Tweet
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
July 31 2014
Karabakh conflict in eyes of Israeli political analyst
31 July 2014 - 12:03pm
Interview by Peter Lyukimson, Israel. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
Doctor Emil Abramov, a senior scientist of the Center for Iran and
Persian Gulf Studies of the University of Haifa, is one of the Israeli
scientists actively engaged in studying the history of the South
Caucasus, one of the leading specialists in the sector. Dr. Abramov is
preparing to publish his book and a series of articles on the history
of the Azerbaijani khanates, keeping a close watch on events in the
South Caucasus today, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
- Doctor Abramov, how interesting is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for
Israeli scientists? Do you think there are any similarities between
the Armenian-Azerbaijani and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts?
- Israeli political analysts, of course, are more interested in the
development of the situation in the Middle East. Generally, the
Caucasus, sadly, remains terra incognita for Israeli scientists, only
a very few of them are familiar with the problems of the Caucasus.
One may, of course, find similarities in any conflicts. But I think
that the Karabakh and the Palestinian conflicts differ in their
essence, history, scale, the number of sides involved, the interest of
world mass media and many other factors. Every conflict is a unique
phenomenon, and attempts to resolve one conflict or another are based
on comparative analysis, they are, in my opinion, unproductive.
- There are many versions about the cause of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict. Which of them do you think is the closest to the historical
truth?
- Indeed, there are countless versions. And the majority of them can
easily be labeled as fantasy. The Karabakh conflict doubtlessly has
historical origins. But since Azerbaijan and Armenia are still on the
territory of post-Soviet space, the issue should be regarded from the
submission of the Trans-Caucasus to the Russian Empire, not older
times.
Before the conquest of the Trans-Caucasus, Armenians of the Russian
Empire were a minority on most of the territory they occupy today.
Being Christians, they were considered a natural ally of Russia in the
fight against Muslim Persia and Turkey. Or vice versa, the Turkomans
seemed like an unreliable population to the government, capable of
taking the side of their co-religionists at any moment. Right after
conquering the Trans-Caucasus in 1828 on the territory of the
discontinued Nakhichevan and Erivan Khanates, the Armenian Oblast was
formed; encouraged by the authorities of the Russian Empire, Armenians
from Persia and the Ottoman Empire started settling there. Curiously,
the resettlement of Armenians on the new territories was often hardly
voluntary. The displacement of the Turkic population, the obvious
disrespect from the imperial authorities and the religious differences
artfully used by various provocateurs caused rising tensions in
relations between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, resulting in bloody
clashes that took many lives. One such massacre in 1905-1906 ended
with numerous deaths.
Azerbaijan and Armenia, arising from the ruins of the Russian Empire
in 1918, managed to wage two wars in just two years of independence,
followed by ethnic cleansing. In 1920, the Bolsheviks liquidated both
republics. It seems that the new government, postulating friendship of
peoples, was to bring serenity. Indeed, despite some clashes and
deportations of Azerbaijanis from Armenia in the 1947-1950s, it seemed
for a long time that the conflict between the two peoples had come to
an end. But the events in Karabakh showed that the Soviet period was
only a calm before the storm.
I think, however, that historical arguments should be omitted in order
to resolve the Karabakh conflict. Referring to the traditional pages
of history only aggravates the current conflict and slows its
settlement. I, of course, do not call for putting history out of mind
and wiping the slate clean. It is simply impossible. But arguments
such as "you were not here" only brings us to a stalemate.
- What is your evaluation of the actions of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani authorities in the "hottest" period of the conflict, from
1990 to 1993?
- The Armenian side was better prepared for the conflict, in military
and ideological terms. Using the strength of the Armenian community,
skillfully forming agitation, Armenia managed to attract the sympathy
of the Western world to its side. Azerbaijan, on the contrary, was
unprepared for serious confrontation.
