Since the end of September, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh has been reignited. Rovshan Ibrahimov and Murad Muradov present the Azerbaijani perspective on the roots of the current escalation and the way forward to a peaceful resolution.
Between 1988-94, in the shadow of the break-up of the Soviet Union, Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a war within the borders of Azerbaijan. The outcome was the occupation of the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh – where there was at that time and remains today an ethnic Armenian majority – and an additional seven neighbouring districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh where Azerbaijanis had always constituted an overwhelming majority. As a result of the invasion, 600,000 ethnic Azeris lost their homes and became Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). A further 400,000 Azeri refugees also fled their homes within Armenia to Azerbaijan as a result of persecution.
The debate over the cultural ownership and heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven occupied territories are today subject to widespread debate – but not widespread appreciation of the historical facts. It cannot be disputed that both Azerbaijani and Armenian, Christian and Muslim history and culture run deep across this region and for over one and a half thousand years. It is perhaps though to be expected that the further the journey is taken back into that history, the further it becomes subject to mythmaking.
Yet wind forward to the 1988-94 Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and the facts are much clearer: that balance was broken by the mass eviction of one ethnic group by and in favour of another, with the current ethnic make-up further majoritised by the re-location over the last two decades of tens of thousands of additional Armenians to the occupied territories from Armenia itself. The organised re-engineering of the ethnic balance of these territories was indeed decisively condemned at the time, when in 2005 the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) condemned in the strongest possible terms “large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing” (Resolution 1416).
Negotiation
Negotiations have in theory been taking place ever since the 1994 ceasefire, mediated by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group – co-chaired by the United States, Russia and France, and founded in 1992, while the last conflict was still being fought.
The Minsk Group set out with the good intentions of resolving the conflict within the fundamental framework of the United Nations Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884, requiring the urgent withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied Azerbaijani territories. This has never happened. It is the failure of the Minsk Group process that has directly led to the current conflict.
Essentially this brings to the forefront of the return of the fighting today a fundamental question over priorities for the international community: what matters most, principles of international law, or the acceptance of de facto situations which are at odds with those principles?
Territorial integrity vs the 1991 ‘referendum’
In 1991, some three years before the end of the last conflict, while the war still raged – but after the forced ejection by Armenian forces of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azeris – an illegal ‘independence referendum’ was held in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact that the war was still ongoing and that the only voters were the ethnic majority and their supporting occupying forces should alone be enough to conclusively reject the result. Yet added to that, we can see parallels with the cases of Catalonia, Scotland or Corsica where independence referendums cannot be held without the consent of the Spanish, UK or French governments respectively – these being the legally recognised sovereign countries of which those territories are constituent parts. For the 1991 referendum to have any validity, it required the consent of the Azerbaijan Government, and that consent was quite obviously not given.
Ilham Aliyev, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Credit: World Economic Forum (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Referring to Article 72 of the 1977 Soviet constitutional law (which was still in place, with the USSR existent in 1991) the right for unilateral secession was retained exclusively by 15 constituent republics, but not for lower-level administrative entities – and not for Oblasts, of which Nagorno-Karabakh was one.
Even more decisively, on the international stage, not a single UN member state has ever recognised the validity of the vote, with the unsurprising result that the ‘Republic’ remains to this day unrecognised by any country. Even the Republic of Armenia has not granted recognition to Nagorno-Karabakh, nor sought to publicly contradict this tenet in international law. Additionally, the European Court of Human Rights, commenting in 2015 on the Chiragov and others v. Armenia case regarding the property rights of Azerbaijani nationals living in the district of Lachin currently under occupation, ruled that Armenia had been exercising effective control over the Nagorno-Karabakh without any legal basis in international law to do so.
The evolving, regressing Armenian position
It is known that the first President of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, had a pragmatic view regarding the resolution of the conflict. Ter-Petrosyan clearly understood the future prospects of Armenia – landlocked without direct sea access, and without an abundance of natural resources – were limited without better relations with its neighbours. To improve them he sought better relations specifically with Azerbaijan and Turkey, seeking Armenia’s participation in regional infrastructure projects, including the transportation of energy resources.
Despite the fact that Ter-Petrosyan actively participated in the negotiations to resolve the conflict, the growing presence of nationalists in the Armenian government who publicly supported Nagorno-Karabakh separation and separatists stymied his attempts at resolution. When in 1998 Ter-Petrosyan was forced to resign, that initial progress went with him.
Hopes were again raised twenty years later with the 2018 election of current Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, brought to power on the wave of the ‘velvet revolution’ – a nationwide mass protest movement against institutionalised corruption, lack of freedoms and economic stress.
It was widely expected by the international community that Pashinyan would be an ally in supporting the negotiations, held in the preceding years between Azerbaijan and Armenia with the mediation of the Minsk Group, which had led to what is known as the ‘Madrid Principles’. These state that the seven occupied regions adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh should be liberated and restored to Azerbaijani control, a corridor should be formed between Armenia and Karabakh, and the subsequent status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined on the consensual basis of the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Karabakh.
It is now clear these hopes have been dashed. Far from being the progressive force that was expected, Pashinyan has sabotaged the process by demanding the inclusion of representatives of the unrecognised ‘Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’, to the dismay of the three national co-chairs of the Minsk Group. Further regression to a nationalistic position was evident in abundance when Pashinyan visited Karabakh and surprised observers with his public declaration that “Karabakh is Armenia”.
