An anti-Armenian campaign has been hysterically raging in Azerbaijan throughout the years following the Khojalu events. The purpose of the campaign is to falsify the facts and bring discredit on Armenia in the eyes of the international community. The Khojalu events when peaceful people died were only the result of the political intrigues and struggle for power in Azerbaijan.
The Azerbaijani propaganda trumpeted about the ‘barbarities of Armenians’ to the whole world spreading terrifying shots by TV channels – a field covered by defiled corpses. It was said that Khojalu is the “revenge of Armenians for “Sumgait”.
The real reasons lying behind these events are more convincingly reflected in the testimonies of the Azeris themselves, both the participants, eyewitnesses of the events and those who knew the ins and outs in Baku.
Khojalu was the second after Shushi in its Azeri population in Artsakh-Nagorno Karabagh Republic (NKR). The settlement is found in the strategically vital place and divides the territory of Artsakh-Karabakh into two. It was the military strategic importance of Khojalu that since the very beginning of the National-liberation movement of the Armenian population in Artsakh the Azerbaijani authorities began intensive construction works and settling the Azeris from remote regions in Khojalu as well as Meskhetian Turks – since 1989. Because of this single-minded policy of changing the demographic situation in Artsakh and dissection of the Armenians of the region held by the Azerbaijani authorities the population of the settlement tripled from 2135 in 1988 to 6300 in 1991. Owing to this kind of artificial increase Khojalu was granted status of town. (Report of Memorial, Nezavisimaya gazeta, 18.06.1992). No doubt people were moving into a militarily and politically unstable region not on their own free will.
According to M. Safaroghli, an Azerbaijani journalist, “Khojalu was located in an important strategic position. Losing control over Khojalu would mean a political fiasco for Moutalibov”. (Newspaper “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” -”Independent Newspaper”- February, 1993). With Shushi and Aghdam, Khojalu was one of the key bases from where Stepanakert, the capital of NKR, was continuously bombed during three winter months – shelled steadily and mercilessly, with the use of artillery, antihail rocket systems and war missile emplacements.
The population of NKR which was in the danger of the total physical extinction by Azerbaijan could survive only by neutralizing the weapon emplacements of Khojalu and deblocking the airport. Hundreds of peaceful people were killed in Stepanakert as the result of the daily bombing from the close Khojalu. The military operation of the armed forced of NKR to neutralize the weapon emplacements of Khojalu was not a surprise for Azerbaijan. For the first time the Azeri side was notified about the forthcoming attack by TV nearly two months before the operation. Arif Yunusov, a well-known champion of human rights in Azerbiajan, wrote about that in “Izvestia”. The officials in Baku did not try to hide their awareness, including Ayaz Moutalibov, the president of Azerbaijan. He stressed that “… the offense on Khojalu was not a surprise” (“Ogoniok” (Fire) Magazine, N 14-15, 1992). In the interview to the “Nezavisimaya gazeta” newspaper he stated that “the corridor by which people could leave was reserved by Armenians” (“Nezavisimaya gazeta” newspaper, April 2, 1992). In his interview to the “Novoe Vremya” journal Moutalibov confirmed his statement: “It was obvious shooting the Khojalu people was organized by somebody for removing the power in Azerbaijan” (“Novoe Vremya” journal, March 6, 2001). As the result of these warnings most of the peaceful people of Khojalu moved to safe zones.
The following fact is another proof the Azerbaijani authorities were told on the forthcoming anticipatory assault of Armenians on Khojalu. By midFebruary 1992 before leaving for Minsk to the summit of the CIS, President A. Mutalibov ordered to throw all the collected reserves of the military equipment in the Aghdam region. 11 tanks and 12 infantry fighting machines BMP-2 were quickly delivered there, which with the available in Aghdam 44 caterpillar armored machines of BRDM type, equipped with 12 millimeters calibers machine-guns presented an inspiring force, which could help the Khojalu settlers in case of an attack in any moment, but was also threaten Stepanakert itself. (Kiril Stolyarov, op. cit. p. 251).
Besides, the Azerbaijani forces in Khojalu and Aghdam region were equipped with over 35. 000 units of machine-guns and submachine guns with enough number of cartridges ( Kiril Stolyarov, op. cit. p. 268).
By the beginning of the assault part of the civilian population of Khojalu left the settlement, and by the end of February 1992, according to various sources, some 1000 to 2500 people still remained there, mostly peaceful civilians and soldiers of Azerbaijani armed formations. On February 15 the Armenian side made an ultimatum: the civilian population of Khojalu was offered to leave with a white flag. (Helsinki Watch, op. cit., 1994, p. 20).
The detachments of NKR did everything possible to exclude the death of the peaceful population of the settlement and left a corridor for the safe evacuation of the peaceful population from the zone of military actions. The Azeri side was timely informed about the opened corridor which allowed to evacuate the people of Khojalu. Elman Mamedov, the mayor of Khojalu: “We knew the corridor was left for the exit of the peaceful people” (“Russkaya Misl” 03.03.1992, citation from “Bakinskie Rabochiy” newspaper).
In the beginning of the attack, started on February 25, at 23:00 p.m., the Armenian forces of NKR self-defense opened an aimed artillery fire against military objects and positions of the Azerbaijani forces, dislocated in the central part of the settlement. The successful shots spread havoc among the Azerbaijanis, which did not show serious resistance. Neither there was a more or less stubborn street fight in Khojalu; by 4 o’clock in the morning of February 26 the last centers of resistance were suppressed. Observers of the «Memorial» right protection organization inspecting the destructions in Khojalu confirmed the fact of artillery and not street fighting, which could result in many casualties. (Ibid.)
