Tweet
For Once, Aliyev May Be Right
Opinion | August 16,
2012 10:22 am
------------------------------
*By Edmond Y. Azadian*
Any objective analysis must seek a rational solution to intractable
problems. News media and some government agencies may become more alarmist
to dramatize certain critical situations. However, there are historic
moments where the distinction between rationality and alarmism is blurred.
That is the situation in Armenia today.
Recently, in this column, we quoted a statement from the president of
Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, which sounded a death knell for Armenia.
He specifically said that Armenia's population is dwindling while
Azerbaijan's armed forces are growing. `We can wait until Armenia's
population is reduced to one million and then we can take over its
territory,' he had said.
In that scenario, Azerbaijan does not need to use its recently-acquired
modern weaponry, estimated to be worth $1.6 billion. Nor does it need to
use the military drones supplied by Israel. Instead, the leadership in Baku
is counting on a waiting game which is working in its favor.
The situation is similar to the demise of the Soviet Union. The nuclear
arsenal of the US and all the western countries were unable to dismantle
the Soviet empire, but internal decay caused that seemingly impervious
empire to implode, without a single shot fired by the West.
In their unabashed statements, the Azeri leaders have claimed not only
Karabagh (or Artsakh) as part of their territory, but also the entire
territory of Armenia, as recently stated by President Aliyev himself,
characterizing Armenians as `recent settlers on Azerbaijani territory.'
Any student of history can turn the tables and state as a historic fact
that the opposite claim has historical veracity, that in fact, Azeris are
the recent settlers in the region.
Aliyev is not the only leader entertaining such dreams; before him, another
president, Abulfez Elchibey, threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in
Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores. Incidentally, he also threatened to
occupy `northern Azerbaijan' in Iran and annex it to the modern Republic of
Azerbaijan.
If during Elchibey's administration such designs were dismissed as pipe
dreams, today they have become - and must become - serious issues of
concern.
The fact is Armenia is being depopulated and Aliyev's waiting-game policy
can no longer be considered a far-fetched plan. For two decades, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as
regional and major governments, have been negotiating to find a solution to
the Karabagh conflict. (Actually, they are spinning their wheels.) The fact
that no solution has been found indicates that it is not in the interests
of the parties involved to solve the problem. That keeps Karabagh's future
in limbo, with the population facing a paralyzing uncertainty. Even
Armenia's only strategic partner, Russia, has a policy of duplicity. During
the Soviet era, Moscow's foreign policy was driven by ideology. No more.
Today it is driven by interest, sometimes marked with ironies. For example,
the only Russian military base outside its territory is in Armenia,
ostensibly to defend Armenia against any perceived threat from Turkey. Yet
the foreign policy establishment in Moscow finds it perfectly compatible
with its policy to sell $100 million worth of weapons to Turkey.
The West is interested in winning over the Azeri leadership to have access
to that country's energy resources and to wean it away from Moscow. This
is
the same policy Britain exercised in 1919, trying to convince Armenians in
Karabagh to accept Azeri rule `temporarily,' until the status of the
territory was determined at the Paris Peace Conference. The Armenian
National Council of Karabagh refused the British diktat, risking the
destruction of the region by Sultanov's forces, a `governor' handpicked and
imposed on the locals by Britain.
The population in Armenia is dwindling and it certainly is not increasing
in Karabagh. Any solution to the Karabagh problem will surely include a
popular referendum on the status of the territory. Baku's leadership may
wait out and when Armenians lose the critical mass in the territory, they
may agree to a referendum, after having calculated the outcome.
Foreign investments in Armenia and Karabagh are very slow, hampering job
creation and economic recovery. The dysfunctional legal system also does
not encourage foreign investments. Even local oligarchs have moved some of
their businesses outside the country.
There are some bright spots and valiant undertakings in a rather gloomy
background. For example, recently a local benefactor, Levon Hayrabetyan,
financed the weddings of 700 couples in Karabagh, also pledging to set up
trust funds for children born out of those marriages. That was an
individual initiative, which can only go so far. A similar national program
must be adopted and implemented by both governments.
Another investor from the diaspora established a meat processing plant in
Karabagh, spending $1 million. When asked by a journalist what he would do
with his investment if we lose Karabagh, he responded: `I will not cry over
my one million, as I will have a bigger loss to cry about.'
These are acts of courage few and far in between. A more massive program is
needed to stop the hemorrhage and to put Armenia and Karabagh back on the
path towards revitalization.
Unfortunately, a rudderless diaspora is no help, either. We are fragmented
and trivialized like never before. Lay and religious leaders of national
prominence who commanded respect ironically disappeared from the scene just
when they were most needed, as Armenia attained independence.
There is a national emergency but we don't seem to feel a sense of urgency.
Armenia's depopulation will mean a catastrophe of historic magnitude. We
must not let Aliyev's design come true. We waited for six centuries to
finally have an independent homeland. Can we survive another six centuries
if we lose this opportunity?
In view of the gravity of this situation, all of our current priorities
pale and should thus receive corresponding importance; they lose their
significance completely should Armenia fail. This traumatic situation must
move all Armenians with a passion in order to stop the downfall. It is a
nightmarish prospect - and obsession will be forgiven in pursuit of a
solution.
We need to disprove Aliyev and all the enemies of Armenia. Is any one
listening?