The way forward
At a time of armed conflict, against the tragic background of thirty years of invasion, occupation, and resistance, it requires both vision and courage to work toward a better future beyond the battlefield. Yet the core principles on which that future can be built are well known. They are the principles that have been the Minsk Group’s basis for negotiations for nearly three decades; they reflect the UN Security Council’s resolutions, as well as the positions of countless international bodies – from the UN’s own General Assembly to the European Parliament; and they, inevitably, would result in the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan.
With that in place, the region can and must return to its true multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic character. Clearly this will not be easy. But it is possible: already an example exists in today’s Azerbaijan itself – where ethnic Azeris live with some 30,000 Armenians (not including those in the occupied territories), Russians, Turks, Lezgins, Avars, Talyshs, Georgians, Tsakhurs and more. Azerbaijan’s leadership has made it clear what is on offer.
The legitimate ethnic Armenian population will be fully recognised and protected as citizens of Azerbaijan, and they will be joined by those of their former ethnic Azeri neighbours who choose to exercise their right, as refugees, to return. Homes, towns and villages razed to the ground both by previous conflict, and today’s, must be rebuilt. The horrors of a grey state, existing outside the norms of international law, can be addressed: environmental abuses and drug trafficking – well-documented under the occupation – must be tackled, and cease. The future holds a promise for economic, cultural and environmental renewal in this remote mountain region, a renewal whose positive effects will be felt far beyond.
Armenia’s tragedy is that is has been painted by the rhetoric of its leaders into an impossible, indefensible corner. The country’s leadership bears a heavy responsibility – but particularly the Pashinyan administration – when it had the open opportunity to set a new course that would both address injustices in the occupied territories and the economic fears voiced in the mass protests that brought Pashinyan to power in Armenia itself.
The current position of regression into nationalistic extremism is both economically and militarily indefensible. Inevitably, for Pashinyan and his government this is a truth that must – sooner or later – be aired publicly with his own populace: not doing so would likely lead to a heavy price being paid at the ballot box. It is an unenviable choice, to be sure. Yet the faster the facts and fiction are separated and the reality of Azerbaijan’s legal ownership and offer to build something better for both countries is acknowledged, the sooner the conflict can end and a better life can begin.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: World Economic Forum (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Thank you for this factual comprehensive perspective.
Karabakh is Azerbaijan! Thank you for this factual comprehensive perspective.
Great summary and thanks a lot for sharing it!
The article is complete nonsense typical of the Azerbaijani narrative of the conflict, but let’s address a few points.
1. Total number of Azerbaijani refugees/IDPs was ~600,000. Conveniently, Azerbaijanis forget about ~350,000 Armenian refugees. Ask yourselves, why has oil rich Azerbaijan done so little to help these people while ‘poor’ Armenia managed to solve its refugee problem? Azerbaijan never cared about the plight of its refugees/IDPs, but rather used them for leverage in negotiations. You can see the breakdown of Azerbaijani refugee/IDP numbers below. Numbers from the regions adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh are from Azerbaijan’s own census.
https://twitter.com/DerKaiserCubed/status/1315974709499092994?s=20
2. Conveniently skipping over the historical background of this conflict. Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have always constituted 80%+ of the population. As a matter of fact, Armenians are indigenous to this territory. How can people indigenous to a land occupy that land? While Azerbaijan successfully managed to destroy all Armenian cultural heritage in Nakhichevan, they did not manage to do the same in Nagorno-Karabakh. One only needs to look at the cultural genocide committed in Julfa – link below – to understand Azerbaijan’s hate for anything Armenian. This hate has also resulted in complete falsification of history in Azerbaijan, giving rise to the nonsensical Caucasian Albanian theory.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/mar/01/monumental-loss-azerbaijan-cultural-genocide-khachkars
3. Important to remember that it was Azerbaijan who started the war in the 1990s, just as it is Azerbaijan who started the war on September 27. Azerbaijan’s response to a political process was to blockade and invade Nagorno-Karabakh with the aim of forcing its people into submission. Between 1991 and 1992, an estimated 169 people died during the siege of Stepanakert according to Human Rights Watch. Ethnic cleansing also took place during Operation Ring in 1991, where Azerbaijani forces violently deported some 20,000 Armenians from the region, resulting in 50 deaths. Nonetheless, Azerbaijan’s goal of forcing people into submission did not work. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned by a ratio of 3.5:1, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh managed to put up a fierce resistance against Azerbaijani offensives, inflicting a humiliating defeat on Azerbaijan by 1994. This defeat came after Azerbaijan broke multiple ceasefires between 1991 and 1994 in an attempt to improve its position, in the process suffering even greater losses. Azerbaijan’s insistence on solving this conflict militarily from the outset is precisely why have this situation today. Azerbaijan will never be able to subjugate the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Persecution did not and will not bring peace.