It is worth mentioning the order number 1, regulating the conduct of the members of the Armenian armed forces of NKR self-defense, strictly forbid any violence against the civilians of the adversary.
After the operation was over 11 bodies of Azeris were found by the rescue group “Artsakh” in the village and its neighboring areas, naturally, counting out the bodies of the members of the armed formations dressed in uniforms (their number was also small). The insignificant number of the peaceful victims of Khojalu in the view of the intense military actions undertaken to hold control over the settlement evidenced the Armenian side had taken all measures on ensuring the maximal possible security of the people of the village. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that a significant number of the peaceful population of Khojalu became victims of the operation. How many of the people of Khojalu were killed and where?
The Azeri side is categorically silent about the place of the death of hundreds of residents of the village. The truth is that all of them were coolly murdered at the distance of 11 km from Khojalu, about 2-3 km far from Aghdam which then used to be the regional military base of the Azeri armed forces. This mere fact is enough for casting light on the intricate story about the massive extinction of the residents of Khojalu. It is hard to understand why should the Armenians let the population of Khojalu flee from the besieged village to kill them on the approaches of Aghdam putting their lives at risk (then Aghdam was under the control of the Azeris).
In his interview to “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” Moutalibov stated that “however, the Armenians had left a corridor for the escape of the people. Why a fire should have opened then? (“Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, April 2, 1992). He linked the fact of the criminal fusillade of the peaceful people with the attempts of the opposition to remove him from power, laying the responsibility for the tragedy entirely on him. In his interview to “Novoye Vremia” (“New Time”) Magazine Moutalibov confirmed his statement which was made nine days before: “It was obvious the some people had organized the shooting for shifting the power in Azerbaijan” (“Novoye Vremia”, March 6, 2001). Similar statements and assessments of the Khojalu events were made by several other Azerbaijani top officials and journalists.
R. Hajiyev, member of the Operating Committee of Aghdam Branch of NFA (National Front of Azerbaijan): We could have helped the people of Khojalu because we had the resources and means. However, the authorities of the republic wanted to show to the people of Azerbaijan that they are not able to do so and ask for assisting the CIS Army and with the help of the latter also neutralize the opposition” (Moscow, “Izvestia”, April, 1992).
Tamerlan Karayev, the former Chairman of the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan testifies: “The tragedy was perpetrated by the Azeri authorities”, in particular, “some of the top officials” (“Moukhtalifat” Newspaper, April 28, 1992). Yana Mazalova, a Czech journalist, who, because of the oversight of the Azeris, was included in both of the groups of journalists who visited the place of the events on the first day and several days later, noticed the stunning difference how the bodies looked at the first and second site visits. When Mazalova visited the site immediately after the events she saw the bodies did not bear any traces of brutality whereas a couple of days later the bodies “adulterated” by the Armenians and “ready” for the cameras were demonstrated to the journalists.
Who killed the peaceful people of Khojalu and later defiled their bodies, if the tragedy took place not in the village liberated by the Armenians, and not along the direction of the humanitarian corridor, but on the close approaches of Aghdam town, a territory which was entirely under the control of the National Front of Azerbaijan? Chingiz Moustafayev (Fuat-oghli), an independent Azeri TV journalist and cameraman who filmed the aftereffect on February 28 and March 2, 1992, doubted the official version of Azerbaijan and began his own investigation. His life was the price for his very first report to the Moscow News Agency “DR-Press” about the possible involvement of the Azeri side in the crime: he was killed not far from Aghdam, and the details of the murder still remain not revealed.
Moustafayev reported about the flight to Khojalu. He noted that he could not film the dead bodies there, because “there was not a single killed person there …”. In the course of the first flight the journalists shot only a couple of dozens of bodies of the Azeri soldiers which were found not far from the village of Nakhichevanik. However, most of the bodies were near Aghdam where they were video-filmed on February 29 and later March 2. These tapes were displayed at the session of Milli Medjlis and, later, many TV channels of the world as an evidence of the massive manslaughter of the Azeri population of Khojalu. The first flight of the helicopter with the Azeri journalists on board took place on February 29, 1992. It is noteworthy the journalists who were told about the massive offense of the Azeris in Khojalu flew directly to the place of the events. However, they did not find any evidence of the happenings and flew back. During the second flight to the region of the massive slaughter, on March 2, 1992, the journalists noticed the positions of the dead bodies lying on the ground and the level of the injuries and physical impairment was astonishingly different compared to the first inspection. Chingiz Moustafayev (Fuat-oghli) told the Azeri president A. Moutalibov about the changed positions of the bodies and their physical impairment. Undoubtedly, by that time the Azeri president understood the reasons which caused falsifying the tragedy. Moutalibov gave a really prophetic answer to the journalist, “Chingiz, don’t tell anyone that you think something is wrong because they’ll kill you”. Chingiz Moutafayev was killed in the same field where he had shot the main Azeri “argument”.
