“The Karabakh conflict taught me that we need a statute of limitations on history,” the American journalist Bill Keller once observed to me, when I wrote to ask him about his experience of covering the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the 1980s.
“Amen to that,” most neutral watchers would have concluded after the painful debate between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on February 15, 2020, during the Munich Security Conference.
Aliyev and Pashinyan tried at times to be constructive. But their performance showed that this three-decades-old conflict over the territory of Nagorny Karabakh is bigger than two men. In Munich, Aliyev and Pashinyan were not so much leaders as conduits for the dark narratives of two nations. They reechoed the traumas and conspiracy theories of their own peoples and had no real message for the other side.
“First of all, we need to go back. . .” Aliyev began, before starting with a treaty signed in 1805 to justify Azerbaijan’s claim on Karabakh. Later, Aliyev offered the Armenians of Karabakh minority rights should control of the territory be returned to Azerbaijan, but he had already turned off any Armenians watching by claiming that “there is no Armenian historical legacy on these territories.” A prime reason why the dispute broke out three decades ago, in 1988, was precisely because the Karabakh Armenians feared Soviet Azerbaijan was not respecting their centuries-old cultural heritage.
The Armenian prime minister said that he wanted to talk more about the present than the past. He made the welcome assertion that a final peace settlement must be acceptable to the people of Azerbaijan. But he spoiled this overture by repeatedly denying an atrocity committed by Armenians in 1992. And in his final words of the day he bizarrely referred to the Roman-era Armenian king Tigran the Great.
The end of February is always a hard moment in the calendar for this conflict, as Armenians and Azerbaijanis each commemorate the horrible atrocities committed at Sumgait in 1988 and at Khojaly in 1992.
With the dispute still unresolved, it is too much to ask to have the leaders acknowledge their own side’s guilt for these episodes—as a Serbian president finally did in 2013 for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. But both Aliyev and Pashinyan are actively obstructing conflict resolution by recycling conspiracy theories.
What is at stake here? The Sumgait pogroms, which began on February 27, 1988, were the moment a localized dispute turned into a full Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. A week before, the Karabakh Armenians had begun campaigning to leave Soviet Azerbaijan and join Soviet Armenia. Mostly peaceful rallies were held in both republics.
However, the Azerbaijani rallies grew much angrier when the news broke that two young Azerbaijani men had died in disputed circumstances. In most Azerbaijani cities, the protests were contained, but in the town of Sumgait, a crowd of young men began attacking the Armenian quarter. Twenty-six Armenians were killed, others were raped or suffered horrific injuries. The whole of the Soviet Union was shocked.
Eventually, eighty-four men were convicted of crimes in Sumgait. Many Azerbaijanis were deeply ashamed, while some radicals praised the “heroes of Sumgait.” Over time, however, in time-honored fashion, a conspiracy theory emerged because one of the eighty-four accused, Eduard Grigorian, had an Armenian surname. In recent years, half of Azerbaijan has come to believe that Grigorian somehow masterminded the Sumgait pogroms and ordered Azerbaijanis to kill Armenians. No matter that Grigorian was a nobody and a sadist, a thrice-convicted criminal, whose Armenian father had died when he was young, leaving him with only a surname and his Russian mother.
Unfortunately, the Azerbaijani president himself has repeated this grotesque theory—and may do so again this week.
Four years later, on the night of February 26, 1992, the worst atrocity of the Karabakh conflict was committed by Armenian forces who killed whole columns of Azerbaijani civilians fleeing the besieged town of Khojaly. Azerbaijan now officially puts the death toll at 613.
The horrific episode has been well documented in reports by Human Rights Watch and Memorial. It has been confirmed by Armenian sources in the memoirs of Markar Melkonian, brother of famous Armenian volunteer commander Monte Melkonian, and indeed in my own interview with former Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan. These tell us that savage irregular Armenian fighters did the killings, wanting to turn the tide of the conflict. A British journalist later called the killings a “Revenge Tragedy” because he heard that some of those responsible were Armenian refugees from Sumgait.
It’s all clear. Except that former Azerbaijani president Ayaz Mutalibov later gave a bitter interview to a Czech journalist, which was printed in the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, blaming his Azerbaijani political opponents for carrying out the attack on Azerbaijani civilians in an effort to discredit him.
Mutalibov was a tainted figure who was ousted as president largely because he failed to evacuate the civilians from Khojaly. The interview is muddled and he later disavowed his words. No matter. Some Armenians have seized on this as a weapon to evade their side’s responsibility for the killings. Including, unfortunately, as we saw in Munich, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
The Munich fiasco will have shown neutrals how Armenians and Azerbaijanis are still deeply trapped in the Karabakh conflict and the chronic need for a third alternative narrative that does not merely rehearse two distorted versions of the past.
History can also be deployed to support such a third narrative. Someone should perhaps reprint the text of the 1724 Persian-era friendship treaty signed between the Armenian lords of Karabakh and the Azerbaijani khans of Ganje (against the Ottoman Turks!).
The subject of a book published in 1977 by the Azerbaijani historian Suleiman Mamedov, it’s an inconvenient reminder that, over the centuries, Armenians and Azerbaijanis both inhabited Karabakh and frequently lived in friendship.
Otherwise, before the next international forum stages a similar event, the organizers should ask the two leaders to sign a ceasefire agreement on historical issues, to prevent bad history from further poisoning present negotiations.
Comments(70)
For this particular moment, it's evident that the Genocide happened, and that brutality which carnage over the peaceful population was implemented is horrific. This could not be a revenge act as per the fact that the population of Sumgait was just forced to leave Azerbaijan (yes, with some victims, domestic aggression etc) but never been murdered with such a cruelty, after deviated tortures. Ripped bellies of a pregnant women, 63 kids killed, not suffered of bombing, but killed - face to face. 28 years ago, Feb 25 to 26 night. This will never been forgotten or forgiven to those who were a part of this.
It is good to remember history, but it has been an excuse for several atrocities: the battle of 'kosovoe pole' (1389) between serbs and turks is a ground for the serb nation to claim Kosovo. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is partially anchored into the past kingdom of Israel, 700 to 900 years before christ. The conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia is also a distant echo of history, combined with a demographic evolution. It seems the only solution today is to accept the consequences of the past, and to listen to the vows of the present populations. Is it too much to accept it also in Crimea?
"Time for an Armenia-Azerbaijan History Ceasefire" - why, because Armenia has lots of history to give away and Azerbaijan has none to give but everything to gain? Typical and predictable. As usual, this author is fine with going back in history, as long as we don't go back far enough to give Armenia any "edge". So we can go back 200 years, but God forbid we go back 2000 years, that would be a no-no, since from that time no one ever heard of a "Turk" - much less an "Azeri".
Hey man, If you search the history a little bit you will see that Azerbaijanis always have been living in THAT region.For example Nakchivan (older than 2000 yeras )is one of the oldest city of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani called different in history.but Armenians were very few
Rauf you are historical! If you do a little research that you will see the name Nakhijevan has pure Armenian roots. It is historically a region of Greater Armenia, divided between the provinces of Vaspurakan and Syunik.
Solid summary and strong arguments but the article could have benefited from mentioning how tragic history wars can get, as evidenced by the newly-exposed covert erasure of 28,000 medieval Armenian monuments in Nakhichevan between 1997 and 2006.
But 28,000 Armenian monuments are just stone things, aren't they? They represent Dead White Males. And who were Christian. You know, like the Founding Fathers of America. Ugh, right? Who cares? I have a lot of history books. I think I'll burn them.