4. On UNSC resolutions, Azerbaijanis only conveniently bring up what suits them. These same resolutions urge the parties to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict through the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group. Azerbaijan agreed to this proposal and later also agreed on the principles for solving the conflict. These principles are the non-use of force, territorial integrity and right to self-determination. In starting a new war, Azerbaijan violates the first principle. Moreover, Azerbaijan has always rejected the principle of self-determination, which is precisely why it has not been possible to make substantial progress during the negotiations. Conflict resolution requires compromise form both sides. Until Azerbaijan recognises the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination, no tangible progress can be made. To reiterate, the UNSC resolutions urged the warring parties to resolve the conflict through the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group. Azerbaijan agreed to this and agreed on the principles for solving the conflict. Why then does Azerbaijan keep referring to the UNSC resolutions? These resolutions served their purpose and gave way to the negotiation process. In rejecting the negotiation process and the principles defining it, it is Azerbaijan who is breaking all its agreements. For comparison, it should be noted that the ceasefire agreement in 1994 recognised Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh as parties to the conflict. Why then does Azerbaijan reject the presence of Nagorno-Karabakh at the negotiating table? The reason for this is that Armenia made an enormous miscalculation in 1999 by taking on the role of negotiating for Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan agreed. Nagorno-Karabakh’s participation in negotiations is therefore not possible unless Azerbaijan agrees to it once again, which of course it will not do. The point here is that when agreements are made in negotiations, you can not simply go back to an event that has already given way to a new process. The only documents relevant for solving the conflict are those agreed within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.
5. The Bishkek Protocol in 1994 does not have a time limitation, meaning Azerbaijan continuously violates its own agreements each time it launches an attack against Nagorno-Karabakh. These attacks have increased in intensity from 2008 and have culminated in the full-scale war that we see today. The reality is that Azerbaijan signed the ceasefire agreement in 1994 because it was completely defeated militarily and would have incurred great losses had the conflict continued. Azerbaijan then used this ceasefire and the negotiation process to arm itself in preparation for a new war. This is evidenced by the fact that the war rhetoric from Azerbaijani officials has only increased over the last 25 years. Azerbaijan has never been interested in the negotiation process, if this process involved any real compromise on its part. In agreeing to the ceasefire and participation in negotiations, Azerbaijan was therefore able to successfully buy time to build the capacity of its armed forces, with the intended goal of resolving the conflict on the battlefield. Now that Azerbaijan believes it has a military advantage, particularly with direct Turkish military support and help from terrorist fighters from the Middle East, we clearly see its complete disregard for a peaceful solution. Azerbaijan used the ceasefire of 1994 to avoid complete capitulation on the battleground and spent the last 25 years preparing for war under the facade of negotiations.
6. On the legality of the 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh referendum, there are two points I would like to make. The idea that artificially drawn borders can somehow give legitimacy to borders of modern nation states is ridiculous. For 70 years, the Soviet Union was considered an illegitimate empire which came into existence through subjugation and persecution of many nationalities. Indeed, the USSR was an illegitimate empire. How can anyone then insist that borders devised by Stalin for political purposes are legitimate? Nagorno-Karabakh has never been part of an independent Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity does not apply to Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1923, Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan were established within Azerbaijan SSR to appease Ataturk, hoping that Turkey would later join the Soviet Union. This decision was taken by Stalin unilaterally in 1921, without any consultation with the people that it would impact. Moreover, the inclusion of ethnic Armenian enclaves within Azerbaijan SSR was part of Soviet Union’s wider divide and rule policy. Secondly, in the event a constituent republic would choose to secede from the Soviet Union, the constitution of the USSR allowed autonomous regions to decide on their future unilaterally. This included the option to stay in the Soviet Union, remain in the seceding republic or raise a question on its own destiny. For this reason, Azerbaijan’s unilateral decision to abolish NKAO was illegal.
7. To conclude, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have a moral, legal and historical and viable claim to independence. Ordinary Armenians and Azerbaijanis have both been victims in this conflict, and I strongly defend the right of return for all displaced people. However, had Azerbaijan shown real willingness to solve this conflict, displaced people could have returned to their homes 25 years ago. Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to both Armenian and Azerbaijani people, but it does not belong to Azerbaijan. If Azerbaijan had any legitimate claims on Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988, it lost all those claims through its policy of pogroms, massacres, ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide, promotion of Armenophobia and glorification of murderers like Ramil Safarov. The Azerbaijani government continues to be one of the most repressive regimes in the world, ranking alongside North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China across all freedom, transparency and human rights metrics. While Azerbaijan is a corrupt dictatorship ruled by the same family for the last 50 years, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh are emerging and thriving democracies. Why then should the people of Nagorno-Karabakh be forced to live under the tyrannical and morally bankrupt rule of Azerbaijan?
Unfortunately, dialogue between the two nations is impossible as long as the Azerbaijani people are in an information vacuum, fed only by government propaganda. as long as dissent is condemned in Azerbaijan.
1. People want to go home regardless how is their situation where they are displaced. And they have right to go home. The region is 20% of Azerbaijan and total population back then was 7 million. Do the math please at least. Please stop sending useless sources from social media or wikipedia. It is not a social media to use cheap sources.
2. It was Karabakh khanate for hundreds of years. The name Karabakh means literally translated from Azerbaijan: Black Garden.
3. How logical to claim that Azerbaijan started the war when 20% of its land was occupied, almost one million people were displaced and around 30k Azerbaijani people were killed in the fight to remain at their home. The second war neither started by Azerbaijan. But even it started, it was Azerbaijan used its self-defence right given by the UN. Azerbaijan entered to the UN together with Karabakh and it is Azerbaijan’s fundamental right to secure its internationally recognized borders.
4. The Madrid Principles (lead by the representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, France and the US) was rejected by the prime minister, by Mr.Pashinyan when he declared “Artsakh is Armenia”. He went even against the self-determination act by clearly declaring Karabakh being occupied by Armenia. Moreover, there is no republic of “Artsakh”. No country in the world recgnizes it while all the countries in the world recognise Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. We can not negotiate with the party that exist illegally and is not recognized by any country.