The former president of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev personally admitted the “former leadership of Azerbaijan was also at fault of the Khojalu events”. As early as in April of 1992 the following was articulated by him, “The bloodshed will do good to us. We shouldn’t interfere in the course of events” (Bilik-Duniasi News Agency). It is out of question who gained from the “bloodshed”. Megapolis-Express wrote: “It is impossible not to admit that if the National Front of Azerbaijan in fact had defined far-reaching goals, it succeeded in addressing them. Moutalibov is compromised and forced out of his post, the international community is in shock, the Azeris and their brotherly Turks believed in the so-called “genocide of the Azerbaijani people in Khojalu”(“Megapolis-Express”, N17, 1992).
The Azeri mass media was silent in its comments on the Khojalu events about another tragic detail which was revealed later: 47 Armenians were held hostage in the “peaceful” Khojalu since February 26. After the liberation of Khojalu only 13 of these hostages were found in the settlement (including 6 women and 1 child), the remaining 34 were taken away by the Azeris in the unknown direction. All that is known about these hostages is that at the night of the operation they were driven away from the place of imprisonment, but not from the settlement. There is no information about their further status as hostages. It is obvious the bodies of the Armenian hostages were tormented beyond the degree when they could be identified. This was done to create the illusion the bodies of the victims “had been defiled” by the Armenians. This is the reason why the bodies of the wretched victims were outraged to the extent that it was impossible to identify the victims.
It follows from the above-described facts the blame for the death of the peaceful people of Khojalu and those Armenians who had been taken hostage in the village lies on the Azeris. The Azerbaijani side committed a crime against its own people, and the motivation lies in the political intrigues and lust for power.
Other Testimonies
It is obvious that those who wanted to make an appearance of disfiguring of corpses by Armenians, disfigured first the bodies of the Armenian hostages, in order they are never identified. Clothes were taken off the corpses, the bodies of unlucky victims were treated outrageously, being changed beyond recognition.
Rahim Ghaziev, one of the former Azeri defense ministers who was jailed for 10 years on charge of state treason (He was accused of leaving Shushi to Armenians), said in the interview to www.realazer.com that a trap was prepared for Mutalibov in Khojalu to remove him.
Ghaziev said that he received information about the attack of the Armenian forces against Khojalu on February 16, 1992. “On February 25, I again received information about the preparations of the attack,” Ghaziev said. He added the Azeri Armed Forces had enough arms to help the Khojalu people and stop the Armenians. Those days, the Azeri defense minister said that it was possible to avert the disaster and keep their positions.
Tamerlan Karaev, former Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Azerbaijani Republic, testifies: “The tragedy was realized by the authorities of Azerbaijan”, and concretely – “somebody of those high standing” (“Moukhalifat” newspaper, April 28, 1992).
The Armenian forces did their best to escape unnecessary deaths on the side of the civilian population of Khojalu. The mayor of Khojalu Elman Mamedov also knew about the corridor: “We knew the corridor was left for the civilian population to leave…”(Russkaya misl’, 03.03.1992. Nezavisimaya gazeta, 18.06.1992, Nezavisimaya gazeta, 02.04.1992)
According to the report made by “Memorial”, nearly 200-300 people remained in Khojalu, hiding in the basements of the houses. After the assault they were moved to Stepanakert and were provided with food and medicines. The Armenian side stated it would agree to let them in exchange for its hostages. (Nezavisimaya gazeta, 18.06.1992, Nezavisimaya gazeta, 02.04.1992).
The Armenians told Azerbaijanis about the existence of the humanitarian corridor also by loudspeakers, although it is possible the greater part of the Khojalu inhabitants could had not heard the messages. (Nezavisimaya gazeta, 18.06.1992). Indeed, it is likely, that not all the inhabitants of Khojalu had heard the warning, but the masses of people moving in safe directions could have led the rest as well.
It is worth mentioning, that few days before the start of the assault the representatives of the Armenian side had repeatedly told the authorities of Khojalu on the coming offensive using radio communication, calling them to take out the civilian population from the settlement immediately. The fact that this information was received by the Azerbaijani side and sent to Baku is confirmed also by some publications in Azerbaijani newspapers (Bakinskaya gazeta). (Ibid.)
Internet as a field of information war against Armenia
The Azerbaijani party makes an active use of internet in an information war against Armenia and NKR. In connection with the fact that internet-mass media influence becomes more and more dominant in the world, significance of information net on Artsakh-Karabakh conflict also increases. Besides, various internet-communities become more and more influential on public opinion shaping.
The number of anti-Armenian sites on Artsakh-Karabakh issue, which are mainly created in Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani communities settled in other countries, are increasing year by year. The sites of anti-Armenian character are focused on denying the Armenian Genocide, falsifying the Armenian history, the activity of ASALA organization are also being created by the initiative of Turkey, however, today Baku is more active than its “elder brother.”
In particular, to make sure of the big number of Azerbaijani-Turkish sites, one should only type the words “Karabagh” or “Garabagh” in the internet searching systems (www.google.com, www.yahoo.com etc.) and the system will show up more Azerbaijani and Turkish than Armenian information on Artsakh-Karabakh. At the same time, if we make a search by the word “Artsakh,” the number of Armenian sites found will prevail, however, one should consider the international community is almost unfamiliar with the other name of Karabagh-Artsakh, and to get acquainted with this subject in the internet sites the foreigners will look for the names “Karabakh” and “Nagorno-Karabakh.” In this way Azerbaijan and Turkey have carried out much more propagandist work to succeed, which, to some extent has changed the state of affairs in the information war, and, is not always counteracted by the Armenian party.
The Azerbaijani party has well-developed means for spreading disinformation. For the last few years information-analytical portal Day.az has been dynamically developing under the private support of the state. The materials have been published in Russian and English by the resources of the member of Permanent Commission on International Relations Milli Mejilis and inter-Parliamentary ties of Anar Mamedkhanov.