Yes not to mention how many have been destroyed in Turkey . No where in the world do nations soar over territory except the middle east . After wha ISIS did to the Yazidis which is a genocide it’s the same premise . Who in their right mind gave this territory to Azerbaijan ? What is wrong with outside folks carving up territory without benefit of counting heads and churches to determine e who has inhabited an area longer. Turkey gets all if Anatolia under the treaty of Lausanne and now this . The treaty of Lausanne is to be revisited in 2023 how should the world view Turkey —is it an interloper and a member of NATO . What gives modern nations don’t do this we can all immigrate to anywhere in the world and ask for citizenship if possible with churches in Karabagh that is testament that they have lived there for centuries . More death fir what? For shame for whoever started this . There will never be an olympics in Azerbaijan go ahead pick on people no one should visit there except maybe Erdogan sounds like a little kids fight I’ll inject myself into your war as we are Islamic we are t members of the human race . BhtcTurkish people stick together and everyone else be dammed . But I want all the ammunition and money that NATO will provide but I enjoy stirring the pot because Azeris are Turks . No wonder the EU doesn’t want Turkey in the EU too nationalistic and drawing lines in the sand against anyone who isn’t Turkish . Look what China is doing to the Uyhgurs ? Sad are we living in 2020 or in 2000 AD ancient wars never to be resolved . WAR, WAR, WAR and DEATH . For shame on world leaders. Next thing you know they will kill all the birds, the animals and all living things that Invaded Karabagh . It’s written in most books that Noah landed on Mt. Ararat and yet the Europeans drew the line effectively giving it to Turkey but history still uses the word Ararat . Should we have a war over that too . Stop the hate and stop drawing lines that separate people live and let live
Most Europeans don't care about Armenians and there are a few that would sell their services to highest bidders and write articles like this under pretense of "even handed" approach that at the end of the day favors Azeri goals of establishing control over Artsakh
If it is not to review history, it is enough to analyze that Artsakh (karabakh) won his right to independence in the same legislation that gave independence to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and to the other countries that made up the Soviet Union. That simple. Artsakh is free and it is the desire of its people to remain free. Azerbaijan, Armenia and the world need to recognize this.
Nothing surprising in what Margarit1029 is distorting the realities. He (she) is either too young to remember the Soviet period and its constitution or is brazenly trying to falsify the history. The Soviet constitution only allowed the constituent parts, that's 15 republics to separate and this was only on paper. None of other autonomous regions like Karabakh was entitled to such a right. When the Soviet Union was going through disintegration, Azerbaijan was caught unprepared, believing in vain that its territorial integrity would be protected by the Kremlin. It realized very late that this was plotted in Moscow and in the West and ethnic problems and territorial integrity were fueling issues to accelerate the demise of the USSR.
The Sumgait, Baku and Kirovabad pogroms, not to even mention, the deportation of Armenians from Shahumian district of Karabakh, Shamakhi and other districts in Kirovabad (Ganja) happened at the cost of 100s of lives of Armenians and not just 20 Armenians... numbers which are based on falsified Soviet sources. It's sad to see someone like De Waal referring on Soviet numbers when it comes to delicate cases like these. Azerbaijan shamelessly claims of genocide, whereas there has been no official policy of ethnic cleansing by Artsakh's authorities or Armenian forces during the conflict. Azerbaijani as well as Armenian civilians have FLED, because of the insecure and dangerous situation of the war. Civilian casualties in Artsakh have been registered on both sides. As to Khojaly precisely, documentaries bearing Azerbaijani witnesses have showcased the context and the role Khojaly has played in the war as well as the realities on the ground, before, during and after the military operation on the village. Khojaly was used as a Azerbaijani colonization base, to shift the demographics of NKAO before the war. During the military operation in 1992, Azerbaijani authorities did not allow their civilians to leave the village, while Armenian armed forces had numerous times warned them to leave. Armenian forces planned the attack so as to leave a corridor behind the village, to let the civilians leave towards Aghdam, but they were massacred, held by surprise between the crossfires of Azerbaijani and Armenian forces, pretty far away from the village of Khojaly itself, as the emplacement of the death bodies proved afterwards. And what do Armenians have to say about the massacre in the village of Maragha of around 105-10 Armenians? Why doesn't De Waal mention that also? Or is it because Armenians know how to grief in silence? Khojaly was a tragedy. But it can never be portrayed as a genocide, which Azerbaijan claims it to be. To say so, is an insult to the term "genocide" itself. For if there had been a genocide against the Azerbaijani civilians during all the war, it had to be applied by the State authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh and it had to be applied against all Azerbaijani villages, which obviously is not the case in this war. On the other hand, Azerbaijan has lost all legitimacy and trust to the eyes of Armenians forever. Waves after waves of massacres against Armenians across the regions of Azerbaijan during the last century (1905, 1918, 1920, 1960-70s expulsion of Nakhichevan Armenians, 1988 Sumgait and Kirovabad pogroms, 1990 Baku pogroms, 1992 Maragha massacre) and the current Aliyev regime's Armenophobic State policy on all levels of society, as well as the official state policy of denial of the Armenian Genocide alongside Turkey make it all impossible for any possible return of 1988 pre-war borders. Armenians are worthy for their victory and this victory is the response to this long list of unpunished injustices committed against Armenians by the successive Azerbaijani governments. None of them have recognized any of these crimes against the Armenians. If Azerbaijanis wish to live in Artsakh they will need to accept to live under Armenian rule, just as, Armenians have accepted to live "side-by-side" under Azerbaijan's rule countless times during the last century. Unfortunately, Armenians' trust in the "brotherhood between peoples" have proven to be in vain. Azerbaijan had its chance to prove itself with an autonomous Nagorno-Karabakh for 70 years under Soviet rule and what did we get? The silent ethnic cleansing through carefully planned discriminatory policies against Armenians that led to their population stagnation if not reduction. Azerbaijan HAD that opportunity (autonomous status) and it failed. Returning to an option that has proven to fail is totally unproductive and ineffective for a durable conflict resolution plan. Let me also add that Armenia can seize the international courts and justify the independence of Artsakh and the justification is there open to everyone. State Sovereignty and territorial integrity are not "sancto sanctum" principles; they depend on how that State uses its sovereignty and responsibility to protect. Hence, the case of Kosovo... In the UN Resolution 2625 of 1970 "The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" it is stated "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter...bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter. The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people. Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States ... (and here it precisely says which type of States) ... CONDUCTING themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus POSESSED of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory WITHOUT distinction as to race, creed or colour (Ganjaliyev does not represent Stepanakert Armenians, since he has not been voted by them). Azerbaijan has continuously failed this throughout the last century and continues to fail by its state-sponsored anti-Armenian propaganda and brainwashing education, not mentioning its expansionist claims onto the territory of Armenia, (blessed by Turkey's support as we saw during the last Turkic Council) and its official policy of denial of the Armenian Genocide, alongside Turkey. As for what concerns history, here is a short timeline of Karabakh's history: what historically was known as Artsakh has been the strongest and the longest Armenian independent entity. The Armenian Melikates of Artsakh remained independent from 845 AD to 1605 (760 years). From 1605 until 1750 (145 years) they remained semi-independent under Safavid rule, where from 1750 until 1812 (62 years) they were ruled by the newly created centralized Karabagh Khanate, under the Azeri Turkic ruler Panah Ali Khan Javanshir, who was helped to come in power by the Armenian Melik Shahnazar II Shahnazarian of Varanda. In the history of Artsakh (Karabagh) as an independent entity (not mentioning those years when it was an Armenian province before), 905 (760 + 145) years were ruled by Armenians, while only 62, not of independent, but of semi-independent years, (1750-1812) were ruled by only 2 Azeri Turk ruler (Panah Ali Khan and his son Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir). And today Azerbaijan claims Artsakh to be an "ancestral" Azerbaijani land. The Karabagh Khanate, Aliyev's regime is referring to, is a joke, compared to what was the 905 years of Armenian rule behind. The Karabakh Khanate wouldn't even be established without the help of one of the Armenian Meliks: Melik Shahnazar II Shahnazarian of Varanda. Moreover, one of the descedants of the Krabakh Khanate's, Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir, was Behbud Khan Javanshir, Minister of Interior of the first Republic of Azerbaijan (1918-1920). He was the main organizer, alongside Enver Pasha's (one of the architects of the Armenian Genocide) Army of Islam, of the massacre of 15 000 to 30 000 of Baku's Armenians in September of 1918 and in the destruction and massacre of 20 000 of Shushi's Karabakh Armenians in 1920. In December of 2019, a memorial was erected honoring Behbud Khan Javanshir in Istanbul, where he was killed in 1921, within the Operation Nemesis of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). To believe in Azerbaijan's willingness and engagement for peace is childish to say the least and suicidal at best.