(Indeed, the plans and secret preparation of Armenian nationalists,
supported and controlled by the USSR capital and abroad, was
absolutely unexpected - Vestnik Kavkaza note). In those years,
Azerbaijanis and Armenians had excellent relations in Azerbaijan, no
one expected a conflict. Many leaders of Azerbaijan were idealists
then. In addition, the Azerbaijani elites were dissociated on
different issues. The situation changed when experienced politician
Heydar Aliyev returned to power, managed to stop the war and give the
country a break.
- How fair are Azerbaijani accusations of Armenia committing military
crimes and violating international law?
- Azerbaijan accuses the Armenian side of a set of such crimes, the
most outrageous of them is the Khojaly tragedy. Armenia is obviously
denying guilt. But the guilt has been proved by many independent
observers.
- What is your evaluation of the path both countries gone through in
the last two decades, from the ceasefire to today? How did the
conflict affect the development of their economic, domestic and
foreign policies?
- The Karabakh conflict has been the center of political discourse in
both republics. The Armenian side managed to gain control over
Nagorno-Karabakh, but it seems to be a Pyrrhic victory today. Because
of the long-running conflict, Armenia ended up in a blockade with a
bad impact on its economic development. Russia, the closest ally of
Armenia, as is known, has no land border with the republic. So Armenia
has to strengthen ties with Iran, ruining its image in the West.
Moreover, Armenia lacks an attractive economy for investors. The
situation develops completely differently in Azerbaijan. Managing to
recover from the repercussions of the war and postwar ruins, the
resource-rich country managed to allocate major volumes of funds for
modernization of the army. The growing economy makes Azerbaijan an
ever more significant player in the Caucasus and the world.
- And here is the main question. What are the positions of Armenia and
Azerbaijan in the world arena? Whose are better in your opinion?
- Doubtlessly, the Azerbaijani position is better. Armenia connected
its fate with Russia and cooperates with Iran quite actively, which in
the context of the crisis in relations between the West and Russia and
the long-running negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program greatly
weakens Armenia's positions. The problem is that Armenia has hardly
any space for manoeuvre, not that it chose its allies and partners. If
Russia refuses to support Armenia for some reason, it will simply run
out of allies. Azerbaijan, being pro-Western on many issues, managed
to maintain friendly ties with Russia. In other words, Azerbaijan has
great potential for actions in the international arena.
- How constructive is the position each side takes in resolving the
conflict, in your opinion?
- Unfortunately, settlement of the conflict has reach gridlock.
Azerbaijan demands its territories back, I will remind you that it
demands Nagorno-Karabakh itself and the surrounding Azerbaijani
territories currently controlled by the Armenian side. The Armenian
side denies the claims, calling the territories its own. On the other
hand, we cannot ignore the fact that an Armenian population inhabits
Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan will have to form a system of
relations with it volens nolens. Both sides are fed up with many years
of fruitless talks, endless declarations and mutual accusations. I
really hope that no new war will start and the Karabakh issue will be
resolved peacefully.
- What further scenarios of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict do you foresee?
- In my opinion, the situation is developing according to the current
scenario, i.e. the negotiation process will remain in a stalemate.
Although, there have recently been certain prospects for progress in
the Russian policy, maybe Russia will put pressure on Yerevan to
ameliorate its position. But it is too early to talk about this.
- And the final question for you, as a specialist: what is your
evaluation of Azerbaijani and Armenian relations with Israel?
- Armenia takes a very passive position. It is no secret that
Azerbaijan is actively cooperating with Israel in various sectors,
including the military sector. Israel has already chosen a path
towards close cooperation with Azerbaijan. The cooperation is
beneficial for both sides, each of them wants to make maximum profit
from partnership relations.