5. and 6. I am not aware of these points and legal side of the conflict. However, the fact that even Armenia has not recognized “Artsakh” give a signal that legally it is impossible, otherwise can have negative consequences.
7. To conclude, Azerbaijani IDPs should return home and Azerbaijan should secure its internationally recognized borders. Ethnic Armenians, consisting of 1% of total population of Azerbaijan have rights to live in peace in Azerbaijan as many other minorities of Azerbaijan. Yes, there are many problems in Azerbaijan but there are even more problems in Armenia. Both as post soviet countries have been struggling to build a strong institutions. However, when it comes to minorities Azerbaijan, as a multicultural state, should be a role model to Armenia which is monocultural and mono-religious country. Azerbaijan never experienced any problem with its minorities. Please note than around 30k ethnic Armenians live in peace in Azerbaijan, while no single ethnic Azerbaijani was left in Armenia after the first war (1988-1994).
1. You are poorly informed about the conflict, because you have never had to think for yourself. Azerbaijanis only parrot what they have heard from their government and do not even know basic facts about the war. The figures I provided on IDP numbers from the 7 regions adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh come from Azerbaijani government statistics. You can visit the gov.az source mentioned at bottom to see for yourself. The total number of Azerbaijani refugees/IDPs was ~600,000, this is a fact. By comparison, Armenian refugees amounted to ~350,000. Per capita, there were more Armenian refugees as a result of the first war. This is not my opinion, but basic maths. These statistics are also presented by Thomas De Waal in his book ‘Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War’. Secondly, the territory under Armenian control is not 20% of Azerbaijan. This is another falsification by Azerbaijan. Armenians currently control ~11,500km2 of territory that Azerbaijan claims as its own. Azerbaijan’s de jure territory is ~86,500km2. 11,500/86,500 ≈ 13.3%. This is also basic maths, but neither you nor the Azerbaijani government cares the truth. Moreover, the territory of the former NKAO – the envisioned borders of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic – was 4,400km2. If you do the calculation here, you will see that this is only ~5.1% of Azerbaijan’s de jure territory. I suggest you inform yourself of the details before writing anything. I do, however, agree on your point about the return of refugees. All refugees and IDPs have a right to go back home. Had the Azerbaijani government negotiated in good faith, refuges and IDPs will have returned home 25 years ago.
2. I already know the meaning of Karabakh and I know about the history of the Karabakh Khanate. I suggest you again familiarise yourself with the facts, one being that the Karabakh Khanate only existed as an entity for just over 70 years. Preceding the Karabakh Khanate were the Armenian Melikdoms, the Principality of Khachen, the House of Khachen under the rule of the Armenian Bagratid dynasty, the Kingdom of Artsakh as a province of the Kingdom of Armenia under the Orontid, Artaxiad and Arsacid dynasties. That’s over 2000 years of Armenian history, culminating in a 95% Armenian majority in 1921 and a 78% Armenian majority in 1988. Unfortunately, ordinary Azerbaijani people live in an alternate reality due to complete falsification of history and indoctrination by Azerbaijani historians and officials over the last 30 years. Let me also add, I am only using the name Nagorno-Karabakh as it is the name used most. The correct historical name of the region is Artsakh, period. Similarly, I use the name Stepanakert, despite the correct historical name being Vararakn.
3. Before I continue, I hope you now accept that the statement about ‘1,000,000 Azerbaijani refugees and 20% occupied land’ is a complete lie. Moving on, I am not claiming that Azerbaijan started the first war, nor am I asking anyone to use logic. It is a fact that Azerbaijan started the first war. Azerbaijan responded to a political process – namely the declaration of independence by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh with a for vote of 99.98% from an 82.17% turnout – by launching a full-scale war. I already commented on the above. If you are not aware about the developments in the first war, it is not my problem. Azerbaijan had initially blockaded Nagorno-Karabakh and conducted a campaign of terror to force the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to submit to its authority. This did not work, and Azerbaijan suffered a humiliating defeat. The fact that Azerbaijan lost the war, despite outnumbering and outgunning the Armenians by a ratio of 3.5:1, speaks about the motivation of Azerbaijanis to fight for Nagorno-Karabakh. The perceived motivation that exists now is a result of 30 years of indoctrination and arming, but even that will not be enough to overcome the Armenian people. The reason why Azerbaijan lost the 7 regions around Nagorno-Karabakh was due to its military adventurism, stemming from its desire to take complete control of Nagorno-Karabakh. Between 1991 and 1994, Azerbaijan violated numerous ceasefire agreements hoping to improve its positions on the battlefield, but ended up suffering greater losses. The security zone around Nagorno-Karabakh was vital for deterring further Azerbaijani attacks and providing protection for the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh. This has already been proven in the current conflict. Moving on, Azerbaijan starting the current war is clear to all on the basis that Armenians have nothing to gain from it. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I already covered the UNSC resolutions in detail, but you clearly do not have the capacity to understand. To summarise, the UNSC resolutions gave way to the Minsk process, which Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to, making this process the only agreed format for resolving the conflict. Within this process Azerbaijan agreed on the non-use of force, which is precisely why Azerbaijan insists that Armenia started the war. If Azerbaijan were to admit to starting the war, then it would be in clear violation of its own agreements. Azerbaijanis love to talk about UNSC resolutions despite never reading them, repeating points they have memorised without understanding the context or the existing negotiation process.