According to information of different ratings, Day.az is visited by more than 10 thousand a day. Reference index of edition in internet is equal to 2200, which, according to Yandex system data, is the 38th showing among all the Russian-language editions in internet. Thus, while giving a search in Yandex search system by key words “Armenia news”, Day.az takes the second place (the first place is not taken by a merely Armenian resource either – the project of RIA News “News-Armenia” takes that place). Considering that according to statistics most of the users make use mainly of the first ten showings of searching machine, Day.az takes the position of one of the main sources of information on Armenia.
Day.az periodically spreads disinformation in internet. At the same time they don’t use their own information, but make reference to Azerbaijani information agency APA, which is a permanent provider of false information on Armenia and Artsakh-Karabakh. Considering popularity and high rating of Day.az’s searching machines, such materials spread in global net very quickly.
www.irevan-az.com –This is an Azerbaijani site in Armenian, where Baku places agitation materials, news and disinformation, analogical articles, historical features, audio recordings, photos and even caricatures on the subject. In the site there are sections about the Artsakh-Karabakh war, Khojalu events, photoarchives. The site also contains photos of Artsakh “safe haven,” today’s Aghdam, devastated settlements of Ghubatli. It is not quite clear how the Azerbaijani party managed to get new photos of Artsakh’s safety haven, that is the photos of districts which are contiguous to the militarized and frontlines?
It should also be mentioned the materials of the above mentioned site are not stated in a literate Armenian. However, these mistakes are not that much, especially if we consider the Armenian sites themselves are not that ideal. One should suppose the site is made by some Azerbaijanis who occurred to live in Armenia in the past and know the language. A more “pessimistic” version of recruiting Armenian specialist is less possible but theoretically is not excluded. However, the site is made by the Azerbaijani “state order.”
The Armenian party hasn’t got any propagandistic site in Azerbaijani language. As it is known, there are a few Turkish versions – the Turkish section of the “Azg” newspaper and the Turkish language site www.ermeni.org.
One should mention the Armenian site may pursuit no serious propagandistic objectives, as Baku has minimum chances to influence on the Armenian reader to reconsider his position. Here it is more important the fact the Azerbaijanis embrace such a “broad front” creating sites not only in Russian, English and French languages but also in Armenian. Such a site has not only propagandistic effect, but also the effect of “physiological attack.” The enemy has been obviously carrying out active work. The Russian version of the site was later created.
The site www.iravan.com represents “data” the territory of the present Armenia is historically Azerbaijani. Here are separately cited all the Armenian toponyms which have Azerbaijani-Turkish origin and have been made Armenian: Amamlu (Spitak), Chomburuk (Chambarak), Aghbulagh (Lusaghbyur), Nor Bayazet (Gavar), Jalaloghli (Stepanavan), etc. Here are also brought encyclopedic data about settling these towns and localities, rise in the number of population, dates the toponyms changed. In the site is placed the picture of Ararat Mountain as the symbol of “nostalgia” of Azerbaijanis for Eastern Armenia.
www.karabakh.gen.az is concentrated on the subjects “genocides of Azerbaijanis” in Khojalu, “Armenian terrorism” and the Karabakh war. In his large publication inserted in the site “professor” Ismail Veliev condemns the activity and political line of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party. Adil Badirov mentions the information on the strength of army in Karabakh is false and that it is being spread by journalists bribed by Armenians and at the same time remembers about the film on the Russian HTB channel about the NKR defense army. With other falsified information, the site contains false information about “destruction of Azerbaijani monuments in Armenia and especially in Zangezur and in the safe haven.”
The site www.karabakh.co.uk has been made by the “Azerbaijani community in London,” in particular, by the members of this structure – Tale and Nijad Heydarovs. This site as well has sections of historical feature, photos, audio records, integrity of information and disinformation. Here are mentioned the names of the well-known Azerbaijani military and cultural men. The list of Azerbaijani military men of Karabakhi origin is limited by 5 names, 3 of which lived in the Middle Age, and the other two were known in the period of Soviet rule – Colonel Aslan Vezirov and General Khalil Mamedov. In this regard the list of only Armenian marshals surpasses the one of all the Azerbaijani high-ranking military men taken together.
The site www.human.az has been made by the state commission engaged in the issues of the missing prisoners of war. From the technical standpoint the site has quite a high-level: besides the information section, it has a section of video spots in multimedia format, music and clips. From the standpoint of contents, it reflects all the sites mentioned above. There is a section on “Armenian terrorism,” it also presents the UN decisions on Artsakh-Karabakh issue, the decree of H. Aliyev to celebrate the 31st of March as the “day of Azerbaijani genocide,” etc.
Besides the sections mentioned above the site http://www.khocaly.s5.com turns to the personality of Ramil Safarov, presenting him in a positive light. Here are separately presented prewar photos of territories controlled by NKR at present, “history of Azerbaijani genocide perpetrated by Armenians in 1918-20.” “20% of the Azerbaijani Republic is still occupied by Armenians. Nothing and no one is forgotten. This land is calling for its only patriotic generation – us,” – is mentioned in the site.
The subject of Khojalu “genocide” is also being touched in the site www.khojaly.net. Here are inserted photos, documents and data. The site http://azerigenocide.org again touches on the subject of “genocide in Khojalu” and “other perpetrations of genocide against the Azerbaijani nation.”
