Tweet
RUSSELL POLLARD: THE RECOGNITION OF NKR WITHIN CURRENT BORDERS IS THE ONLY HUMANITARIAN OPTION
17:55 14/01/2015 >> INTERVIEWS
In the interview with Panorama.am British independent photographer and
writer Russell Pollard, who has visited Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh
10 times, shares his insights about the situation on the ground and
explains why the only humanitarian solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict can be the recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
(NKR) within its current borders.
Mr. Pollard, you have visited Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh many
times and have been sharing your experience through your articles
and photography in your blog www.artsakh.org.uk. How did you get
interested in this region? What has captured your interest and kept
bringing you back?
My first arrival to Armenia was very arbitrary; I came as a tourist in
2009 and from that initial visit many things captured my imagination.
One of these things was the Genocide Museum in Yerevan. In the UK when
I was at school (probably it's not different today) we were not taught
about the Armenian genocide. I did some reading up on the subject prior
to coming to Armenia, and when I visited the museum it proved to be an
emotional experience. When I searched the grounds around the museum for
the plaque from the UK government (because there were plaques from many
countries) I didn't find one. It was only later that I realized that
it was missing because the UK doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide.
The second thing I remember vividly on the Independence Day was
following the crowds of people going to Yerablur military cemetery;
at that time I didn't know where we were going but I kept walking with
them. When I got there, I was moved by the event and was reminded
of the news items on the Nagorno Karabakh war in the 1990s. I was
touched by the flowers, the grieving families, and the memories.
My third memory was seeing the biblical Mount Ararat in Armenia-
it was truly magnificent! These were the things that captured my
attention and emotions during my first visit to Armenia, and resulted
in me returning many times later.
Then the next year I went to Nagorno Karabakh. The place where I
stayed in Shushi was very welcoming. I had many conversations there
with my guide and host about Armenian history, identity and the war.
The more I got involved, got to know the people and the issues,
the more I got drawn into it. I didn't go there with any intention
or a plan to write about it later or to create a website; a number
of things just came together to make it work I suppose. After that
I visited Karabakh a total of 9 times, created the website and have
been raising awareness of these issues, globally, and in the UK.
One of your articles is titled "Nagorno-Karabakh: Recognition is
the only Humanitarian option." How would you say the non-recognition
today is impairing the lives of people whom you have met and why is
the recognition of NKR "the only humanitarian option"?
On the fundamental basic level non-recognition of NKR is stopping
the economy from growing. The economy is suppressed because NKR
can't engage in international trade and banking, so it cannot bring
investments in and create enough jobs (there is high unemployment).
People are suffering in their everyday lives from not having easy
access to goods, transport, medication, employment etc. and are
constantly struggling to find enough money in order to survive
sensibly.
I also think (and I approach this from the point of view of all the
sides, not just the Armenians) that if the UN recognized the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic, the first thing it would do would be to force a
peace agreement because "recognition" means recognizing the borders
of NKR as an independent state. This would also increase the security
in the region and would foster the development of Karabakh. Also it
would allow carrying out mine clearance of the surrounding territories
of Karabakh which are currently not being demined (demining now is
taking place only inside the original Soviet Karabakh and not in
the surrounding regions). If this happens then the Azeris who used
to live there will have the opportunity to return to their homes -
the number of refugees who are likely to want to return is probably
much less than that suggested by the Azerbaijani Government.
Of course the people in Karabakh have reasonable fears and concerns
regarding the issue of the return of the refugees. If you've been
attacked by your neighbour, it's reasonable to think that it will
happen again. The anti-Armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan, to the extent
that it is true, does fuel the perceived animosity between the two
nations. Nevertheless the returning of refugees is, theoretically,
a consequence of the recognition of NKR.
Have you observed some tangible development in NKR during these years,
despite its non-recognition?
Yes, Karabakh is developing. When I first went to Shushi I would say
there were no new buildings and there was much destruction but now
I see there are new hotels, art galleries, the water system is new
and so on. In Stepanakert there are lots of new buildings, and much
improved infrastructure, whereas at the end of the war it was very
badly damaged.
To my understanding pretty much all of this investment comes from
the Republic of Armenia or the Diaspora, rather than from within.
Eventually NK will be able to finance investment from its own economic
growth. British or European companies won't invest in NK, because
they are unsure of the overall status of the region.
Is it the questions of status that prevents for instance Western
non-governmental or humanitarian organizations from working in NKR
or is it also because of the lack of awareness about the region?