4. Your claim about Armenia rejecting the Madrid Principles is also demonstrably false. On the contrary, it is Azerbaijan who rejects them by not adhering to the non-use of force and not accepting the principle of the right to self-determination. Conveniently, Azerbaijan only accepts the principle which is in its own interest and not what it agreed to. The reality is Azerbaijan already acknowledged Nagorno-Karabakh as a party to the conflict. The 1994 ceasefire agreement – which has no time limitation – was signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. This is another fact that you did not know. The only reason why Nagorno-Karabakh does not take direct part in negotiations now is because Robert Kocharyan took on the role of negotiating for Nagorno-Karabakh in 1999. This was a mistake by Armenia, but it was agreed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Of course, Armenia is now pushing for the inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiation process, but this can only happen with Azerbaijan’s consent. This is the essence of negotiations – the sides always try to improve their positions. However, unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia sticks to its agreements even if they are not optimal. Finally, Artsakh is Armenia, but you should understand the context in which Pashinyan made this statement. The meaning of this is that Artsakh is part of the Armenian Nation, not necessarily part of the Republic of Armenia. By comparison, Aliyev calls for the return of Yerevan and its other ‘historical lands’ in Armenia to Azerbaijan. According to your logic, Azerbaijan not only rejects the Madrid Principles, but the existence of an Armenian state.
5 & 6. To be perfectly honest I am not responding to you, since you are not going to exercise any critical thought, but rather for people who will be reading your points without having full knowledge on the conflict. The reason why Armenia has not recognised the Republic of Artsakh is because Armenia accepts the negotiation format and respects its own agreements. Of course, there is a distinction between Armenia’s de facto and de jure recognition. This point that Azerbaijanis make is very confusing, because on one hand they accuse Armenia of rejecting the Madrid Principles and on the other hand they ask why Armenia has not recognised Nagorno-Karabakh’s de jure independence. Such recognition will only lead to the end of negotiations, but as I already stated before, Armenia is committed to the negotiation process. Why do Azerbaijanis criticise Armenia for wanting to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict? However, Azerbaijanis must understand that negotiations require mutual compromise. Anything short of Azerbaijan recognising the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination is not a compromise. Had Azerbaijan agreed to this, more than 50% of the territory controlled by Armenian forces would have been returned to Azerbaijan, and all but 50,000 refugees would have been able to return home immediately. This could have happened without any war and at any time in the last 25 years. The reality is that Aliyev has looted the Azerbaijani people and the only leverage he has for maintaining his dictatorial rule is this conflict. The Azerbaijani government has built Azerbaijani statehood exclusively on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and through complete control of its narrative and the information space, they have convinced the Azerbaijani people to sacrifice their own freedom and future for a misguided cause. Only Aliyev, his family and his circle have benefited from this war, while ordinary Azerbaijanis are no better off than ordinary Armenians. The real tragedy for Azerbaijanis is this, not losing 4500km2 of territory that has always been Armenian. I said before that Nagorno-Karabakh does not belong to Azerbaijan, but it belongs to Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Despite everything, Azerbaijanis have every right to return to their homes in Shushi and Azerbaijanis have every right to claim their cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh. In truth, ordinary Azerbaijanis and Armenians have both suffered greatly. However, the state of Azerbaijan can not and will not impose its sovereignty over the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan lost its moral claim to Nagorno-Karabakh a long time ago.
7. Once again, I highly encourage you to learn the facts and not only repeat government propaganda. There are not 30,000 ethnic Armenians in Baku as claimed, let alone in Azerbaijan. This claim was made by Heydar Aliyev that was later forced on and accepted by Azerbaijani society. According to current estimates, there are at most 2000 ethnic Armenians left in Azerbaijan, vast majority of whom are old women who have Azerbaijani spouses. I also find it interesting how you talk about the return of Azerbaijani IDPs, but you never once mentioned the return of Armenian refugees. It really says a lot. While there are anti-Azerbaijani sentiments in Armenia, anti-Armenian sentiments in Azerbaijan are on a different level and scale. Armenophobia is a state policy of Azerbaijan. This is substantiated by events such as the pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku, the Maragha massacre, Siege of Stepanakert, Operation Ring, case of Ramil Safarov, destruction of Armenian cultural heritage – most tragically the destruction of thousands of Armenian cross-stones in Julfa, banning entry of ethnic Armenians to Azerbaijan, falsification of Armenian history, Azerbaijani war crimes of April 2016 and Azerbaijani war crimes in the current conflict. It is abundantly clear that Azerbaijan can not be trusted with the security of Armenian people. Azerbaijan’s human rights abuses are among the worst in the world and are not comparable to that of Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh. All international indices confirm this. The Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh are in their ancestral homeland and they refuse to be ruled by a tyrannical state.
It was an interesting read. Much appreciated.
… or raise a question on its own destiny… This is FALSE information. Do not mislead people!!
At the same time, the Article 76 of the Constitution of the USSR stipulated that the union republics are sovereign states united with other republics in the USSR. The Article 78 of the Constitution of the USSR stipulated that the territory of a union republic cannot be changed without its consent, and the borders between union republics could be changed by mutual agreement of the respective republics, which were subsequently subject to approval by the USSR. Nagorno-Karabakh never seceded from the Azerbaijan SSR or the USSR in accordance with the constitutional norms of Soviet legislation having fulfilled all the procedural requirements.