The site http://aliyevheritage.org is an online library, where one can find information about the activity of H. Aliyev, his speeches and announcements. The site was created on May10, 2004 and has sections in 26 languages (!). In the “electronic kitabkhana” are presented the speeches of H. Aliyeb on Karabakh issue in chronological order – from 1993 to 2002.
On the site www.youtube.com are inserted two video spots on NK subject, in one of which one can hear Azerbaijani music and in the second one are presented allegedly Russian hirelings fighting in the NKR on the side of Armenians.
The list of Azerbaijani sites of anti-Armenian character is not limited by the ones mentioned above. The sites http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info, http://www.tallarmeniantale.com, http://www.war-culture.az, http://conflict.aznet.org, http://www.azerbaijanfoundation.org, http://www.human.gov.az, http://www.azeri.ws, http://www.axtar.az, http://www.azeribook.com, http://shusha.aznet.org are not all the ones engaged in Azerbaijani propagandistic attacks. It seems to be expedient to make the strategy of the RA information security more clear and work out mechanisms of corresponding “counterattacks.”
Recognized the “genocide”
Azerbaijani Mili mejlis (in 2007) has unanimously qualified the tragic events during fights that took place in Khojalu as “genocide against Azerbaijani nation” and called on other countries to name the events as “genocide”.
The announcement made by the Azerbaijani Parliament runs, that on February 26, 1992 “Russian military unit 366, headed by Armenian and Russian commanders” have attacked and “massacred” Khojalu.
“Armenia fails to adeduately answer Azeri propaganda”, political scientist believes
Levon Melik Shahnazaryan, a political scientist, told a press conference the Armenian side does not properly react to Azeri propaganda. He says no films are shown on Kojalu whereas he claims that Azeries have shot several films on Khojalu events.
As a participant of freedom fight, Shahnazaryan reminds that Khojalu residents were killed in Aghdam and not Khojalu. Referring to an Azeri program, he said an Azeri reporter made a tour in the area and shot dead bodies. “Two days later they showed the dead bodies were tortured. If Aghdam was under the control of Azerbaijanis and the reporters could freely make pictures there, it means the Armenian forces had nothing to do with the crime,” the speaker said. “Many things are just made up, which causes harm to the image of our nation,” the political scientist says.
Khojalu “victims” memorial in Hague
The “Eni Safak” Turkish newspaper on February 4 (2008) announced that a memorial dedicated to the “Khojalu Massacre” is to be erected in Hague. The monument is being new designed and it is to be placed in the Muslim part of the Hague military cemetery.
According to the newspaper, the initiative of erecting the monument belongs to the Azeri community of the Netherlands, which had been struggling for the approval of the municipality for almost a year. As the head of the Azeri community of the Netherlands Ilhan Askin said, the monument is to commemorate the “Massacre of Khojalu”. It is remarkable that Askin stressed that he is Azeri, not Turk, in despite of his Turkish second name.
It would be better pleasing the Azeris to erect the statue Ramil Safarov instead of the memorial of the “victims” of the so-called “Khojalu massacre”. Safarov, murdering an Armenian serviceman, once again proved the bloodthirsty essence of the Azeri barbarians. The statue of Safarov would signify the entire horde of Azeris, and not only the “Khojalu victims”!
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/02/truth-about-khojalu-events-azeri.html
Tags: Azerbaijan and Terrorism
April 3, 2008 at 5:46 am
This one is also good. Give it a read if you can read and understand russian
СКОТ УСПЕЛИ ВЫВЕСТИ, А ЛЮДЕЙ НЕТ
Эйнулла Фатуллаев (Баку)
Лачин-Шуша-Агдам-Ханкенди-Баку
Источник: Газета “Реальный Азербайджан”
http://sumgait.info/khojaly/eynulla-fatullayev-khojaly.htm
http://realazerbaijan.wordpress.com/
April 3, 2008 at 5:53 am
Azerbaijan: Anti-democratism and colonialism in the perspective of regional security
On February 7, a conference called “Caucasus and Middle East countries as potential partners in the process of forming regional security system” started in Yerevan, Armenia. REGNUM publishes full text of Major General, Commandant (INSS, MoD, Republic of Armenia), Doctor of Political Sciences, Fellow Member (Russian Academy of Military Sciences), Counterterrorism Fellow (National Defense University, USA), Member (CSTO Academic-Expert Council) Hayk Kotanjian’s report at the conference.
In the community of international organizations and scholars dealing with the settlement of the Karabakh Conflict, it is common to express peacemaking optimism concerning the settlement at the beginning of each year. With all due respect to these expectations, I believe the consideration of the problems of real peace and security in the region in the circle of experts as a no less useful effort.
The Karabakh Conflict resolution by peaceful democratic tools is one of the key problems for the security of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus region on the whole (1). This report is devoted to the evaluation of colonial essence of certain antidemocratic manifestations of the former metropolitan country’s policy in relation to the self-determined Nagorno Karabakh. The appraisal of essential characteristics of the states’ democratization processes in the region, as well as the realization of collective and individual human rights can be considered as an integrative political-legal basis for comprehension of regional security architecture formation process, founded on the principles of peaceful coexistence and cooperation enjoying equal rights in the South Caucasus.
