Tweet
MOVEMENT-25 ANDREY SAKHAROV - DEFENDER OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ARMENIANS OF ARTSAKH
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=962:m ovement-25-andrey-sakharov--defender-of-the-rights-of-the-armenians-of-artsakh&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Wednesday, 06 March 2013 09:41
The Karabakh Movement, first of all, identified our friends and
confederates, supporters of the struggle of our people and defenders
of its rights.
Just at the first stage of the Movement, representatives of the Soviet
intelligentsia held out the hand of friendship to the Armenians of
Artsakh; they properly understood the essence of the struggle and
stood for the defense of the rights and aspirations of the Armenians of
Artsakh. Among them was Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences,
one of the founders of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, public activist and
great humanist Andrey Sakharov.
The world-known scientist took an impartial stance on the Karabakh
issue, advocating for human rights and considering the right of
nations to self-determination the priority.
On March 21, 1988, Andrey Sakharov sent a letter to CPSU General
Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, setting out his view on the solution of
the problems of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Crimean Tatars.
The first part of the letter noted the importance of the policy of
perestroika, which encouraged the Armenian population of Karabakh
for a solution to their issue. The February 20 session of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Regional Council of People's Deputies adopted a
resolution on soliciting before the Supreme Soviets of the USSR,
Azerbaijani SSR and Armenian SSR for the transfer of the region from
the structure of Azerbaijan to that of Armenia. However, instead
of normal and constitutional review of the application, the Soviet
structures began their maneuvers and persuasions, mainly addressing
to the Armenians. Simultaneously, the press and television began to
spread information, presenting the events incompletely and one-sidedly,
and the legitimate requests of the Armenian population were declared
extremist. And a negative response seemed to be predetermined in
advance.
The Academician regretfully admitted that it was not the first time
that in an aggravated situation, glasnost was suppressed just when it
was mostly needed. Legitimate and peaceful strikes and demonstrations
took place in Yerevan, Nagorno-Karabakh and other places, but in late
February, Azerbaijan responded to them with massive bloody crimes,
which willy-nilly recalled the year of 1915. The author of the letter
expressed hope that the country's leadership, the Politburo of the
CPSU Central Committee, and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR would find
a resolute, democratic, and constitutional solution to the situation.
Sakharov compared the massacres, committed in Sumgait, with the unrests
that took place in the capital city of Kazakhstan, Almaty, in 1986,
noting that they were provoked or perhaps organized by criminal gangs
of the local power.
The issues raised in this letter became a touchstone of the
perestroika and its ability to overcome the resistance and the load
of the past. One should not put off again for decades the just and
inevitable solution to these issues and keep permanent tension zones
in the country.
He called for solutions based on a calm and impartial consideration of
the interests of each of the peoples of our country. In his opinion,
it is necessary, in accordance with the Constitution of the USSR,
to consider the petition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Regional Council of
People's Deputies at the Supreme Soviets of Azerbaijan and Armenia. In
case of disagreement, the arbitral resolution should be taken by the
Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Sakharov appealed to the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan for full
exclusion of violence. It would be a great tragedy if the committed
monstrous crimes were responded with new crimes.
In his letter, the Academician presented his detailed option of the
Karabakh conflict settlement, which caused then a great resonance. He
noted that we had inherited from Stalinism the national-constitutional
structure bearing the stamp of imperial thinking and imperial policy
of "divide and rule". Victims of this inheritance are small Soviet
Republics and small national entities that are parts of the Soviet
Republics on the basis of administrative subordination.
"I propose to discuss the transition to a federal (horizontal) system
of national-constitutional structure. This system provides for all the
existing national-territorial entities, regardless of their size and
current status, equal political, legal and economic rights, maintaining
the present borders. It will be a union of equal republics united by
a union treaty, with voluntary limitation of the sovereignty of each
republic to the minimum extent necessary (in the areas of defense,
foreign policy, and some others)... The main point is that in all
the other spheres they are completely independent and enter into
relations with the Union Treaty on that basis", said the Academician.
Why is such a high level of independence required? Because, as the
author considered, we should step away from the imperial and forced
unification.
So, what should we begin with? Andrey Sakharov suggested starting
with the complete dismantling of the imperial structure. This is
the only way to solve the national issue in small empires, which,
in essence, are the union republics. The proposed system should
comprise only republics. Former autonomous districts also turn into
republics. "For example, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh will not
belong to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. It will be on its own and will
have the right to engage in economic and other relations with those
with whom it wants. All the citizens of the country will benefit from
such a solution. And only in this way, I believe, we can achieve the
solution of the national issue", Sakharov wrote.
The author drew attention to the fact of forced annexation of Karabakh
to Azerbaijan, the cynical deal of the former Soviet leadership. It
pursued a specific goal - to enhance the role of Muslims in the
country, given the neighborhood of Turkey and Iran. According to
Andrey Sakharov, from the first day of the revolution, Moscow paid
great attention to Muslims, intending to use them for spreading the
revolution in the East. Ataturk's regime was maintained in Turkey;
in that country, Muslims were protected, and the word "Christian"
had not been voiced for decades. And the author of the policy of
perestroika, Gorbachev, had a pro-Azerbaijani sentiment.
According to Andrey Sakharov, at the initial stage, the Karabakh issue
could be resolved by administrative and constitutional means, basing
on the right to self-determination. But, the Soviet authorities chose
the contrary way, considering the priority the interests of the small
empire - Azerbaijan.
Today, we lack the great humanist, physician, and public figure, but
the Armenians of Artsakh remember him with deep respect and reverence,
bowing to his genius and greatness of soul.