I am not misleading people, but you are clearly not familiar with ‘The Law of the U.S.S.R. on the Procedures for Resolving Questions Related to the Secession of Union Republics from the U.S.S.R.’ of April 3, 1990.[1] This law allowed for autonomous regions within the territory of a Union Republic seceding from the USSR to begin its own process of independence. For the record, let me refer to Article 3:
“In a Union republic which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.”
By Comparison, Article 78 of the Constitution of the USSR did not relate to the case of a Union Republic seceding from the USSR, but rather to the changing of the borders of a Union Republic within the Soviet Union. Why is this important? In 1977 there was no possibility of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, therefore the law did not take this in account. By 1990 the situation had changed, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union was probable. Nagorno-Karabakh’s initiation of independence was therefore in full compliance of domestic Soviet law at the time.
[1] http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/
I responded to your comment two days ago, but conveniently my reply has not been published. In any case, I will address your point again.
I am not misleading people, but you are clearly not familiar with the ‘Law of the USSR on the Procedures for Resolving Questions Related to the Secession of Union Republic from the USSR’ of April 3, 1990.[1] In particular, Article 3 states:
“In a Union republic which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.”
Article 78 of the Constituion of the USSR relates to borders of Union Republics within the Soviet Union, and not the borders of succeeding Union Republics. This is important because in 1977 – when the constitution was adopted – there were no prospects for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. By 1990, however, this looked very likely. You should better inform yourself.
[1] http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/
Thanks for you article
Great article!
Thanks for enlightening this conflict for me. I’ve heard from my family about those dark times for Azerbaijan, Khojaly Genocide and Karabakh conflict. The international law should protect Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
This article is authored by two Azerbaijani individuals who are unequivocally linked to the state leadership that exists in Azerbaijan. Consequently, it is no surprise that facts are glossed over or exemplifications are made highly selectively and even purposely as half-truths in places.
The article states that an “ethnic Armenian majority” existed in 1988 and “remains today”. What it doesn’t state for fear of lack of bias and the truth, is that ethnic Armenians have inhabited that area for millennia, with ancient authors such as Plutarch, Strabo and Claudius Ptolemy noting that Artsakh (the ancient Armenian name for Nagorno-Karabakh) is indigenous to Armenians. The Armenian Apostolic Gandzasar Monastery dating back to 4th Century CE, was founded there in the same century that Armenia became the first sovereign country in the world to adopt Christianity as a state religion (301 CE). Four more such buildings that still stand were built in the 4th century and 48 more denoting continuous Armenian settlement, were erected in nearly each century thereafter.
The borders of Armenia have always included Karabakh. In an 1823 census, whilst still within the administrative realms of the Persian Empire of the Turkic-speaking Qajar dynasty of Iran and five years before the Russian Empire even entered the region (‘Nagorno’ meaning “mountainous” in Russian was affixed thereafter), it was shown that over 90% of the population was composed of Armenians. Furthermore, the reason for the name ‘Karabakh’, is due to the mono-linguistic nature of the Iranian governors presiding since the Middle Ages, who used their native Azeri language for administration.
The long-ruling Iranian dynasties from the early 16th century composing the Safavids, Afsharids and latterly Qajars until 1828 in Karabakh (1925 overall as a dynasty), were all ethnic-Iranian and Turkic-speaking, with links to the Iranian province of Azerbaijan. The name itself derives from Old Persian and has existed in the Persian culture for millenia. Azerbaijan, the Caucasian state, has only existed since 1918 and as has been alluded to, this choice of name was for irredentist and political reasons. The Iranian ambassador in the then capital of the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople (Istanbul), sent a strongly worded message of protest on 28th August 1918 to the Ottoman government because “… a fake country named ‘Azerbaijan’ was formed in the Caucasus”. The fact is that the South Caucasian Tatars, descendants of the Turkic nomadic tribes which arrived in the 12th century, adopted the name of Azerbaijan only as late as 1918.
With regard to the territory of Karabakh during the time of the USSR, a written decree was signed by the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) National Council in 1921 that included Nagorno-Karabakh as part of the Armenian SSR. This was also accepted by the new central Soviet government. The text was printed in both Armenian and Azerbaijani media and established the legal confirmation of this agreement. The Caucasian Bureau of the Russian Communist Party had an executive meeting on 4th July 1921, where they reconfirmed that Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the Armenian SSR. During the evening of the following day, Stalin decided without any forewarning or vote, that the aforementioned decision would be overturned and Nagorno-Karabakh will be placed in the Azerbaijani SSR as an “Autonomous Oblast” (which reported directly to Moscow, not Baku). This broke international law because a territory that was legally part of one state cannot be given to another recently created state (which was Azerbaijan in 1918).
Stalin chose this path in order to placate the newly established republic of Turkey, which in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide and the First World War, objected to a large Armenian state to be formed on its border. Nonetheless, subsequent census data from 1926 shows that 89.1% of the population was ethnic Armenian and only 10% ethnic Azeri. By 1959, this number had been reduced to 84.4% Armenian and 13.8% Azeri. After former Azerbaijani president, Heydar Aliyev (father of incumbent Ilham Aliyev and father-in-law of vice-president Mehriban Aliyev), “tried to increase the number of Azeris and to reduce the number of Armenians”, (2002 interview), through discriminatory policies against ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, in 1989 the number was still as high as 76.9% ethnic Armenians and 21.5% Azeri.