Opinion | August 16,
2012 10:22 am
------------------------------
*By Edmond Y. Azadian*
Any objective analysis must seek a rational solution to intractable
problems. News media and some government agencies may become more alarmist
to dramatize certain critical situations. However, there are historic
moments where the distinction between rationality and alarmism is blurred.
That is the situation in Armenia today.
Recently, in this column, we quoted a statement from the president of
Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, which sounded a death knell for Armenia.
He specifically said that Armenia's population is dwindling while
Azerbaijan's armed forces are growing. `We can wait until Armenia's
population is reduced to one million and then we can take over its
territory,' he had said.
In that scenario, Azerbaijan does not need to use its recently-acquired
modern weaponry, estimated to be worth $1.6 billion. Nor does it need to
use the military drones supplied by Israel. Instead, the leadership in Baku
is counting on a waiting game which is working in its favor.
The situation is similar to the demise of the Soviet Union. The nuclear
arsenal of the US and all the western countries were unable to dismantle
the Soviet empire, but internal decay caused that seemingly impervious
empire to implode, without a single shot fired by the West.
In their unabashed statements, the Azeri leaders have claimed not only
Karabagh (or Artsakh) as part of their territory, but also the entire
territory of Armenia, as recently stated by President Aliyev himself,
characterizing Armenians as `recent settlers on Azerbaijani territory.'
Any student of history can turn the tables and state as a historic fact
that the opposite claim has historical veracity, that in fact, Azeris are
the recent settlers in the region.
Aliyev is not the only leader entertaining such dreams; before him, another
president, Abulfez Elchibey, threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in
Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores. Incidentally, he also threatened to
occupy `northern Azerbaijan' in Iran and annex it to the modern Republic of
Azerbaijan.
If during Elchibey's administration such designs were dismissed as pipe
dreams, today they have become - and must become - serious issues of
concern.
The fact is Armenia is being depopulated and Aliyev's waiting-game policy
can no longer be considered a far-fetched plan. For two decades, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as
regional and major governments, have been negotiating to find a solution to
the Karabagh conflict. (Actually, they are spinning their wheels.) The fact
that no solution has been found indicates that it is not in the interests
of the parties involved to solve the problem. That keeps Karabagh's future
in limbo, with the population facing a paralyzing uncertainty. Even
Armenia's only strategic partner, Russia, has a policy of duplicity. During
the Soviet era, Moscow's foreign policy was driven by ideology. No more.
Today it is driven by interest, sometimes marked with ironies. For example,
the only Russian military base outside its territory is in Armenia,
ostensibly to defend Armenia against any perceived threat from Turkey. Yet
the foreign policy establishment in Moscow finds it perfectly compatible
with its policy to sell $100 million worth of weapons to Turkey.
The West is interested in winning over the Azeri leadership to have access
to that country's energy resources and to wean it away from Moscow. This
is
the same policy Britain exercised in 1919, trying to convince Armenians in
Karabagh to accept Azeri rule `temporarily,' until the status of the
territory was determined at the Paris Peace Conference. The Armenian
National Council of Karabagh refused the British diktat, risking the
destruction of the region by Sultanov's forces, a `governor' handpicked and
imposed on the locals by Britain.
The population in Armenia is dwindling and it certainly is not increasing
in Karabagh. Any solution to the Karabagh problem will surely include a
popular referendum on the status of the territory. Baku's leadership may
wait out and when Armenians lose the critical mass in the territory, they
may agree to a referendum, after having calculated the outcome.
Foreign investments in Armenia and Karabagh are very slow, hampering job
creation and economic recovery. The dysfunctional legal system also does
not encourage foreign investments. Even local oligarchs have moved some of
their businesses outside the country.
There are some bright spots and valiant undertakings in a rather gloomy
background. For example, recently a local benefactor, Levon Hayrabetyan,
financed the weddings of 700 couples in Karabagh, also pledging to set up
trust funds for children born out of those marriages. That was an
individual initiative, which can only go so far. A similar national program
must be adopted and implemented by both governments.
Another investor from the diaspora established a meat processing plant in
Karabagh, spending $1 million. When asked by a journalist what he would do
with his investment if we lose Karabagh, he responded: `I will not cry over
my one million, as I will have a bigger loss to cry about.'
These are acts of courage few and far in between. A more massive program is
needed to stop the hemorrhage and to put Armenia and Karabagh back on the
path towards revitalization.
Unfortunately, a rudderless diaspora is no help, either. We are fragmented
and trivialized like never before. Lay and religious leaders of national
prominence who commanded respect ironically disappeared from the scene just
when they were most needed, as Armenia attained independence.
There is a national emergency but we don't seem to feel a sense of urgency.
Armenia's depopulation will mean a catastrophe of historic magnitude. We
must not let Aliyev's design come true. We waited for six centuries to
finally have an independent homeland. Can we survive another six centuries
if we lose this opportunity?
In view of the gravity of this situation, all of our current priorities
pale and should thus receive corresponding importance; they lose their
significance completely should Armenia fail. This traumatic situation must
move all Armenians with a passion in order to stop the downfall. It is a
nightmarish prospect - and obsession will be forgiven in pursuit of a
solution.
We need to disprove Aliyev and all the enemies of Armenia. Is any one
listening?