Let’s begin with the overall assessments. While analyzing positions of the Azerbaijani authorities regarding the Karabakh issue as a regional security factor together with its other aspects, external assessments of the neighboring state leadership’s democracy in the context of international-legal norms of human rights and liberties protection are of special attention. A comprehensive non-partisan assessment is given to the authorities of the Republic of Azerbaijan by Freedom House (2), a renowned US-based human rights organization. Like in previous years the last annual survey of Freedom House declared Azerbaijan as a “not free country”. Evidently, the democratization process is not smooth in the neighboring states — both in Armenia and in Georgia; however, Freedom House considers these two countries “partially free”, unlike “not free” Azerbaijan.
The Western colleagues consider the Azerbaijani government antidemocratic in its political-legal essence. This is, first of all, expressed in the dynastic inheritance and maintenance of power as well as in imposing by the head of the state, the cult of his father–the former ruler of the country–on the people of Azerbaijan thereby resembling to the sultanate-style dictatorships. It is well-known that the authorities’ response to the assessment of their democratization extent is considered as an important component of democracy by human rights organizations. From that perspective, it is symptomatic that on 24 December, 2007, the neighboring state’s President, ignoring the assessments of Freedom House, declared that the world community recognized Azerbaijan as a democratic country and called his son the next heir to the rule (3).
From stability and security perspectives, the “non-freedom” of our neighboring state is reflected in the colonialist manifestations towards the rights and liberties of the natives in the Eastern Transcaucasia. That first and foremost, concerns the right of peoples to equality and free external and internal self-determination. Antidemocratism of the neighboring state’s authorities regarding the Karabakh settlement is expressed in denying the fact of legal democratic suspension of the administrative and hierarchic relations between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan (4).
The illegality of the declaration of independence by Azerbaijan in 1991 (5) without holding a referendum on the issue of seceding from the USSR lies in the basis of ignoring the mentioned political and legal fact. The fact of declaring Azerbaijan independent without fulfillment of the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and other regions of densely-populated Armenian habitations to free and independent choice of their political status – in defiance of the USSR acting Law “On procedure of settling issues related to withdrawal of a Soviet Republic from the USSR” (6) is also qualified as a law infringement. Instead, by passing a legislative act on the liquidation of Nagorno Karabakh autonomy, the Republic of Azerbaijan proved to be an entity of metropolitan colonial oppression of Nagorno Karabakh people’s will to free self-determination (7). As a reaction to this illegal act, in compliance with the acting Law and principles of direct democracy, Nagorno Karabakh seceded from the Azerbaijan SSR– by holding a referendum.
At the beginning of 1992 the Republic of Azerbaijan unleashed a colonial war in response to proposal of the newly elected NKR authorities to start peace negotiations.
In addition to the violations of the legislation, the official Baku, proclaimed her Declaration of Independence in 1991 on the legal succession from the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, thereby depriving herself of the right to include Nagorno Karabakh in her territory, based on the fact that Nagorno Karabakh, having the status of a disputed territory, wasn’t included in the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan throughout the whole period of its existence from 1918 to 1920 (8). Heretofore, Karabakh was a constituent part of the Russian Empire and previously — of Persia, but not of Azerbaijan, which didn’t exist as an independent state until 1918.
Another colonial attribute of the antidemocratic nature of the Republic of Azerbaijan is the contradiction of her Constitution (9) to the essence of the international-legal norms on the peoples’ right to dispose their own destinies through free expression of popular will of the self-determined population in complete freedom, formulated by the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1966 International Covenants on Human Rights and the UN Charter (10). World practice proves that in this very way, i.e. without interference from the metropolitan country, the rights of the peoples of Bangladesh, Eritrea, East Timor, Montenegro, and at this moment Kosovo too were exercised, to self-determine through free expression of will in the referenda held among the self-determining nations, and not in the populations of their former metropolitan countries, namely in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Indonesia or Yugoslavia-Serbia.
A few words concerning the manifestation of antidemocratism, namely the propaganda of xenophobia, violence and war are worth mentioning. The efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group on the peaceful resolution of Karabakh Conflict are based upon the UN fundamental principles: interdependence of peace, progress and democracy in relations with other nations, assuming that lasting peace is a premise, and democracy is an utmost condition for secure and sustainable development of nations. These very principles, reflected in the UN Charter and the Human Rights Covenants, exclude war propaganda. However, recurring statements by the statesmen of our neighboring country contain a direct threat of war. Suchlike public addresses by the head of our neighboring state to the population of almost all the regions in Azerbaijan at national events and international meetings, as well as their widespread broadcasting through mass media lead towards a motivation of inevitability of resumption of war in line with the propaganda of war and violence.
Yet by conducting open colonial war propaganda, the official Baku, contrary to the logic of the Minsk process, mobilizes its population to regain Karabakh by force. A concrete evidence of Azerbaijan’s preparation to war is its purposeful excess of limitations, anticipated by the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). Instead of the permitted 220 tanks, Azerbaijan has 579, i.e., exceeding 2.63 times; instead of 220 armored combat vehicles-1174 (exceeding 5.34 times); instead of 285 artillery pieces of 100mm caliber and higher-788 ones (exceeding 2.76 times), instead of 100 battle planes-128 pieces (exceeding 1.28 times). It should be noted that Armenia continues to meet its international commitments according to the CFE Treaty, and the NKR declares its eagerness to become a responsible participant in this treaty which is of such importance for the regional security.