Historical arguments are futile — mere propaganda. What matters is who has the power, who wins the war. The Armenians won, therefore they get to take, and if the Azeris don’t like it they can try fighting again... and power alone will settle the result. Welcome to Planet Reality, where it’s like this all the time.
I wanna be your friend, this was so well written
My observation is that Armenians stuck with their narrative way more that Azerbaijanis with theirs. Even the comment section under this article shows that there is long way to go.
There is no “narrative”, history is on our side. Just because we get passionate about our history and origin it doesn’t mean that there is some narrative. You clearly don’t have a clue on wtf you’re talking about.
Javid You're right that Karabagh (Note: NOT Nagorno (mountaneous but ALL of Karabagh, including valleys to its west - towards Armenia - AND to its East - towards the Kur River) was a contested territory and its fait was to be determined at the Paris Peace Conference. Therefore, I'm sure you must agree, contested means its ownership was disputed or in question and it would be determined, presumably, through a referendum and consideration of demographics as well as certain cultural and geographic etc factors in which case it's more than likely Armenia's claim would carry a much greater weight - indeed as it did when the Caucasian Bureau of the Bolshevik Party, headed by Ordzenikidze, a Georgian Bolshevik, decided to grant it to Soviet Armenia in early 1923 before it was overturned by the Moscow Bureau, headed by Stalin, and was gifted to "Azerbaijan"/Caucasian Tatars (that is how the region's people were known at the time) on considerations of friendship with Ataturk's Turkey and in order to pacify Moslem populations throughout the Caucasus and beyond with hopes of revolutions in the Moslem Orient agian British Imperialism. Likewise in Nakhichevan wich was, as you correctly say, another disputed/contested territory for Paris Peace Conference to resolve. The "majority Azeri population in Nakhichevan" that you are referring to is disenginious, false and indeed freudulent becaue this is what the Soviet demographic census of Nakhichevan revealed: 40% were Armenian; 30% "Moslem Tatars"; and 30% Moslem Kurds which clearly makes it majority Armenian! However the aetheist state of USSR lumped the two Moslem populations, which were ethnically completely different, indeed sometimes in conflict, together and decided the fate of Nakhichevan on the basis of "%60 'Caucasian Moslems'" (i.e. ON THE BASIS OF RELEGION NOT ETHNICITY!) and gifted it to "Azerbaijan", when it had no border with that invented Soviet Republic again largely or entirely due to political considerations for Ataturk's Turkey and anti-colonial anti imperilast revolutions in the Moslem Orient. You say you're a historian. Well you can't be a very good one if you distort history or choose your facts selectiveyl, alittle like what Mr De Waal has done in this and his other works in this regard.
Bagratuni, I in no way or form ever called myself a historian. You call me on out on lie and fraud, yet the earliest census of Soviet Union 1926 makes distinction between Turks and Kurds, and you can explicitly see from it that Turks were the majority. I would advice you to chill out and check your facts before embarrasing yourself. People here have a disgusting manner of having a conversation, full of baseless accusations and attempts to insult. I see no point to further debate this issue with someone who calls Azerbaijan state "invented". With mentality like this you won't get very far. That's what I called narrative. The conversation is only interesting when you don't know what the person on the opposite side will say. With you guys the conversation is 90% of the time boring, precisely because you have no more than 6-7 points around which all your ideas revolve. That's what I call narrative. You're so in love with it that any evidence no matter factual or logical will be ignored. So what's the point of talking to you? It took me a long time to make my armenian friends see other perspectives, I don't expect you to see it after a couple of comments. Good luck
Abraham, dude, your comment speaks for itself.
Thanks for your another balanced article, Tom. Agree that calm and responsible minds in both sides would support the possible third narrative. However, they have to overcome a very big challenge, treat fresh wounds and importantly, ignore destructive opinions, including the ones posting here one-sided positions.
Tom's "Time for an Armenia-Azerbaijan History Ceasefire" sheds some neutral light on the long-drawn-out conflict that has resulted from Armenians' groundless territorial claims on Azerbaijan. Tom is often considered and quoted as a neutral party and his views on the Karabakh conflict is almost balanced. However, I believe Tom missed Aliyev's key message both for Armenians and those keen on the conflict. It was and is that we can coexist in this region if we pursue own national interests. And they are not permanent conflicts or occupation of lands under any pretext. Pashinyan unlike Petrosyan, Kocharyan and Sargsyan realized the need to remain aloof from Moscow's influence and pressure but was forced to succumb to them at the end as he cannot dare risk and start de-occupy the Azerbaijani lands. A bloody battle for the liberation of Karabakh and surrounding regions would start sooner or later and this is out of question. It's a matter of time. We all guilty for the current state of affairs and the only difference is that neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan is an initiator of this conflict. Armenia is so sparsely populated that my native region in Armenia - Amasia - is almost empty after ethnic Azerbaijanis were ousted. Armenia does not need lands, they were instruments and cannot decide what to do now as those who make the first step would be called a traitor. What is better to lose thousands of young men yearly or to overcome groundless arguments and make the first step and lead the way!
It isn't that De Waal is not well-versed in the history of this area. On the contrary, he has deep knowledge of its past and unlike most pro-Azerbaijani propagandists, he has carefully advanced his "innovations" to make the field appear "even" and not sound unbelievably propagandistic like they do. So, he has to bring in a quote from Bill Keller to introduce a "statute of limitations on history” (he doesn't say what that limitation would be, though). For him, circumstances need to equalize to the point of, for instance, Karabakh Armenians "feared" and not "experienced" Soviet Azerbaijan "was not respecting" their rights. Accordingly, the expulsion of Armenians from the Nakhijevan region in Soviet Azerbaijan, for example, could conveniently be classified under "feared" (it was only a fear after all).
The status quo is the best scenario for the present & future generations of both Azeris & Armenians & this way no more pogroms happen.Neighbors yes, sharing same place no. This way there will not be any excuses for killings & war.History has shown that Armenians & Azeris cannot live together.So why create an Israel in the Caucasus.