The article refers to the purported “illegal” Referendum on Independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which took place on 10th December 1991. The voter list consisted of 132,328 citizens of which 82.2% voted. The vote passed, with 99.89% (108,615) voting in favour of independence. On the day of the referendum, 10 ethnic Armenian civilians were killed and 11 were wounded. Pogroms in Baku against ethnic Armenians directly followed as a consequence. It is stated in the article that the “Azerbaijan Government” needed to consent for the referendum to be valid. The “1977 Soviet constitutional law” submitted in the article was in fact superseded by the Law of Secession from the USSR (Law on Procedure for Resolving Questions Connected with a Union Republic’s Secession from the USSR, 3rd April 1990) which contained the following article:
‘Article 3. In a Union republic which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.
In a Union republic on whose territory there are places densely populated by ethnic groups constituting a majority of the population of the locality in question, the results of the voting in these localities are recorded separately when the results of the referendum are being determined.’
Consequently, this article allowed the Autonomous Oblast of Nagorno-Karabakh the legal right to execute a referendum and to legally leave the USSR, which it did. It was illegal for Azerbaijan SSR to interfere, when it used the same Article for their own independence, after the Referendum on Independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was successfully concluded.
The “United Nations Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884” do not recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as occupied or invaded territory, do not demand the Republic of Armenia to withdraw forces from any territories and do not demand any forces to be withdrawn from Nagorno-Karabakh proper.
The main demand of these resolutions was the immediate ceasefire and the resumption of negotiation processes, which Azerbaijan broke and did not respect. In addition, Azerbaijan did not fulfil other demands of those resolutions, e.g. stopping the blockade and opening the roads. The UN does not have a de jure recognition function, therefore it has never discussed and never recognised the legal status of any region in the world. On the other hand, the international right of the people of Karabakh to self-determination has been recognised by the OSCE Minsk Group, EU countries and a number of other countries. Failure by Azerbaijan to comply with the 4 resolutions adopted in 1993 led to the subsequent loss of validity of those resolutions.
It is claimed that there are “30,000 Armenians” allegedly currently living in Azerbaijan and that “the legitimate ethnic Armenian population [of Nagorno-Karabakh] will be fully recognised and protected as citizens of Azerbaijan”. If that is the case, why did Safar Abiyev (Azeri Defence Minister) in August 2004 say via his spokesman, Colonel Ramiz Melikov, “Within the next 25 years there will be no state of Armenia in the South Caucasus. These people … have no right to live in this region”? Why did Ramil Safarov at a 2004 NATO English-language programme in Budapest, murder Armenian soldier Gurgen Margaryan while the latter was asleep in his bed, with 16 axe blows to the head? Safarov was convicted by a Hungarian judge and sentenced to life in prison, but 8 years later extradited to Azerbaijan, state pardoned, promoted in rank, given 8 years of back pay, a new apartment and exalted publicly as a hero.
Why did Hajibala Ibrahim Abutalibov, former mayor of Baku (2001-2008) tell a municipal delegation from Bavaria, Germany visiting in 2005, “Our goal is the complete elimination of Armenians. You, Nazis [delegation], already eliminated the Jews in the 1930s and 40s, right? You should be able to understand us”? Why was Zafer Noyan, an ethnic Turkish arm-wrestler, barred from entering Azerbaijan in May 2014 merely because his last name resembled that of an Armenian (“-yan”)? Falsely blaming Armenia for the escalation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict during the past month, Ilham Aliyev himself, in October 2020 stated, “This is the end. We showed them who we are. We are chasing [Armenians] like dogs.”
The article goes on to mention “homes, towns and villages razed to the ground”. This is happening right now as I type this comment. Between 27th September and 31st October, Azerbaijan has systematically bombed more than 160 settlements in Nagorno-Karabakh – over 13,100 homes, 2,700 public, industrial and infrastructure objects have been destroyed, including civilian hospitals (in use at the time), churches, cultural centres, kindergartens and schools. A total of 33,002 children have lost their inalienable human right to education as a direct consequence of Azerbaijani aggression. In the same period, ethnic Armenians have endured 45 civilian deaths and 141 civilians wounded.
A passing reference is made to claimed “environmental abuses”. On 29th October, the Azerbaijani armed forces set fire to the village of Aknaghbyur. It is also proven that in the last few days, Azerbaijan has been using white phosphorous munitions in the forests of Nagorno-Karabakh, causing over 1,815 hectares to have been destroyed so far. Civilians are hiding in those forests and to use them in areas where civilians are populated is a war crime, which will also likely result in irreversible ecological damage.
Azeri forces are using cluster munitions (confirmed by Human Rights Watch on 23rd October), illegally on civilian areas (these have also been banned in over 100 countries). Azerbaijan is torturing, and or executing ethnic Armenian civilians, Prisoners of War (POW) and servicemen by using tactics and techniques of ISIS terrorist mercenaries, which they have hired from Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, through their ally, Turkey. These said jihadist mercenaries (confirmed by the US, European and Russian authorities) are reportedly offered USD 2,000 per month to fight in Karabakh and USD100 for every beheaded ‘’kafir” (non-believer, Armenian). Leaked social media from Azerbaijan has shown beheaded and mutilated Armenian soldiers, commonly informing the victim’s family of the murder before it occurs for the purposes of psychological damage.