The statements by the statesmen of the neighboring country as a matter of fact are a gross violation of the International Covenants on civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights, and which are difficult not to qualify as incitement of its own people to genocidal actions towards the Armenian population. Unfortunately, an example of such a manifestation of colonial disregard towards their international commitments is given by the head of the neighboring state himself. In his last New Year address to the Azerbaijanis all over the world President Aliyev threatened the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians with ethnic cleansing: “If Armenians residing in Nagorno-Karabakh want to decide their fate, they must do it basing on the principle of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, but if they do not want to do this, they must leave Nagorno-Karabakh and create their second state in another place” (11).
The antidemocratic nature of the Baku authorities’ position on the peoples’ right to self-determination is reflected also upon domestic level regarding the rights of ethnic minorities to internal self-determination. Skepticism towards Baku’s promises to render high-level autonomy to the Armenians is based upon the complete disregard of the Azerbaijani Armenian refugees’ rights while conducting negotiations on fulfilling the rights of refugees and temporarily displaced persons of Azerbaijani nationality. A symptomatic and sobering example of the Aliyev regime’s colonialism and antidemocratism regarding the rights of ethnic minorities to internal self-determination within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is the routing of the Talysh Mugan Autonomous Republic in 1993 which was accompanied by its leader’s and his ethnopolitical companions’ arrest (12).
The fact of total obfuscation and pressure on accurate information in Azerbaijan is reflected in the assessments by “Freedom House” as one of the key features of the antidemocratic regime of this “not free” country. The official policy of the titular nation’s dominance to the detriment of parity with the native peoples of the neighboring country is reflected in the purposeful reconstruction of the scientific history of the nations of the region, which is targeted at distortion of their identity, as well as at reducing the place and the role the indigenous people in the historical development of the Eastern Transcaucasian culture. In the policy of historical falsifications the grounding of Azerbaijan’s historical right to the possession of territory, which has been populated by millennia-old indigenous Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, has a special place. As it is known from the text of the President Aliyev’s speech at the anniversary meeting at the National Academy of Sciences, he made a political order on the falsification of the Eastern Transcaucasian history on 14 December, 2005 (13). As a result of the state policy of substitution of scientific history with totalitarian special propaganda, there occurs a break between the reality and the antiscientific history of the nations of Eastern Transcaucasia, framed up in the depths of current authorities.
The world academic community has already registered specific attempts on realizing the political order of the neighboring state’s head – to make primeval the history of densely-populated Turkic peoples residing in the territory of Eastern Transcaucasia, subject to Persia. The scientific fact of Turkic peoples’ habitation for 900 years in the South Caucasus seems an unacceptably small period for the Baku authorities. The falsifiers try to prolong that history for ten thousand years – back to the era of creating Mesolithic artifacts of Gobustan by the pre-historic man of the Stone Age Epoch. These distortions of the past, which were ordered from above, are pierced through the manipulations with the Iranian toponym “Azerbaijan” with its antiscientific usage towards Persia’s former Caucasian provinces for the periods. The political application of that term preceded well before the Turkic peoples settled in the territory of the Eastern Transcaucasia. As it is known, the Turkic peoples of Caucasian provinces also were not prominent as “Azerbaijanis” and their settling territory as “Azerbaijan” in the official documentation of the Russian Empire. In a word, the famous joke: “The USSR is a country with an unpredictable past” is fully applicable to Azerbaijan, where by the authorities’ order, a new history of the region is written–with a radical change of place and role of settled indigenous peoples and newly arrived nomadic tribes. These are the manipulating positions from which the Baku authorities impute to the Armenians the crimes against the “Azerbaijani people” even in those periods, when Turkic ancestors of contemporary Azerbaijanis didn’t enter the South Caucasus from Central Asia.
Preparing a ground for justifying colonial claims to the territory of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, the Baku authorities, manipulate the repatriation fact of the limited contingent of the Armenians (who had been taken away earlier to Persia by Shah Abbas) in the aftermath of the Russian-Persian War of 1828. Some of academicians politically committed by the Baku authorities try to thrust on the Azerbaijani community the opinion that all the Armenians arrived to the Eastern Transcaucasia. The given “scientifically tailored” propaganda is recently carried out right from President Aliyev’s mouth. Similar authorities’ violence of human rights on free access to the truthful scientific information targets at spoiling Azerbaijani people by the belief that Artsakh is allegedly the fatherland of Turkic peoples, and the Armenians in Karabakh and Armenia are, for the most part, either descendants of re-settlers or are not Armenians at all.
In the policy of demolishing the trust among nations, the Baku authorities spare a special place to conscious distortion of the information on the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. State propaganda of disrespect for the memory of 1.5 million Armenian victims surpasses the boundaries of separate publications, taking the form of sacrilege, directed by the Baku authorities. For examples of coarse falsification of the Eastern Transcaucasian history, we may bring the attempts of politico “balancing” of the genocidal crimes against the Armenian population, which were committed at the beginning of the 20th century, with “the genocide against the Azerbaijanis”. Based upon these falsifications, the Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On the Genocide against the Azerbaijanis” was issued in 1998 (14). The representatives of Baku intelligentsia themselves in the narrow confidential circle are mocking at the dishonest and dangerous way of political “consolidation of the Azerbaijani people” against the Armenian and Russian peoples. They know that as a matter of fact at the beginning of the 20th century, massacre of Armenians and resistance of Armenians to that massacre took place, as well as later–in response to pogroms of peaceful Armenian population in Sumgait in 1988 and in Baku in 1990.