Yup, that's a good summary. Separation worked between Greece and Turkey and in Eastern Europe after 1945 and in Cyprus after the 1970's.
Well, it is clear that both sides uses historical propaganda to control people, especially for Armenians the history is a good justification for their atrocity. To Armenians the Khojaly genocide was a small revenge for “Armenian genocide", which is still the intent was not proved and topic for discussion. I have not seen any Azerbaijani glorifying unwanted events, which has happened in Sumgait, we even do not want talk about it. I was not even born yet, but I would be ashamed, if it is similar to what was described. However, I have seen many Armenians, who glorified killings of civilians in Karabakh. The recent monument of Garegin Nzhdeh in Irevan is a great example, how Armenian nationalists follows Nazi nationalism and glorify their war crimes, because he was not killing other but joined Nazi regime to kill Turks. This is shameful justification and true face of Armenian turkophobic nationalism. I am not talking about ASALA, bombings of civilian busses during 1989-1994 and attack to Baku metro, in total 32 terrorist attack. If you will check war chronology, Armenian nationalists use terrorism against civil people, as they did in the beginning of 20th century. I have also noted that the author, when talked about Khojaly mentioned that fighters from Armenia side were those who fled from Sumgait. It would be also worthwhile, to mention that Sumgait pogroms was conducted by those, who forcefully moved from Erevan and settled in Sumgait. The question is who wanted this scenario is still unclear. Still this is not justification to what has happened… To conclude every nation has its sick, sadist nationalists and in this main point that needs to be underpinned. I personally think that both nations did a big mistake. It does not matter who started it first, but one thing is matter both sides let sadistic nationalist groups to rule their feeling. Karabakh war again proves that history can be very handful tool to start war and justify atrocity. I hope one day Armenians will understand that and will stop their nonsense territorial disputes against their neighbors, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Turkish. In the end there no way to run, it is not as I got a bad neighbor let's move to another house. We should find way to live together and use history not to propagate hate but propagate peace to our kids and show them how nationalistic feelings can create tragedy. I personally believe that 27th of February shouldn’t be day of tragedy or mourning, it should be day of shame, " ِa day of Apologize" , if we want to leave peaceful future to our kids. The revanchism is a worst policy to support; it should not be part of national interest. Otherwise, there will be a day when Azeris also will get their chance to revenge and this nonsense cycle will continue forever…..
What do you mean Nazi Regime? Since the Roman Era, Armenia has had full control of Artsakh. In that time, no one even knew was a Turk was. Much less an Azeri. It was due to the shenanigans of Stalin that handed over random Armenian territories to the Azeri
I don’t know how to take this statement: “Yerevan was part of Azer-baijan”. Proclaimed by this Azerbaijani depot who supposedly wants peace. Was it a joke?, an insult? or maybe *a pathetic display of pompous self-adulation* How twisted and absurd is this so-called country of Azerbaijan in a manner which it is trying to portrait itself as a legitimate and ancient country.(Azerbaijan minus Armenian territories is part of Iran called: “Arran & Shirvan”. This so-called country of Azerbaijan is against all science, logic, History, and norm of civilized world and in favor of emotions, elusion and fantasy. Unlike the self-publicized cultural destruction of ISIS, this recently invented country of Azerbaijan’s covert and systematic destruction campaign to eradicate all traces of Armenian heritage and re-engineer Artsakh as a part of Azerbaijan for past 75 years and Nakhichevan’s historical Armenian land-scape between 1997 and 2006 is little known outside the region. With petrodollar backing, Now “Armenophobia” is officially a state policy of the Azerbaijan. With loathsome references in their text-books (as early as 4th and 5th grade) ... Armenians are portrayed as savage enemies. How can the next generation of Azaris live with Armenians in peaceful coexistence after being brainwashed with such prejudices? With much hypocrisy and self-flattery Azerbaijan is trying portrait it-self as innocent victim. Azerbaijani officials use falsified history to indoctrinate its society in order to incite ethnic hatred towards Armenians. Azerbaijani's autocratic regime is using patriotism and fake history of Karabakh with an imposed war: as a "smoke screen" to plunder the oil wealth of poor Azaries. Azerbaijani autocratic government is exacerbating the dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region with its “unabated war rhetoric, increased violations of the ceasefire regime and the un-precedented increase” of its military budget. Artsakh people are under existential threat due to Azerbaijan's actions. Artsakh will NEVER be subjugated AGAIN. PERIOD...…….
Given centuries of nomadic Tatar invasions and massacres of millennia old settled Armenians until the early Soviet period which De Waal is well aware of it is really very disingenuous of him to so "subtly" degrade the deep rooted conflict (essentially, national liberation of Artsakh Armenians from alien and brutal Tatar rule) to one of superficial claims and counterclaims which, as usual he suggests here again, the sides should set aside and simply kiss an make up! Since De Waal is well aware of the very deep roots of the conflict one must question his motives and sincerity for prescribing such a simple "kiss-and-make-up 'solution'" to this conflict. Artsakh will never be under Tatar rule again, especially given Baku's official Armenian hating ideology and policy. The current geography (Armenian highland) of the line of contact, following Baku's repeat defeats in its major aggressive and genocidal wars of 1990-94, is the best guarantee of a reasonably long lasting peace which Artsakh has imposed on Baku and which can only be improved with further major defeats of, and territorial losses by, the latter were it to launch more aggressive wars against the Republic of Artsakh in the near or distant future.
This is a tough one, "History Ceasefire". Its tough to ignore the history, since its one of the biggest reasons why Armenia and Azerbaijan are fighting over Artsakh. Before I put a Ceasefire on my response lets set the record, a well documented fact. Stalin gave, handed over, transitioned, etc Artsakh to the Azeri's as an AUTONOMOUS REGION. A self governing Artsakh but reported to Azeri's. He was carving up Armenia to appease the Turks and handing land over to the Azeri's. I am sure that Stalin's second wife born and Raised in Azerbaijan had some influence. A mountainous region were Armenians have lived for 1000's of years. An area that has never been truly conquered, were the population has never changed over from one nationality to another. I encourage everyone to visit Artsakh and see the past history as well as the living history between the Armenians and the land of Artsakh. Back to the Ceasefire. Negotiate peace based on the present. Artsakh declared its independence in 1988, which was their full right to do so (based on the history of how Artsakh was handed over to the Azeri's) . Azeri's denounced it and war started after that. Artsakh was not a conquered land by the Azeri's or by the Turks. There was alot of redrawing the borders by the larger powers of the time, without truly taking into consideration who the land really belongs to. The Soviets kept everyone in check, but when everything started to fall about, the republics and AUTONOMOUS regions wanted their freedom. Currently, the Azeri's refuse to speak with the representatives of Artsakh. Instead they violate the peace treaty by having snipers fire into Artsakh. This is they way of negotiating. Saying give us back Artsakh, is also not a form negotiating. The entire world can predict that outcome, Azeri's/Turks overseeing the Armenian population. What is left, lets distort history and create a family run dictatorship style government, and use Artsakh as a rallying cry in Azerbaijan to redirect the peoples attention from the real issues on hand. The quicker the Azeri government (it is the government) realize that they are not flying the Azeri flag on Artsakh the better it will be for the Azeri people.
Dear Tom De Waal, Fighting against distortions of history by making/allowing further distortions is not acceptable. In 1724 indeed there was a treaty between Armenian meliks of Karabakh and the khan of Ganja, who however never in his contemporary documents is mentioned as an Azeri ruler. In fact he could never be as the state was Persia and there was no Azerbaijani natiinal identity to speak of. Your point here matches exactly with the current traditions of Aliyev's pocket national historiography, which is a sad incident.