I guess there's nothing stopping them from coming to work in NK
as such, other than the fact that Karabakh doesn't capture the
attention of the people who are funding those organizations. On a
simple practical level most of the people have never heard of the
place and if they have, then it is unlikely that they will have a
balanced understanding of the true situation.
In the UK the causes which draw most support tend to be crises that
appear on the media for a short period like earthquakes, tsunami,
floods etc.
In this respect what is the challenge for a photojournalist who tries
to spread the word about Karabakh?
The difficult thing to capture on a photograph is the way the
situation actually is. I have seen photo collections which concentrate
on the lack of amenities, or certain aspects of poverty in the
villages, implying that the whole country is destitute, which is
inaccurate. Equally, whilst many views of Stepanakert or Shushi show
people living in ways which people in the UK could identify with,
it will not reveal the difficulties that they struggle with on a
daily basis.
It is important to get the balance of images which focus on the lives
of people as it happens rather than a few photographs which portray a
pre-conceived notion of the place in from the mind of the photographer.
Also, it's not a story that captures the attention of the media -
that's where the difficulty is. The understanding of the majority of
the people on foreign affairs is driven by the TV and that's dictated
by ratings and short-term crises.
The consensus of the people in NKR and in RA is that Karabakh can
never be part of Azerbaijan ever again. Having closely communicated
with the people on the ground why would you say this is the case?
I think simply because 100% of the people in Nagorno Karabakh believe
that they would be oppressed, and their life wouldn't be worth living
under the control of Azerbaijan. I think that it is an entirely
reasonable position to take. If you were living peacefully in NK
in 1988 and you expressed a wish to join Armenia and that peaceful
demonstration of democracy resulted in war then why would you ever
consider being controlled by that country ever again? If Azerbaijan did
end up controlling NKR again in the future then there would probably
be no Armenians left in Karabakh!
What is the approach of the people to war and peace?
People want peace. I have never come across anybody who would want
anything other than just a continued peace. There is no logical
incentive for the people in Karabakh to go to war with Azerbaijan
because they are not interested in increasing the boundaries.
At the same time there is also this feeling of siege because of the
unresolved state of the conflict. I have asked many people "what is it
like to live in a place which is near to the frontline?" and mostly
they say that they rarely think about it, they just carry on. But
I'm sure it becomes part of everyone's psyche in everyday life.
You also write that going back to borders of 1988 Soviet Karabakh
(NKAO), i.e. surrendering the surrounding territories to Azerbaijan,
cannot be an option for NK. In your opinion what are the main
considerations that make this impossible?
It won't work simply because the people in Karabakh feel that there's
some degree of security by having those surrounding territories around
NK; described as a buffer zone.
There are two important elements in this regard. First, Soviet
Karabakh is like a kidney-shaped enclave. Agdam for instance, from
where people in Karabakh were being bombed and shelled, is close to
Stepanakert. So I think people would feel vulnerable if that whole
area suddenly became an Azeri-controlled territory. Also, the part
between Karabakh and Armenia is a vital lifeline and allowing that
back under Azerbaijani control, when that route was blockaded during
the war, does not feel like a tenable situation.
Some people in NK have referred to them as "liberated territories"
on historical grounds; this is a dangerous position to take when it
comes to securing support from the wider international community. I
believe the security argument is more compelling and is more accessible
as an argument for a wider group of people.
As we know the anti-Armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan is carried out
on the state level. Have you encountered any anti-Azeri propaganda
on the part of the NKR government?
No. I can't say I have ever seen anything like anti-Azeri propaganda
from the officials in Nagorno Karabakh.
I wouldn't say I have researched this intensively but I have seen
things coming from Azerbaijan which are propaganda, xenophobic and
so on. So on balance, with the exception of cross-border firing,
you don't get the sense that Karabakh government is putting a lot of
time and effort into making unreasonable statements.
Mr. Pollard, you gave a lecture on Karabakh recently at Oxford
University. What was the main topic of the lecture and what did
it cover?
Essentially my talk was in two parts - the first part was very much
around what I have experienced by engaging and living with people in
Karabakh and the people who are actually affected by the conflict on
the ground. This was covered by my own photography.
The second part, which I was asked to do, dealt in a more detailed
way with the article I wrote about Khojaly. I wrote it based mainly
on Azeri sources and I think it raises a lot of questions which the
Azeri version does not have answers to.
