, confirms
Azerbaijani moral right to restart war against NK and "restore
Azerbaijani territorial completeness".
The initiators offer Facebook users to send many messages to NY Times
editorial and tell them truth about NK issue and Azerbaijan.
The message says that Ellen Barry's recent article caused great
frustration to readers. Mrs. Barry's biased approach in the article
makes one think that the article was written under the influence of
the Azerbaijani propaganda.
"This article is mostly dedicated to the description of undesirable
consequences for Azerbaijan that were caused as a result of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But the author is silent about the fact
that it was Azerbaijan first to launch an aggressive war against
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to organize the bombing of some border
areas of Armenia itself. Moreover, both international and Soviet law
did allow Nagorno- Karabakh to achieve its independence. The
fundamental human rights of Karabakh Armenian population had been
violated for decades, and the culmination of violations was the ethnic
cleansings of late 1980s.
There are also detailed sad stories of Azerbaijani refugees, but the
author is tacit about Azerbaijan's brutal policy towards its own
population. Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, views its refugees only as a
tool of its policy. For many years refugees in Azerbaijan were not
allowed to leave their tent camps as if they were kept in
concentration camps.
Mrs. Barry repeats the official position of Azerbaijan and insists
that the current framework of the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations have
exhausted itself. But she is silent about the fact that the main
barrier of progress in the negotiations is Azerbaijan's destructive
approach of failing the negotiation (incidentally she talks as if the
international community is negotiating with Armenia (yet, the
negotiations are between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the
participation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and mediated by the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs)). The point is that Azerbaijan has been poisoning its
own population with Armenophobia and revanchism for about two decades,
and now the government doesn't know what to answer to the people of
Azerbaijan, when the OSCE Minsk Group mediators insist that the status
of Karabakh should be decided through a legally binding free
expression of will of its people. Moreover, calls for a new aggression
are repeatedly cited in the article, and the author treats those calls
quite normally.
However, the OSCE Minsk Group mediators in their statements clearly
point out that the resumption of war is unacceptable for the
international community, that the settlement of the conflict should be
based on a comprehensive application of the three basic principles:
the prohibition of threat or use of force, self- determination and
territorial integrity. Mediators also stress that all conflicting
parties should prepare their people for peace and not for war. In
fact, the citations of aggression used by the author in fact endorse
the fact that the international mediators' calls for peace are
directed at Azerbaijan. Any use of force is clearly prohibited in
international law, and this time the international community is
determined to prevent the repetition of such actions by Azerbaijan.
But from the New York Times' article from May 31 one gets the
impression that it is natural that Azerbaijan is preparing for war, as
if it is a party that has been treated unjustly.
Mr. Keller, I sincerely hope that your editorial would be more careful
in printing such biased articles in the future. Azerbaijan spends
millions of dollars for its PR campaign abroad. And I hope the New
York Times' esteemed reputation can not be marred by the
petrol-dollars from the Caspian Sea," " the author of the message
writes.
The New York Times is the third popular publications in the USA (after
The Wall Street Journal & USA Today).
arminfo
Friday, June 3, 17:01
A message is spread by Facebook social network, which informs about an
anti- Armenian article published in New York Times on May 31. The
article is named "Frozen Conflict Between Azerbaijan and Armenia
Begins to Boil" and aims to present Azerbaijanis as victims, confirms
Azerbaijani moral right to restart war against NK and "restore
Azerbaijani territorial completeness".
The initiators offer Facebook users to send many messages to NY Times
editorial and tell them truth about NK issue and Azerbaijan.
The message says that Ellen Barry's recent article caused great
frustration to readers. Mrs. Barry's biased approach in the article
makes one think that the article was written under the influence of
the Azerbaijani propaganda.
"This article is mostly dedicated to the description of undesirable
consequences for Azerbaijan that were caused as a result of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But the author is silent about the fact
that it was Azerbaijan first to launch an aggressive war against
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to organize the bombing of some border
areas of Armenia itself. Moreover, both international and Soviet law
did allow Nagorno- Karabakh to achieve its independence. The
fundamental human rights of Karabakh Armenian population had been
violated for decades, and the culmination of violations was the ethnic
cleansings of late 1980s.
There are also detailed sad stories of Azerbaijani refugees, but the
author is tacit about Azerbaijan's brutal policy towards its own
population. Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, views its refugees only as a
tool of its policy. For many years refugees in Azerbaijan were not
allowed to leave their tent camps as if they were kept in
concentration camps.
Mrs. Barry repeats the official position of Azerbaijan and insists
that the current framework of the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations have
exhausted itself. But she is silent about the fact that the main
barrier of progress in the negotiations is Azerbaijan's destructive
approach of failing the negotiation (incidentally she talks as if the
international community is negotiating with Armenia (yet, the
negotiations are between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the
participation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and mediated by the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs)). The point is that Azerbaijan has been poisoning its
own population with Armenophobia and revanchism for about two decades,
and now the government doesn't know what to answer to the people of
Azerbaijan, when the OSCE Minsk Group mediators insist that the status
of Karabakh should be decided through a legally binding free
expression of will of its people. Moreover, calls for a new aggression
are repeatedly cited in the article, and the author treats those calls
quite normally.
However, the OSCE Minsk Group mediators in their statements clearly
point out that the resumption of war is unacceptable for the
international community, that the settlement of the conflict should be
based on a comprehensive application of the three basic principles:
the prohibition of threat or use of force, self- determination and
territorial integrity. Mediators also stress that all conflicting
parties should prepare their people for peace and not for war. In
fact, the citations of aggression used by the author in fact endorse
the fact that the international mediators' calls for peace are
directed at Azerbaijan. Any use of force is clearly prohibited in
international law, and this time the international community is
determined to prevent the repetition of such actions by Azerbaijan.
But from the New York Times' article from May 31 one gets the
impression that it is natural that Azerbaijan is preparing for war, as
if it is a party that has been treated unjustly.
Mr. Keller, I sincerely hope that your editorial would be more careful
in printing such biased articles in the future. Azerbaijan spends
millions of dollars for its PR campaign abroad. And I hope the New
York Times' esteemed reputation can not be marred by the
petrol-dollars from the Caspian Sea," " the author of the message
writes.
The New York Times is the third popular publications in the USA (after
The Wall Street Journal & USA Today).