Hello all, Azerbaijanis and Armenians need to re-learn living together. Both sides go too deep into history. Modern International relations and political affairs are regulated through Public Law, not history. Otherwise, we all have to move to Eastern Africa, where the first humans came from. To my opinion, Karabakh should be retained within Azerbaijan as an autonomous region. Hate speech from both sides should be stopped. A year ago I was a part of a commission investigating hatred messages in art in both countries. I worked as a specialist from a neutral party (Russia) with Azerbaijani and Armenian NGOs. Unfortunately, in Armenia situation is much worse than in Azerbaijan, as I encountered several songs and poems that call to kill all Turks (Azerbaijanis). Shortly, it is XXI century already, stop talking about Kurakchay and Tigran the Great! Find a way to solve the conflict that supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and democratic rights of the Armenian minority in Azerbaijan-Karabakh.
Sergei, Your opinion is that Artsakh is to remain with the Azeris. An opinion is used to make your decision vs the facts or as you Stated political law. The Azeris who provided a hero’s welcome to an Azeri soldier and showed him with metals and gold for killing an Armenian solder while he was sleeping during a friendly military exercise in Hungary, is considered what in your opinion? A friendly misunderstanding , or a coward who committed crime of hate. Armenians have been defending themselves for years against the brutally of the Azeris and Turks. Those songs that you heard, if you bothered to understand the historical content of them are about Armenian hero’s defending Armenian land and dying in doing so. They are not songs of violence or teachings to go out and randomly kill Turks or Azeris. Look at the history. Armenians have been our numbers by tens of thousands Turks and Azeris and yet we are still alive. Over 3600 years of history as Armenians. Neither the Turks or Azeris can say that. In thus modern days or cell phones, internet, etc it still comes down to heart and soul. Armenians have never forgotten that.
Both history and international public law is on the side of Armenians. Your opinion is totally unproductive and ineffective. Territorial integrity and sovereignty are not "sancto sanctum" principles. There has been an evolution in international public law with the introduction of the concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), especially since the 1990s, which allows for some peoples (understood as nations in international law) in specific conditions to go forward with a secession and independence. But even before the 1990s, the concept of self-determination is well protected within the UN system. In the UN Resolution 2625 of 1970 "The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" it is stated "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to RESPECT this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter...bearing in mind that SUBJUGATION of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter. The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people (Artsakh has declared its independence and wish to unite with Armenia). Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter (hence, when Azerbaijan acted through usage of force against the right to self-determination of Artsakh, Armenia intervened to support to Artsakh). NOTHING in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States ... (and here it precisely says which type of States) ... CONDUCTING themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus POSESSED of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory WITHOUT distinction as to race, creed or colour. This UN resolution clearly shows how the principle of territorial integrity and self-determination conciliate each other. Territorial integrity depends on the way the State conducts its responsibility to protect ALL its citizens. Azerbaijan abolished the status of autonomy of Artsakh in 1991. Azerbaijan has continuously failed this responsibility to protect Armenians, throughout the last century and continues to fail by its state-sponsored anti-Armenian propaganda and brainwashing education, not mentioning its expansionist claims onto the territory of Armenia itself, (blessed by Turkey's support as we saw during the last Turkic Council) and its official policy of denial of the Armenian Genocide, alongside Turkey (how could Armenians allow themselves to live onto their ancestral lands, under a State which actively denies the Armenian Genocide and justifies the eradication of the Armenian people from their homeland? Denying a genocide, is part of continuing that genocide, because you are continuing to deny the right of Armenians to exist in their homeland. This is a violation of a Jus Cogens imperative norm of international law, condemnable by the international community.) A Jus Cogens norm is a norm which is superior to all international norms and treaties, obligates all states to respect no matter what, and the violation of it can automatically justify a war: Jus Cogens norms are the inviolable norms of genocide, torture and slavery. The right to secession and independence can become also a Jus Cogens norm of international law, if the justification for secession and independence is liberation from oppression and danger of annihilation (genocide), which was (and continues to be) the case to the Armenians of Artsakh, whether in the 1990s or nowadays. Azerbaijan had its chance to prove itself with an autonomous Nagorno-Karabakh for 70 years under Soviet rule and what did we get? The silent ethnic cleansing through carefully planned discriminatory policies against Armenians that led to their population stagnation if not reduction. Azerbaijan HAD that opportunity (autonomous status) and it failed. Returning to an option that has proven to fail is totally unproductive and ineffective for a durable conflict resolution plan.
And you are recommending to Azeris and Armenians to learn and live together? And keep Arstakh under Azerbaijani rule? With the help of NEUTRAL RUSSIA? And then you talk about that Armenians show more hatred toward Turks and Azeris? And you involved in some kind of work that relates to this conflict? O'h my. Who has employed you? I understand Mr De Waal's writing and dismissing many important factors because he is a citizen of newly named Netherlands-acording to his name. The problem is, he lives in Europe, he doesn't live in-between Turks and Azeris. The Turks and Azeris dream of getting Armenia out of their way so they get United. It is called Pan-Turkism. Mr De Waal must look into these things. History will always repeats it self. Mr Kovalishev, Sergei, before you tell anyone to relearn to live together I believe you should learn Not to be BIASED AGAINST ANY PEOPLE AND ANY COUNTRY. If you are Russian citizen I want to tell you that your country has given us many painful experiences that no Armenian will forget. We have paid a very heavy price for being a good friend to brother Russia. Mr, De Waal is a European Historian. It is unfortunate that we are not as LUCKY AS HE IS.
just correcting your very last statement: It should read like this: THE only way to solve the conflict is that Azerbaijan respect the will of indigenous Armenian who wants to have self-determination on their own territories which they have been living for millenniums. Azerbaijan if truly wants peace the it must recognizes Democratic Republic of Artsakh as a sovereign state and abandon the elusion of subjugating Artsakh again. Azerbaijan must know that : Democratic Republic of Artsakh is "fait Accompli* So the sooner it lives with it and deals with it the better it is for both nations and the region. There is no alternative.
Oh yes, we surely all agree now that history is unimportant. I have entire shelves full of history books: ancient and modern. I think I will throw them all out. Because history is not important. I am going back to see my high school history teacher tomorrow and tell him to stop teaching such unimportant things.
History is important, it just doesn't matter when settling boundary disputes, which are settled with tanks and artillery -- the "last argument of kings", as the old saying goes.
Obviously they got off on the wrong foot. A “statute of limitations on history” would definitely be helpful in saving a lot of time and effort spent in debates over “who was here first”. But then where exactly do you draw the line, when one side had been preparing for decades to sabotage and betray that peaceful coexistence, as is reasonably described in your book “Black Garden”. What I find upsetting is how you seem to have stepped aside from your unbiased stance in “Black Garden”, in particular, your implication that Azerbaijanis were somehow antagonized by the “peaceful rallies in Armenia” and turned this otherwise local dispute into a conflict, beginning with Sumgait (1988). The reaction from the Azerbaijani side at the time was not unwarranted, as this piece seems to portray. In your book you have quite a few references to the events taking place long before the incidents of February 1988, including the actions taken by the Armenian nationalists in preparing for the “Unification” to Armenia. Most notably, the violence in the Armenian regions of Megri and Kafan, which resulted in waves of ethnic Azerbaijani refugees being forced to flee Armenia in 1987-88, and the subversive actions by the radical nationalist Dashnak party and one Muradian, including the procurement of weapons from abroad and the continuous arming of the Armenian activists in Karabakh beginning in 1986, as well as the arrival of militants to Karabakh from Armenia and abroad. By the time when Moscow decided to intervene and expel these armed radical nationalist formations from Karabakh in early 1991 (this is when the dispute actually turns into open conflict, as many would agree), their number had grown to several thousand. During the Chaykend operation in April 1991, led by the Soviet Army (not by Azerbaijan), they revealed and eliminated some of those well-organized armed radical groups, who even owned military radio stations, while the Azerbaijani population of Karabakh was still unarmed and mostly unable to realize the scale of this betrayal by their own armenian citizens. While you fairly call for a statute of limitations on history, you shouldn’t brush aside these facts, as “bad history”.
