Tweet
NAGORNO-KARABAKH AND BORDER DISPUTES
[ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ]
* The Guardian, Wednesday 14 January 2015 19.23 GMT A bride and groom
in front of a regional government building seized by pro-Russians
in Kramatorsk A bride and groom in front of a regional government
building seized by pro-Russians in Kramatorsk, Ukraine. 'The
break-up of multi-national entities is usually messy,' writes Yugo
Kovach. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters
Your inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in an article on “the best
new adventures for 2015” (Totally out there, Travel, 10 January)
is disrespectful to the people of Azerbaijan.
Nagorno-Karabakh is an internationally recognised part of Azerbaijan
currently under the occupation of Armenian armed forces. Do you think
it is morally right to encourage an aggressor to maintain control over
a portion of a territory of another country and show total neglect of
the sufferings of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people?
Sadly, your piece plays into the hands of the separatist regime, which
strives to legitimise its act of occupation. The Guardian’s
stance against recent separatist tendencies in the post-Soviet space
is commendable, and one would wish the same sensitivity shown to
Azerbaijan.
The Foreign Office warns against any travel to Nagorno-Karabakh
and surrounding occupied regions of Azerbaijan. By promoting
Nagorno-Karabakh as a so-called tourist “destination”
you mislead the public and potentially put their lives at risk; also,
those taking unauthorised trips will be unable to travel to the rest
of Azerbaijan in future.
Tahir Taghizadeh Ambassador of Azerbaijan in London
####
* It’s one thing to accuse Putin of forcibly changing borders,
quite another to overlook what Nato did in Kosovo (This trauma
could lead to a European reawakening, 14 January). The break-up of
multinational entities is usually messy. Algeria springs to mind.
Also, wasn’t Northern Ireland less a land grab by London and
more an instance of a young Irish state not commanding the allegiance
of the protestant north? The same sort of thing could be said of the
Ukraine conflict.
Other examples abound from the break-up of the USSR. The Slavs of
Transnistria don’t feel any affinity with the Romanian-speaking
Moldovan authorities, and they furthermore fear that Romania will
eventually absorb Moldova. Nor do the Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh
enclave wish a return to rule by Azerbaijan. Then there are the
Abkhazians and South Ossetians of Georgia who distrust Tbilisi rule.
To treat these conflicts as instances of Russian ultranationalism is
unhelpful. Must the federalists stoop so low as to picture Russia as
the indispensable common enemy that will unite Europe?
Yugo Kovach Winterborne Houghton, Dorset
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/nagorno-karabakh-border-dispute
s-russia
From: Baghdasarian
[ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ]
* The Guardian, Wednesday 14 January 2015 19.23 GMT A bride and groom
in front of a regional government building seized by pro-Russians
in Kramatorsk A bride and groom in front of a regional government
building seized by pro-Russians in Kramatorsk, Ukraine. 'The
break-up of multi-national entities is usually messy,' writes Yugo
Kovach. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters
Your inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in an article on “the best
new adventures for 2015” (Totally out there, Travel, 10 January)
is disrespectful to the people of Azerbaijan.
Nagorno-Karabakh is an internationally recognised part of Azerbaijan
currently under the occupation of Armenian armed forces. Do you think
it is morally right to encourage an aggressor to maintain control over
a portion of a territory of another country and show total neglect of
the sufferings of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people?
Sadly, your piece plays into the hands of the separatist regime, which
strives to legitimise its act of occupation. The Guardian’s
stance against recent separatist tendencies in the post-Soviet space
is commendable, and one would wish the same sensitivity shown to
Azerbaijan.
The Foreign Office warns against any travel to Nagorno-Karabakh
and surrounding occupied regions of Azerbaijan. By promoting
Nagorno-Karabakh as a so-called tourist “destination”
you mislead the public and potentially put their lives at risk; also,
those taking unauthorised trips will be unable to travel to the rest
of Azerbaijan in future.
Tahir Taghizadeh Ambassador of Azerbaijan in London
####
* It’s one thing to accuse Putin of forcibly changing borders,
quite another to overlook what Nato did in Kosovo (This trauma
could lead to a European reawakening, 14 January). The break-up of
multinational entities is usually messy. Algeria springs to mind.
Also, wasn’t Northern Ireland less a land grab by London and
more an instance of a young Irish state not commanding the allegiance
of the protestant north? The same sort of thing could be said of the
Ukraine conflict.
Other examples abound from the break-up of the USSR. The Slavs of
Transnistria don’t feel any affinity with the Romanian-speaking
Moldovan authorities, and they furthermore fear that Romania will
eventually absorb Moldova. Nor do the Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh
enclave wish a return to rule by Azerbaijan. Then there are the
Abkhazians and South Ossetians of Georgia who distrust Tbilisi rule.
To treat these conflicts as instances of Russian ultranationalism is
unhelpful. Must the federalists stoop so low as to picture Russia as
the indispensable common enemy that will unite Europe?
Yugo Kovach Winterborne Houghton, Dorset
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/nagorno-karabakh-border-dispute
s-russia
From: Baghdasarian