Interview by Nvard Chalikyan
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2015/01/14/pollard/
17:55 14/01/2015 >> INTERVIEWS
In the interview with Panorama.am British independent photographer and
writer Russell Pollard, who has visited Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh
10 times, shares his insights about the situation on the ground and
explains why the only humanitarian solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict can be the recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
(NKR) within its current borders.
Mr. Pollard, you have visited Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh many
times and have been sharing your experience through your articles
and photography in your blog www.artsakh.org.uk. How did you get
interested in this region? What has captured your interest and kept
bringing you back?
My first arrival to Armenia was very arbitrary; I came as a tourist in
2009 and from that initial visit many things captured my imagination.
One of these things was the Genocide Museum in Yerevan. In the UK when
I was at school (probably it's not different today) we were not taught
about the Armenian genocide. I did some reading up on the subject prior
to coming to Armenia, and when I visited the museum it proved to be an
emotional experience. When I searched the grounds around the museum for
the plaque from the UK government (because there were plaques from many
countries) I didn't find one. It was only later that I realized that
it was missing because the UK doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide.
The second thing I remember vividly on the Independence Day was
following the crowds of people going to Yerablur military cemetery;
at that time I didn't know where we were going but I kept walking with
them. When I got there, I was moved by the event and was reminded
of the news items on the Nagorno Karabakh war in the 1990s. I was
touched by the flowers, the grieving families, and the memories.
My third memory was seeing the biblical Mount Ararat in Armenia-
it was truly magnificent! These were the things that captured my
attention and emotions during my first visit to Armenia, and resulted
in me returning many times later.
Then the next year I went to Nagorno Karabakh. The place where I
stayed in Shushi was very welcoming. I had many conversations there
with my guide and host about Armenian history, identity and the war.
The more I got involved, got to know the people and the issues,
the more I got drawn into it. I didn't go there with any intention
or a plan to write about it later or to create a website; a number
of things just came together to make it work I suppose. After that
I visited Karabakh a total of 9 times, created the website and have
been raising awareness of these issues, globally, and in the UK.
One of your articles is titled "Nagorno-Karabakh: Recognition is
the only Humanitarian option." How would you say the non-recognition
today is impairing the lives of people whom you have met and why is
the recognition of NKR "the only humanitarian option"?
On the fundamental basic level non-recognition of NKR is stopping
the economy from growing. The economy is suppressed because NKR
can't engage in international trade and banking, so it cannot bring
investments in and create enough jobs (there is high unemployment).
People are suffering in their everyday lives from not having easy
access to goods, transport, medication, employment etc. and are
constantly struggling to find enough money in order to survive
sensibly.
I also think (and I approach this from the point of view of all the
sides, not just the Armenians) that if the UN recognized the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic, the first thing it would do would be to force a
peace agreement because "recognition" means recognizing the borders
of NKR as an independent state. This would also increase the security
in the region and would foster the development of Karabakh. Also it
would allow carrying out mine clearance of the surrounding territories
of Karabakh which are currently not being demined (demining now is
taking place only inside the original Soviet Karabakh and not in
the surrounding regions). If this happens then the Azeris who used
to live there will have the opportunity to return to their homes -
the number of refugees who are likely to want to return is probably
much less than that suggested by the Azerbaijani Government.
Of course the people in Karabakh have reasonable fears and concerns
regarding the issue of the return of the refugees. If you've been
attacked by your neighbour, it's reasonable to think that it will
happen again. The anti-Armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan, to the extent
that it is true, does fuel the perceived animosity between the two
nations. Nevertheless the returning of refugees is, theoretically,
a consequence of the recognition of NKR.
Have you observed some tangible development in NKR during these years,
despite its non-recognition?
Yes, Karabakh is developing. When I first went to Shushi I would say
there were no new buildings and there was much destruction but now
I see there are new hotels, art galleries, the water system is new
and so on. In Stepanakert there are lots of new buildings, and much
improved infrastructure, whereas at the end of the war it was very
badly damaged.
To my understanding pretty much all of this investment comes from
the Republic of Armenia or the Diaspora, rather than from within.
Eventually NK will be able to finance investment from its own economic
growth. British or European companies won't invest in NK, because
they are unsure of the overall status of the region.
Is it the questions of status that prevents for instance Western
non-governmental or humanitarian organizations from working in NKR
or is it also because of the lack of awareness about the region?