Some very basic historical facts. There are dozens and dozens of Armenian churches in Karabakh: Vankasar Church - 7th century Christian Armenian church Voskepar Church - 7th century Armenian church Surp Hakob Church - built in 1695 Kanach Zham Church - built in 1818 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral - Built in 1888 These are just very few examples of history. Armenian have been living and practicing their faith for millennials on these lands. The country of Azerbaijan is what, like 80 years old? Lol. This is funny.
We all need to forget that Armenians have been the majority in Karabagh from time immemorial and that they were abused when placed under Azeri rule. Let Azerbaijan take over Karabagh again, and we'll see how things go. If things don't work out, we can always have another war. Seem like a good compromise?
Mr. Waal is patronizing. The tone of his article is "why don't you people listen to me and resolve this conflict?" He reminds me of a British colonial officer trying to make peace between quarreling tribes. But his more serious offense is his pro-Azeri bias. Since he has been writing the same article for a couple of years he knows k6Armenians are not impressed by his analysis. So who is he writing for? The Azeris? I doubt the rest of the world is interested in a "cold war" in a remote part of Armenia.
De Waal needs to face up to his own inner Armenophobia. As a Briton, he is socialized to view Eastern Christians as a problem. This sadly shows in his writing. If he thinks that having Armenian people as "friends" absolves him from this charge, he needs to think again. He needs to do himself, Armenians, and yes Azerbaijanis, a favor, and stop being a tool for an attempt to impose an Anglo-Saxon narrative of mental illness on the region. Yes, Armenians and Azerbaijanis have a conflict, yes it is a passionate and deep conflict, but it is not an irrational one. And no, it is not up to him as a White Savior to insist on the existence of a "correct" approach that negates local voices. Armenians and Azerbaijanis own the conflict, and it is time the West (both the US and the EU, and their allies elsewhere) checked out of this conflict, for the brutally direct reason of it being ... none of their business, including Mr. De Waal's.
I agree with Mr. Kalapakian's take re English/British attitudes toward Eastern Christians. The negative bias is so ingrained and pervasive that English/British historians, etc. have diminished even the glorious civilization of Byzantium into irrelevance and its one-thousand-year history into a big mistake. I have observed the same negative bias (with a few exceptions) among 19th century British travelers in historic Armenia. Seeking colorful copy for their travelogues, they portrayed rapacious/oppressive Turks and Kurds as colorful knights while Armenians were dull shopkeepers. The fact that Armenians were educated must have annoyed them: the British writers wanted to meet colorful and backward people. Armenians didn't oblige. Yes, Mr. De Waal comes from a long line of anti-Armenian writers.
Europeans again and again are failing to see the bigger picture in this or maybe purposefully don't want to even now after so many years? Mr. De Waal was trying to show that he is neutral in all this and is trying to provide dates and events that have been taken out of content to defend his article and his opinion about the issue. If, someone read Mr. De Waal article and didn't know anything about this long standing issue, he would completely agree with his point of view. I guess, that was his main purpose to look like a expert in Armenian- Azerbaijani conflict. However, he needs to realize they are more competent people who are reading this and are more aware of this conflict and all the "so called" facts. That is why he is not purposefully touching the issue of Armenian Genocide and treaties that followed in regards to Turkey and Armenian lands that are now either in Turkey,Iran or Azerbaijan. That is why he is professionally trying to evade by stating that should be a ""statute of limitations on history". Just so everybody knows! There can't be any Armenian-Azerbaijani resolution over Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) until the issue of all Armenian lands that were taken illegally away by Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan with great help of USSR (now Russia) since Lenin was trying to establish Communist State in Turkey at the time and by making fraudulent treaties. I don't even want to go into gold and other things that Turkey got for that purpose. It all started then and it's all tight together. You can resolve this issue without looking at the whole problem and where and how it started. Actually, history is repeating its self except the people and country is different.
What a nonsense. Neither state of Azerbaijan not azerbaijani people have nothing to do with Armenian genocide in Turkey. We were never part of Ottoman empire nor modern state of Turkey. Nor Karabakh was ever part of Ottoman Empire, nor present day Armenia was. Those problems are problems of armenian people, and I see no reason why would anyone care about them in context of this problem. You can't use victim card every time, especially when someone rightly blames you for ethnic cleansing and unlawful occupation.
Javid, Azerbaijan and Turkey are one, according to Erdogan and Aliyev. More than once the two Turkic leaders have stated: "Two states, one nation." You are the same people who invaded from Central Asia and destroyed the Armenian state. However, Armenians stayed on the ground and were the majority in Artsakh which you recognize by its colonialist name of Nagorno (Russian) and Kara (Turkic) and Bagh (Iranian). The numerous churches in Artsakh and the pre-Christian archeological remains testify the land was part of Armenia until your unprovoked attack on Armenia. Stalin granted the land to you (although more than 80% of the population was Armenian) so as to win Turkey over to its side and away from the West. In addition, Moscow also gave you Armenian Nakhichevan plus Armenian Kars and Ardahan to Turkey, in addition to rifles, ammunition, gold bullion, and the construction of factories in Turkey all to make sure Ataturk became a Soviet ally. It goes without saying that these Armenian lands were sliced from tiny Armenia without Armenian consent. Incidentally, you must be aware that the Russians created Azerbaijan in 1918 as buffer. After the Azeri windfall of Nakhichevan/Artskah, Azerbaijan depopulated Nakhichevan of Arnenians and settled Azeris in Artsakh to tilt the demographic balance in favor of the Azeris. Taking advantage of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Armenians of Artsakh voted (democratically their right) to rejoin Armenia. The Azeris launched pogroms of Armenians living in Baku and four other major Azeri cities. They also invaded Artsakh. Armenia helped in stopping the carnage of Armenians. Artsakh became free and Armenian again. End of story, unless you decide to return to your homeland in Central Asia where, I am told, the Grey Wolf reared the Turkic people.
Javid, your comments show that you haven't done any research on this matter, because if you did you would know that Nogorno-Karabakh was part of Armenia before Bolsheviks led by Stalin decided to create new borders and without asking Armenians gave away to Azeri people not only Nogorno-Karabakh but also Naxichevan and other lands to Georgia and Iran. Look up also the Kars treaty which by itself alone was fradulent treaty. Look up Woodrow Wilson Armenia, that is how was suppose to be Armenia now and not what it is currently. Seeing that Armenia was in really bad state after the Armenian Genocide, The Bolsheviksm, Lenin, Stalin and Ataturk stole our lands, but this will not happen again.