Moreover, there is an emotional moment. Israel remembers the
many-centuries existence of a Jewish community on Azerbaijani land and
knows that Azerbaijan has no anti-Semitism. Israel constantly declares
its support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, hosts Azerbaijani
festivals and commemorations for victims of Black January and the
Khojaly tragedy.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/58308.html
July 31 2014
Karabakh conflict in eyes of Israeli political analyst
31 July 2014 - 12:03pm
Interview by Peter Lyukimson, Israel. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
Doctor Emil Abramov, a senior scientist of the Center for Iran and
Persian Gulf Studies of the University of Haifa, is one of the Israeli
scientists actively engaged in studying the history of the South
Caucasus, one of the leading specialists in the sector. Dr. Abramov is
preparing to publish his book and a series of articles on the history
of the Azerbaijani khanates, keeping a close watch on events in the
South Caucasus today, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
- Doctor Abramov, how interesting is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for
Israeli scientists? Do you think there are any similarities between
the Armenian-Azerbaijani and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts?
- Israeli political analysts, of course, are more interested in the
development of the situation in the Middle East. Generally, the
Caucasus, sadly, remains terra incognita for Israeli scientists, only
a very few of them are familiar with the problems of the Caucasus.
One may, of course, find similarities in any conflicts. But I think
that the Karabakh and the Palestinian conflicts differ in their
essence, history, scale, the number of sides involved, the interest of
world mass media and many other factors. Every conflict is a unique
phenomenon, and attempts to resolve one conflict or another are based
on comparative analysis, they are, in my opinion, unproductive.
- There are many versions about the cause of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict. Which of them do you think is the closest to the historical
truth?
- Indeed, there are countless versions. And the majority of them can
easily be labeled as fantasy. The Karabakh conflict doubtlessly has
historical origins. But since Azerbaijan and Armenia are still on the
territory of post-Soviet space, the issue should be regarded from the
submission of the Trans-Caucasus to the Russian Empire, not older
times.
Before the conquest of the Trans-Caucasus, Armenians of the Russian
Empire were a minority on most of the territory they occupy today.
Being Christians, they were considered a natural ally of Russia in the
fight against Muslim Persia and Turkey. Or vice versa, the Turkomans
seemed like an unreliable population to the government, capable of
taking the side of their co-religionists at any moment. Right after
conquering the Trans-Caucasus in 1828 on the territory of the
discontinued Nakhichevan and Erivan Khanates, the Armenian Oblast was
formed; encouraged by the authorities of the Russian Empire, Armenians
from Persia and the Ottoman Empire started settling there. Curiously,
the resettlement of Armenians on the new territories was often hardly
voluntary. The displacement of the Turkic population, the obvious
disrespect from the imperial authorities and the religious differences
artfully used by various provocateurs caused rising tensions in
relations between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, resulting in bloody
clashes that took many lives. One such massacre in 1905-1906 ended
with numerous deaths.
Azerbaijan and Armenia, arising from the ruins of the Russian Empire
in 1918, managed to wage two wars in just two years of independence,
followed by ethnic cleansing. In 1920, the Bolsheviks liquidated both
republics. It seems that the new government, postulating friendship of
peoples, was to bring serenity. Indeed, despite some clashes and
deportations of Azerbaijanis from Armenia in the 1947-1950s, it seemed
for a long time that the conflict between the two peoples had come to
an end. But the events in Karabakh showed that the Soviet period was
only a calm before the storm.
I think, however, that historical arguments should be omitted in order
to resolve the Karabakh conflict. Referring to the traditional pages
of history only aggravates the current conflict and slows its
settlement. I, of course, do not call for putting history out of mind
and wiping the slate clean. It is simply impossible. But arguments
such as "you were not here" only brings us to a stalemate.
- What is your evaluation of the actions of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani authorities in the "hottest" period of the conflict, from
1990 to 1993?
- The Armenian side was better prepared for the conflict, in military
and ideological terms. Using the strength of the Armenian community,
skillfully forming agitation, Armenia managed to attract the sympathy
of the Western world to its side. Azerbaijan, on the contrary, was
unprepared for serious confrontation.