I guess there's nothing stopping them from coming to work in NK
as such, other than the fact that Karabakh doesn't capture the
attention of the people who are funding those organizations. On a
simple practical level most of the people have never heard of the
place and if they have, then it is unlikely that they will have a
balanced understanding of the true situation.
In the UK the causes which draw most support tend to be crises that
appear on the media for a short period like earthquakes, tsunami,
floods etc.
In this respect what is the challenge for a photojournalist who tries
to spread the word about Karabakh?
The difficult thing to capture on a photograph is the way the
situation actually is. I have seen photo collections which concentrate
on the lack of amenities, or certain aspects of poverty in the
villages, implying that the whole country is destitute, which is
inaccurate. Equally, whilst many views of Stepanakert or Shushi show
people living in ways which people in the UK could identify with,
it will not reveal the difficulties that they struggle with on a
daily basis.
It is important to get the balance of images which focus on the lives
of people as it happens rather than a few photographs which portray a
pre-conceived notion of the place in from the mind of the photographer.
Also, it's not a story that captures the attention of the media -
that's where the difficulty is. The understanding of the majority of
the people on foreign affairs is driven by the TV and that's dictated
by ratings and short-term crises.
The consensus of the people in NKR and in RA is that Karabakh can
never be part of Azerbaijan ever again. Having closely communicated
with the people on the ground why would you say this is the case?
I think simply because 100% of the people in Nagorno Karabakh believe
that they would be oppressed, and their life wouldn't be worth living
under the control of Azerbaijan. I think that it is an entirely
reasonable position to take. If you were living peacefully in NK
in 1988 and you expressed a wish to join Armenia and that peaceful
demonstration of democracy resulted in war then why would you ever
consider being controlled by that country ever again? If Azerbaijan did
end up controlling NKR again in the future then there would probably
be no Armenians left in Karabakh!
What is the approach of the people to war and peace?
People want peace. I have never come across anybody who would want
anything other than just a continued peace. There is no logical
incentive for the people in Karabakh to go to war with Azerbaijan
because they are not interested in increasing the boundaries.
At the same time there is also this feeling of siege because of the
unresolved state of the conflict. I have asked many people "what is it
like to live in a place which is near to the frontline?" and mostly
they say that they rarely think about it, they just carry on. But
I'm sure it becomes part of everyone's psyche in everyday life.
You also write that going back to borders of 1988 Soviet Karabakh
(NKAO), i.e. surrendering the surrounding territories to Azerbaijan,
cannot be an option for NK. In your opinion what are the main
considerations that make this impossible?
It won't work simply because the people in Karabakh feel that there's
some degree of security by having those surrounding territories around
NK; described as a buffer zone.
There are two important elements in this regard. First, Soviet
Karabakh is like a kidney-shaped enclave. Agdam for instance, from
where people in Karabakh were being bombed and shelled, is close to
Stepanakert. So I think people would feel vulnerable if that whole
area suddenly became an Azeri-controlled territory. Also, the part
between Karabakh and Armenia is a vital lifeline and allowing that
back under Azerbaijani control, when that route was blockaded during
the war, does not feel like a tenable situation.
Some people in NK have referred to them as "liberated territories"
on historical grounds; this is a dangerous position to take when it
comes to securing support from the wider international community. I
believe the security argument is more compelling and is more accessible
as an argument for a wider group of people.
As we know the anti-Armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan is carried out
on the state level. Have you encountered any anti-Azeri propaganda
on the part of the NKR government?
No. I can't say I have ever seen anything like anti-Azeri propaganda
from the officials in Nagorno Karabakh.
I wouldn't say I have researched this intensively but I have seen
things coming from Azerbaijan which are propaganda, xenophobic and
so on. So on balance, with the exception of cross-border firing,
you don't get the sense that Karabakh government is putting a lot of
time and effort into making unreasonable statements.
Mr. Pollard, you gave a lecture on Karabakh recently at Oxford
University. What was the main topic of the lecture and what did
it cover?
Essentially my talk was in two parts - the first part was very much
around what I have experienced by engaging and living with people in
Karabakh and the people who are actually affected by the conflict on
the ground. This was covered by my own photography.
The second part, which I was asked to do, dealt in a more detailed
way with the article I wrote about Khojaly. I wrote it based mainly
on Azeri sources and I think it raises a lot of questions which the
Azeri version does not have answers to.
Interview by Nvard Chalikyan
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2015/01/14/pollard/