Vahakn, I see no point in talking to you. You clearly have little idea about generally accepted history. I must assure that in no way I or any of my azerbaijani friends came from Central Asia. :) It might surprise you but we do not look Asian and definitely did not destroy any armenian state, imaginary or otherwise :)
Dear Lucy, on contrary, I've done enough research to know that Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan were contested territories. Zangezur and Nakhichevan had Azerbaijani majority. Nakhichevan wasn't given to anyone by Stalin. It was Lenin who called for referendum in which 90% of Nakhichevan population wanted to be in Azerbaijan. Communist gave Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh because it was surrounded by mostly Azerbaijani populated regions and gave Armenia Zangezur(Syunik) instead. Wilsonian Armenia never existed as a state, and was a part of treaty where Armenia wasn't even a party. Yes the borders were proposed by American president, so what? Majority of USA population can't even find that region on a map. Treaty of Sevres was never even signed by USA, was never ratified by any country, so why is it important? Because Armenia looks larger on the map there? Why are you so obsessed with land grabbing when your own country is sparsely populated and population decrease further?
Vahakn, I didn't insult you. I called you inadequate because this is what you are. I can't have any discussion with people who live in alternative reality. All you can do is mock and bully because you were brainwashed by the armenian propaganda. It is not my responsibility to educate you and call you for decency. I treat people like you with irony. But I will give you a small courtesy and refute your historical thesis out serving as a base of your ignorance. "You are the same people who invaded from Central Asia and destroyed the Armenian state. " There are two fundamental problems with this statement. Problem number 1 is that Azerbaijanis did not come from Central Asia. Yes we speak turkic language and there is some admixture of Central Asian genetics depending on the region. However, the share of it is very small. Azerbaijan is a milti-ethnic state, you can rarely find azerbaijani that doesn't know at least partially his ethnicity. There are Lezgis, Tsakhurs, Talysh, Tat, Jewish, Kurdish, Turkish, Turk, Leg, Udi, Avar, Russian, and dozens of other minor ethnicities that live in Azerbaijan and call themselves Azerbaijani. Most of Azerbaijanis have a mix of those ethnicities. Most of those ethnic groups are either autochthonous or live on those lands for centuries and you definitely have no right to call them aliens. Second Turkic tribes did not destroy Armenian state in 11th century because no armenian state existed when turkic tribes invaded. Armenians lived under arab rule, then rebelled several times, then were subjugated by Byzantine empire. Next time you have to blame someone you can try blaming Byzantine Greeks :) P.S All the info I provided you is googleable and can be easily retrieved from variety of non-azerbaijani sources. I would be happy to enlighten you further but I don't have time to write dozens of lengthy comments on what's wrong with your perception of Azerbaijani people and Generally accepted history. Good Luck doing that on your own.
Javid, 1. You say "generally accepted history..." I assume you mean "generally accepted Turbeijan history." 2. You say you and your azerbaijani (sic) friends don't look Asian. Since there are close to fifty states in Asia, I don't know what you mean. Indians, Yemenis, Koreans, Armenians, Jews, Kurds, Iranians, etc. are Asian. If you don't look Asian, are you saying Azerbaijanis are blonde, black or what? 3. You refer to Armenia as an imaginary state. It takes Himalayan-size nerve for someone whose state was born (midwife Russia) in 1918 to challenge the reality of a nation (Armenia) which has been around for at least 3,000 years. So where did the Azeris--who are Turks--come from? The Turkic Grey Wolf story, you must admit, doesn't make sense. 4. I ignore comments when the writer employs :) and other childish signs in his letter. You have two in your short comment. I made an exception in your case and answered--for the last time.
Had you been adequate, I would write a serious comment. Since I see that hate blinds you, all I can do is pull your nerve for personal entertainment.
Javid, You didn't reply to my queries. Instead, you exposed your true colors by trying to insult me. I am surprised the monitor let you get away with it. On second thoughts, I am glad he/she did: you exposed yourself better that I could have. But I have to admit there's some progress: this time you didn't beckon emojis and other childish pictographs to express yourself.
Javid, (in your response of 7th April to Lucy's comment) You're right that Karabagh (Note: NOT Nagorno (mountainous) but ALL of Karabagh, including valleys to its west towards Armenia AND to its East, towards the Kur River) was a contested territory and its fait was to be determined at the Paris Peace Conference. Therefore, I'm sure you must agree, contested means its ownership was disputed or in question and it would be determined, presumably, through a referendum and consideration of demographics as well as certain cultural, historical and geographic etc factors in which case it's more than likely Armenia's claim would carry a much greater weight - indeed as it did when the Caucasian Bureau of the Bolshevik Party tasked to resolve the dispute and headed by Ordzenikidze, a Georgian Bolshevik, decided to grant it to Soviet Armenia on 4th July 1921 before it was overturned by the Moscow Bureau, headed by Stalin, and was gifted to "Azerbaijan"/Caucasian Tatars (that is how the region's people were known at the time) on considerations of friendship with Ataturk's Turkey and in order to pacify Moslem populations throughout the Caucasus and beyond with hopes of revolutions in the Moslem Orient against British Imperialism. Likewise in Nakhichevan which was, as you correctly say, another disputed/contested territory for Paris Peace Conference to resolve. The "majority Azeri population in Nakhichevan" that you are referring to is disingenuous and false and indeed a fraudulent interpretation of the actual results of the referendum because this is what the Soviet demographic census/referendum of Nakhichevan at the time revealed: 40% were Armenian; 30% "Moslem Tatars"; and 30% Moslem Kurds which clearly made it majority Armenian! However the atheist state of USSR lumped the two Moslem populations, "Tatars" and Kurds, which were ethnically completely different, indeed sometimes in conflict, together and FRAUDULENTLY decided the fate of Nakhichevan on the basis of "%60 'Caucasian Moslems'" (i.e. ON THE BASIS OF RELEGION NOT ETHNICITY!) and gifted it to "Azerbaijan", as an exclave, when it had always been part of Armenia, WAS ACTUALLY ATTACHED TO SOVIET ARMENIA GEOGRAPHICALLY AND CULTURALLY but had no border with "Azerbaijan", that newly invented Soviet Republic - again largely or entirely due to political considerations for Ataturk's Turkey and hopes of anti-colonial anti-imperialist revolutions in the Moslem Orient. You say you're a historian ("done my research"). Well you can't be a very good one (or done research that well) if you distort history or choose your facts selectively, a little like what Mr De Waal has done in this and his other works in this regard.
I've already replied in another thread Bagratuni, I in no way or form ever called myself a historian. You call me out on lie and fraud, yet the earliest census of Soviet Union 1926 makes distinction between Turks and Kurds, and you can explicitly see from it that Turks were the majority. I would advice you to chill out and check your facts before embarrasing yourself. People here have a disgusting manner of having a conversation, full of baseless accusations and attempts to insult. I see no point to further debate this issue with someone who calls Azerbaijan state "invented". With mentality like this you won't get very far. That's what I called narrative. The conversation is only interesting when you don't know what the person on the opposite side will say. With you guys the conversation is 90% of the time boring, precisely because you have no more than 6-7 points around which all your ideas revolve. That's what I call narrative. You're so in love with it that any evidence no matter factual or logical will be ignored. So what's the point of talking to you? It took me a long time to make my armenian friends see other perspectives, I don't expect you to see it after a couple of comments. Good luck
The principle of self-determination was a key factor being presented by Armenia during the negotiations. Those who think that it is possible to negotiate one thing and present something else to the the public are mistaken. No decision can be made without the people of Artsakh, .