It should be mentioned that the Baku authorities’ sneering at the pain and human dignity of the millions of Armenian families in the Diaspora together with the propaganda of xenophobia among the Azerbaijani population, play also a diametrically opposite role – it consolidates Armenians all over the world for adequate counteraction to the State defamation of the Armenian Genocide.
The recent campaign of commemorating the “genocide” victims, as if committed by Armenians against the Mountain Jews, serves to confront Armenians and Jews. The historic truth was defied by the manipulators (by means of the informational war) to such an extent of sneer, that excavating mass burials of the Armenians, killed at the beginning of the 20th century, are presented as “victims” of genocidal actions by the very true victims; that is the Armenians. The goal is to destroy centuries-old good neighborly relations that existed between Shirvan Armenians and the Mountain Jews, aiming to push Israel and Jewish lobby organizations to anti-Armenian positions.
Among similar outcomes of involving scientists in the antiscientific elaboration of the Baku regime’s informational war which is untwisted by special propagandists under the flag of human rights protection, the fact of falsifying the authorship of sneering at the victims’ bodies of the Khojalu tragedy deserves special attention. Details of the given provocation, as a tool for political struggle for power in Baku, are stated by fresh traces in the well-known interview of the Azerbaijani President Ayaz Mutalibov to the Czech journalist Dana Mazalova (15). The Armenian party has all the proofs that corpses of those killed were in the responsibility zone of the Azerbaijani authorities and the physical contact of the Armenians with the bodies to abuse them was impossible.
The fact that the analytical community in Azerbaijan, as well as in Armenia, is represented by sufficiently wide spectrum of views on security realities and perspectives of our South Caucasian division of the European Neighborhood raises hopes. I was honored to know praiseworthy Azerbaijanis in the multinational professional environment, together with the impartial and worthy representatives of different states and organizations. I am sure that there are specialists in our neighboring country, who realize the counter-productivity of restoring the colonialism towards the Nagorno Karabakh’s people in the process of the European Neighborhood formation. The given problem could become a subject of an unbiased study for Azerbaijan’s politically non-committed scientists, who are preoccupied with perspectives of secure democratic development of the region, as well as for the co-chairs of the Minsk Group and international analytical community.
1. “National Security Strategy of the RA”. Yerevan, 2007, Special issue of defense-academic quarterly “Haikakan banak” MoD, RA. Freedom House. Map of Freedom in the World. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia (2007) (http://www.freedom house.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2007&country=7129)
2. See Ilham Aliyev, “My Universities”, 24 December, 2007 (http://azerbaijan.news.az/index.php?Lng=aze&Pid=19934); Ilham Aliyev, excerpts from his direct address: “In the contemporary world the transition of power from one member of a family to another in itself isn’t considered as an antidemocratic fact”. “Moreover, I’d like to mention that the true heir of Heydar Aliyev is my younger son, Heydar Aliyev, the youngest member of our family”.
3. Act on the referendum results on the independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, 10 December, 1991, Stepanakert, Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.nkr.am/rus/facts/referendum.html).
4. Constitutional Act “On the state independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, 18 October 1991, No 19-20.
5. See USSR Law “On procedure of settling issues related to withdrawal of a Soviet Republic from the USSR” No 1410-1 of 3 April 1990.” USSR Supreme Council (www.bestpravo.ru/ussr/data01/text10973.html).
6. AzR Law “On abolition NKAO AzR”, 26 November 1991. Registers of AzR SC, 1991, No 24.
7. See “Journal”. League of Nations, Geneva, No 17, p. 130: among the arguments lying in the basis of the resolution by the League of Nations on non-recognition of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, the fact of “impossibility of precise identification of the Azerbaijani real borders in connection with its territorial disputes with its neighbors” was mentioned.
8. See Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Chapter II. “Basis of the State”, Chapter III. “Basic Rights and Liberties of a Person and Citizen” (http://www.azerbaijan.az/GeneralInfo/Constitution/constitution 01 r.html).
9. See CSCE. Helsinki Final Act, 1 August, 1975. Principle VIII. OSCE website (www.osce.org/documents/msc/1975/08/4044 ru.pdf); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UN GA Resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December, 1966. UN Centre for Human Rights: International Treaty Collection; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. UN GA Resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December, 1966, UN Centre for Human Rights. Human Rights: International Treaty Collection.
10. President Ilham Aliyev’s congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan on the occasion of the Solidarity Day of all the Azerbaijanis all over the world and New Year. 31 December, 2007 23:59. President Aliyev Heydar oglu Aliyev. Official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Documents/Addresses (http://www.president.az/articles.php/item_id=20080101020429299&sec_id=135).
11. See Farmoni Fakhraddin Aboszoda (Abbasov). The History of Our Republic. CentrAsia. 2003, (http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php4?st=1056939900).
12. See President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev’s speech at the ceremonial assembly, dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences (14-12-2005 14:15), http://www.president.az, the President of Azerbaijan, official website (http://www.president.az/print.php?item id=20070810125435235&sec id=11)
13. Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On the Genocide against the Azerbaijanis”. Heydar Aliyev, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Baku, 26 March, 1998 (http://www.human.gov.az/?sehife=etrafli&dil=ru&sid=MTMyMjMzMTA4MTMyNjE1) or (http://www.azembassy.kz/data/file/31marth.pdf)
14. Interview of the AzR President Ayaz Mutalibov to the Czech journalist Dana Mazalova, “I am a humanist at heart”, “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, 2 April, 1992.
http://www.regnum.ru/english/953962.html