(Indeed, the plans and secret preparation of Armenian nationalists,
supported and controlled by the USSR capital and abroad, was
absolutely unexpected - Vestnik Kavkaza note). In those years,
Azerbaijanis and Armenians had excellent relations in Azerbaijan, no
one expected a conflict. Many leaders of Azerbaijan were idealists
then. In addition, the Azerbaijani elites were dissociated on
different issues. The situation changed when experienced politician
Heydar Aliyev returned to power, managed to stop the war and give the
country a break.
- How fair are Azerbaijani accusations of Armenia committing military
crimes and violating international law?
- Azerbaijan accuses the Armenian side of a set of such crimes, the
most outrageous of them is the Khojaly tragedy. Armenia is obviously
denying guilt. But the guilt has been proved by many independent
observers.
- What is your evaluation of the path both countries gone through in
the last two decades, from the ceasefire to today? How did the
conflict affect the development of their economic, domestic and
foreign policies?
- The Karabakh conflict has been the center of political discourse in
both republics. The Armenian side managed to gain control over
Nagorno-Karabakh, but it seems to be a Pyrrhic victory today. Because
of the long-running conflict, Armenia ended up in a blockade with a
bad impact on its economic development. Russia, the closest ally of
Armenia, as is known, has no land border with the republic. So Armenia
has to strengthen ties with Iran, ruining its image in the West.
Moreover, Armenia lacks an attractive economy for investors. The
situation develops completely differently in Azerbaijan. Managing to
recover from the repercussions of the war and postwar ruins, the
resource-rich country managed to allocate major volumes of funds for
modernization of the army. The growing economy makes Azerbaijan an
ever more significant player in the Caucasus and the world.
- And here is the main question. What are the positions of Armenia and
Azerbaijan in the world arena? Whose are better in your opinion?
- Doubtlessly, the Azerbaijani position is better. Armenia connected
its fate with Russia and cooperates with Iran quite actively, which in
the context of the crisis in relations between the West and Russia and
the long-running negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program greatly
weakens Armenia's positions. The problem is that Armenia has hardly
any space for manoeuvre, not that it chose its allies and partners. If
Russia refuses to support Armenia for some reason, it will simply run
out of allies. Azerbaijan, being pro-Western on many issues, managed
to maintain friendly ties with Russia. In other words, Azerbaijan has
great potential for actions in the international arena.
- How constructive is the position each side takes in resolving the
conflict, in your opinion?
- Unfortunately, settlement of the conflict has reach gridlock.
Azerbaijan demands its territories back, I will remind you that it
demands Nagorno-Karabakh itself and the surrounding Azerbaijani
territories currently controlled by the Armenian side. The Armenian
side denies the claims, calling the territories its own. On the other
hand, we cannot ignore the fact that an Armenian population inhabits
Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan will have to form a system of
relations with it volens nolens. Both sides are fed up with many years
of fruitless talks, endless declarations and mutual accusations. I
really hope that no new war will start and the Karabakh issue will be
resolved peacefully.
- What further scenarios of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict do you foresee?
- In my opinion, the situation is developing according to the current
scenario, i.e. the negotiation process will remain in a stalemate.
Although, there have recently been certain prospects for progress in
the Russian policy, maybe Russia will put pressure on Yerevan to
ameliorate its position. But it is too early to talk about this.
- And the final question for you, as a specialist: what is your
evaluation of Azerbaijani and Armenian relations with Israel?
- Armenia takes a very passive position. It is no secret that
Azerbaijan is actively cooperating with Israel in various sectors,
including the military sector. Israel has already chosen a path
towards close cooperation with Azerbaijan. The cooperation is
beneficial for both sides, each of them wants to make maximum profit
from partnership relations.
Moreover, there is an emotional moment. Israel remembers the
many-centuries existence of a Jewish community on Azerbaijani land and
knows that Azerbaijan has no anti-Semitism. Israel constantly declares
its support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, hosts Azerbaijani
festivals and commemorations for victims of Black January and the
Khojaly tragedy.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/58308.html