There are two concepts arguing for legitimacy: territorial integrity and self-determination. Self-determination should take priority--as it did in Yugoslavia when the half-a-dozen ethnic groups became independent with the break-up of Yugoslavia. Self-determination is also at the core of the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) argument. Consider that the West supported the self-determination of the ethnic groups who made up Yugoslavia. Unless the West believes in a double standard, it should support the Armenian drive for self determination from an offensive Baku government ruled by a dictator.
Mr. De Waal Your lack of references to the creation of this "So called" country of Azerbaijan is very suspicious. The name (Azerbaijan) given to thses territories by Sovite Union was delibrate and calculated. It was done inorder to have leverage on late Shah of Iran and the West in general.(because Iran hss two provinces with the same name and it would have been easier for Sovites to stir up sepratism emotion among Iranian Azaries. (To divide and conquer) The reason your article is suspicious, is: With your claim of extensive knowledge of the region, it's hard to believe you missed such an important section.( maybe you omitted opurposely?) As for the name "Azerbaijan" Iran has two proviences called West and East Azerbaijan which not strstche upto the southern banks of Aras River. The Territories North of Aras River, present day "so called" Country of Azerbaijan was always part of greater Iran called ARRAN and SHIRVAN. Never ever in history these areas north of Aras river called Azerbaijan until Sovite Union created this "so called" Republic of Azerbaijan. Even the "real" name of Iranian proviences is *Azar-Abadegan* but unfortunately it was furkified to "Azerbaijan." So ignoring this facts and comparing this generic and newly invented country of Azerbaijan to the genuine Civilized country of Armenia is ignorance at it's best.
History is what it is. No one can change the past. There will always be historical debates, but re-writing history as the Turkish and Azeri governments are doing to cover up their actions is an insult to their own people. There is a saying when negotiating. Time kills deals. Twenty six years has past since Artsakh became independent. The best time to negotiate long lasting peace was at that time and the Azeris missed their opportunity. Do you think that that Turks are going to give back the land that they stole thru genocide? Don’t Ask Armenians to give up our lands to the Azeris. Never ask for what is not yours, but let’s talk other ways that will generate peace. After all, Aliyev is looking for a way keep his family dynasty Going and keeping the Armenian hatred front and center is a card that he plays when he wants to divert attention alway from his family. Let’s talk about free elections as the fiat step towards peace between neighbors.
I agree with Patrick. If Aliyev cared for his people, he would have established democracy, free elections, free press, etc.(It has been 30 years since Azerbaijan became independent.) He doesn't have to go too far to learn how it's done. Let him look west to Armenia. What Aliyev is doing is a cliche: distract the people from the dictatorship and corruption they live under by spending millions on hate propaganda directed outside. I wonder how many Lear jets are parked at Baku airport hangars to fly him, his family, and gold--in case of a revolution--to the Emirates where the Aliyevs have villas and more gold than Midas.
The author does not know or deliberately bypasses the fact that it all began with pogroms and the expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Kafan, Armenia in 1987. But if we go further, it all started with the resettlement of Armenians in the territory of Western Azerbaijan, the Iravan Khanate and the Garabakh Khanate in the 19th century from Iran and Turkey, as a result of the wars of these countries with Russia. The author also avoids the topic of the Caucasian Albania of Arran, which consisted of 26 tribes and not one of them was of Arminians. And the meliks of Garabakh were of Albanian origin and attributing Armenians to them, it is about the same as attributing the Boers, the descendants of the Dutch, whose representative the author is to the indigenous population of South Africa. The story is complex and diverse, and it contains both light and dark pages. But there is also a special category in history, built on fictional, utopian mythology, which forms the basis of Armenian historiography and which, unfortunately, was the main source for this article. All these unsubstantiated statements about the alleged 900 years of "existence" of the Armenian state in academic circles would have caused laughter and would expose the author's complete incompetence or deliberate distortion of historical facts. I would also like to wish the author to be careful in the choice of terminology and remind the author that the Russian word "pogrom", which he loves to has a equal word "a massacare" in English and there is significant difference between purposeful pogroms, massacares lead by authorities and expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Kafan or Jews in Europe or genocide in Khojaly and chaos in Sumgait , With all these sayings I wish to author be objective , and not to misslead his readers, who deserve to know the truth.
I'm tired of all this history back and forth, but one thing you have to know is that the criminals (one of whom was Armenian) in Sumqayıt were ALL TRIED AND CONVICTED. The criminals that ruthlessly killed Azerbaijanis in Khojaly - nobody was tried, nobody was convicted. Not only the perps were recorded in videos boasting of their slaughter, but the former Armenian president said, 'Before Khojaly, Azerbaijanis didn't think that Armenians could raise their hands against Azerbaijani civilian population. We broke that stereotype.' His words.
There has been no Armenian state before 20'th century. -Donald Rayfield (English historian)
This is the most laughable comment I have read. Armenian history dates back more than 6000 years. Throughout history Armenians have lived in their homeland in Armenia. They We’re the First Nation on earth to become Christians. No state you say! I do believe you meant to say Azerbaijan. They didn’t even exist as a country until 1923.
Dear Thomas, I learned that you are very well know independent expert and an author of the book " Black Garden" Would you possible share with me the 1724 Persian-era friendship treaty signed between the Armenian lords of Karabakh and the Azerbaijani khans of Ganje (against the Ottoman Turks!). To my knowledge and interpretations you made in this article is not correct. I have also few more point where I am not in line with what you wrote here and would be happy to hear your response regarding Russian and American - Armenians role in Sumqait and Khojaly tragedy. I am originally from Ganja and remember a lot what happened those years. If you find it is worth of your time I would appreciate your response at Twitter @Tara33724759. Thank you!
The author of this article arbitarary picks the year Lenin and Stalin illegally handed Armenian Nagorno-Karabagh to Azerbaijan to win the heart of Ataturk (Turkey is the big brother of Azerbaijan). His argument, over the years, has been based on the acceptance of this illegal act. Where does he get the right to decide when history begins? Nagorno-Karabagh is the colonialist name of Armenian Artsakh. When Uncle Joe handed part of Artsakh to Azerbaijan, nearly 90 percent of Artsakh was Armenian. Go figure international politics and the scribe who is the hired pen of imperial interests.
In early 1983-4 I translated many letters from Armenian to English, about horrific atrocities committed by the Azeri Neighbours to their long years of Armenians Neighbours. It’s unimaginable. How can a human being act like that?
I have just read the article and comments, 8 months after it was written and , as I can see it is clear that it was so right. I am neither Azeri nor Armenian, never been to any of them and live rather far away, but I could not agree more with the author's conclusions. I have read all the comments and it is entirely obvious that ethnic fanatism and hatred is ruling there, so any compromise is rather impossible to achieve. There were a few reasonable voices, mostly Azeri (Javid) but overall tone does not leave any tone for compromise - so we have war now, situation on the ground is quite different but chances of any agreed settlement are non existent. So the war goes on. Excellent article.
You are wrong Thomas de Waal. Pogroms began before in Armenia in Kafan in 1987.
I completely agree that both leaders in Munich acted like young schoolchildren and spoiled another opportunity for diplomacy. However, I do ultimately put the blame of completely destroying the reset button squarely on Aliyev's shoulders. Whatever little rapprochement and healing was possible is eroded. Furthermore, Aliyev continues is humiliation of Armenia and is under the illusion that he successfully resolved the conflict once and for all.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.