Ruzan ISHKHANIAN
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=962:m ovement-25-andrey-sakharov--defender-of-the-rights-of-the-armenians-of-artsakh&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Wednesday, 06 March 2013 09:41
The Karabakh Movement, first of all, identified our friends and
confederates, supporters of the struggle of our people and defenders
of its rights.
Just at the first stage of the Movement, representatives of the Soviet
intelligentsia held out the hand of friendship to the Armenians of
Artsakh; they properly understood the essence of the struggle and
stood for the defense of the rights and aspirations of the Armenians of
Artsakh. Among them was Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences,
one of the founders of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, public activist and
great humanist Andrey Sakharov.
The world-known scientist took an impartial stance on the Karabakh
issue, advocating for human rights and considering the right of
nations to self-determination the priority.
On March 21, 1988, Andrey Sakharov sent a letter to CPSU General
Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, setting out his view on the solution of
the problems of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Crimean Tatars.
The first part of the letter noted the importance of the policy of
perestroika, which encouraged the Armenian population of Karabakh
for a solution to their issue. The February 20 session of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Regional Council of People's Deputies adopted a
resolution on soliciting before the Supreme Soviets of the USSR,
Azerbaijani SSR and Armenian SSR for the transfer of the region from
the structure of Azerbaijan to that of Armenia. However, instead
of normal and constitutional review of the application, the Soviet
structures began their maneuvers and persuasions, mainly addressing
to the Armenians. Simultaneously, the press and television began to
spread information, presenting the events incompletely and one-sidedly,
and the legitimate requests of the Armenian population were declared
extremist. And a negative response seemed to be predetermined in
advance.
The Academician regretfully admitted that it was not the first time
that in an aggravated situation, glasnost was suppressed just when it
was mostly needed. Legitimate and peaceful strikes and demonstrations
took place in Yerevan, Nagorno-Karabakh and other places, but in late
February, Azerbaijan responded to them with massive bloody crimes,
which willy-nilly recalled the year of 1915. The author of the letter
expressed hope that the country's leadership, the Politburo of the
CPSU Central Committee, and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR would find
a resolute, democratic, and constitutional solution to the situation.
Sakharov compared the massacres, committed in Sumgait, with the unrests
that took place in the capital city of Kazakhstan, Almaty, in 1986,
noting that they were provoked or perhaps organized by criminal gangs
of the local power.
The issues raised in this letter became a touchstone of the
perestroika and its ability to overcome the resistance and the load
of the past. One should not put off again for decades the just and
inevitable solution to these issues and keep permanent tension zones
in the country.
He called for solutions based on a calm and impartial consideration of
the interests of each of the peoples of our country. In his opinion,
it is necessary, in accordance with the Constitution of the USSR,
to consider the petition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Regional Council of
People's Deputies at the Supreme Soviets of Azerbaijan and Armenia. In
case of disagreement, the arbitral resolution should be taken by the
Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Sakharov appealed to the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan for full
exclusion of violence. It would be a great tragedy if the committed
monstrous crimes were responded with new crimes.
In his letter, the Academician presented his detailed option of the
Karabakh conflict settlement, which caused then a great resonance. He
noted that we had inherited from Stalinism the national-constitutional
structure bearing the stamp of imperial thinking and imperial policy
of "divide and rule". Victims of this inheritance are small Soviet
Republics and small national entities that are parts of the Soviet
Republics on the basis of administrative subordination.
"I propose to discuss the transition to a federal (horizontal) system
of national-constitutional structure. This system provides for all the
existing national-territorial entities, regardless of their size and
current status, equal political, legal and economic rights, maintaining
the present borders. It will be a union of equal republics united by
a union treaty, with voluntary limitation of the sovereignty of each
republic to the minimum extent necessary (in the areas of defense,
foreign policy, and some others)... The main point is that in all
the other spheres they are completely independent and enter into
relations with the Union Treaty on that basis", said the Academician.
Why is such a high level of independence required? Because, as the
author considered, we should step away from the imperial and forced
unification.
So, what should we begin with? Andrey Sakharov suggested starting
with the complete dismantling of the imperial structure. This is
the only way to solve the national issue in small empires, which,
in essence, are the union republics. The proposed system should
comprise only republics. Former autonomous districts also turn into
republics. "For example, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh will not
belong to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. It will be on its own and will
have the right to engage in economic and other relations with those
with whom it wants. All the citizens of the country will benefit from
such a solution. And only in this way, I believe, we can achieve the
solution of the national issue", Sakharov wrote.
The author drew attention to the fact of forced annexation of Karabakh
to Azerbaijan, the cynical deal of the former Soviet leadership. It
pursued a specific goal - to enhance the role of Muslims in the
country, given the neighborhood of Turkey and Iran. According to
Andrey Sakharov, from the first day of the revolution, Moscow paid
great attention to Muslims, intending to use them for spreading the
revolution in the East. Ataturk's regime was maintained in Turkey;
in that country, Muslims were protected, and the word "Christian"
had not been voiced for decades. And the author of the policy of
perestroika, Gorbachev, had a pro-Azerbaijani sentiment.
According to Andrey Sakharov, at the initial stage, the Karabakh issue
could be resolved by administrative and constitutional means, basing
on the right to self-determination. But, the Soviet authorities chose
the contrary way, considering the priority the interests of the small
empire - Azerbaijan.
Today, we lack the great humanist, physician, and public figure, but
the Armenians of Artsakh remember him with deep respect and reverence,
bowing to his genius and greatness of soul.
Ruzan ISHKHANIAN