In conclusion, Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) has always been populated by an overwhelming majority of ethnic Armenians. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (Republic of Artsakh) was legally formed, following the valid contemporaneous USSR laws to the letter. The current leadership of Azerbaijan will not allow ethnic Armenians the right to peaceful existence, demonstrably seeking the extermination that their officials have in no uncertain terms threatened to execute in the recent past (see above). Yes, negotiations should take place, but not when Azerbaijan is committing the aforementioned war crimes against both civilians and combatants, as well as systematically breaking commitments to simple ceasefires for humanitarian purposes.
This must be a copy/paste from school books of Armenia where kids are being brainwashed with false history. Please include a reputable source before any claim.
It is ironic for Azerbaijanis to talk about Armenian children being brainwashed when Azerbaijan is ranked among the worst countries from freedom and transparency.[1] Azerbaijani statehood has been largely formed off the back of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and state-led falsification and fabrication of history has successfully convinced its population that Armenians are foreigners in their ancestral homeland. This has allowed Azerbaijanis to overcome their inferiority complex while internally normalising the dehumanisation of Armenian people. The conduct of Azerbaijani soldiers in this war – execution of civilians, physical and psychological humiliation of captured soldiers, and mutilation of corpses – confirms this point. It will still take several generations after peace has been achieved for the Azerbaijani psyche will heal. The video below is a perfect illustration of the tragedy that continues to unfold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-vtd5MKav4&feature=youtu.be
[1] https://twitter.com/GArmasCardona/status/1320085603078328320?s=20
This is a website of an Academia, sources from a social media can’t be accepted. In contrast, I am attaching a link to the United Nations condemnin Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani land and demands for “immediate complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces”. We might have internal problems. But Armenia has them more, especially with Armenia with 8 billion debt (3 times more than its yearly budget). Anyway, despite of all our problems, today 10 million people support Aliyev by willingly joining the army to liberate their home and restore its internationally recognised territory.
You speak of academia, but you are dishonest and intellectually incapable. At best, you are a prisoner of Azerbaijani government propaganda.
I linked an infographic containing information related to freedom and transparency indices, as evidence for the point I made. The purpose of an infographic is to collate several pieces of information and present them in a way that is accessible for all. Anyone can easily pull up the same rankings by checking each index separately if they wish. I am not here to write an academic paper, but to respond to an opinion piece littered with disinformation.
You continue to disseminate information on UNSC resolutions without any understanding of context or purpose. I have already addressed these resolutions on two occasions above, as has Harmic. I have no interest in further useless back-and-forth exchanges.
No, it is not “copy/paste” [sic]. If you care to notice, it was written with direct replies to the misleading statements in the blog article. It is called writing done through research. Outside of a totalitarian country like Azerbaijan, freedom of information allows one to search for corroboration of facts and I welcome people to do so. Without any intellectual riposte, you are clearly scared of the information being public and that means the truth is dangerous for the misinformation, lies and propaganda that you wish to be prima facie what anyone sees.
You are speaking about your truth. I know different truth. However, there are today’s realities:
– Armenia illegally occupied territory of Azerbaijan.
– As a result, Azerbaijan has 800 000 internally displaced population.
– Azerbaijan has been negotiating for 27 years for a peacful solution which was rejected by Armenia’s prime minister. – https://www.osce.org/mg/51152
– No country in the world, including Armenia , does NOT recognise “Artsakh” and it does NOT exist in the geopolitical map of the world. All the countries in the world, including Armenia, recognise borders of Azerbiajan that is the same as in 1918 when the first Republic of Azerbaijan was created.
– Today the war is going on inside the borders of Azerbaijan, not Armenia.
– Armenia uses banned clusters against civilians who live far from the conflict zone. It was noted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty.
* Amnesty: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-first-confirmed-use-of-cluster-munitions-by-armenia-cruel-and-reckless/
* Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/30/armenia-cluster-munitions-kill-civilians-azerbaijan?fbclid=IwAR3d42JOtvgcGsBj3SOeFRs8VqIio9eXgwFAfrZhHLCdCtJHuvkpNczOCrc
All the sources I mentioned above are from the high reputable international organization. We both may say different things but there are third reputable parties declare today’s realities.
“You are speaking about your truth. I know different truth.”
This statement says it all. There is only one objective truth. In persisting with false information, you only demonstrate your complete rejection of objective truth. All your arguments have already been thoroughly dismantled.
You wish to talk about Azerbaijani victims in a war unleashed by Azerbaijan itself, but you fail to mention that Azerbaijan has been indiscriminately bombing civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh since September 27.[1] The war crimes committed by Azerbaijani force – including execution of civilians,[2] physical and psychological humiliation of prisoners, mutilation of corpses, use of illegal cluster munitions in residential areas [3] and illegal use of chemical weapons against civilians – are a direct consequence of Azerbaijan’s moral bankruptcy. You only seek to terrorise and destroy, leaving the Armenian people with no other choice but to defend themselves. Azerbaijan does not get to define a conflict zone while posing an existential threat to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. You can not act with impunity.
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-civilians-must-be-protected-from-use-of-banned-cluster-bombs/
[2] https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2020/10/15/an-execution-in-hadrut-karabakh/
[3] https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/23/azerbaijan-cluster-munitions-used-nagorno-karabakh
What you say is your truth. I have a different truth. What matters is todays realities:
1. The UN condemns Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan and demands Armenian troops to withdraw from Azerbaijan. In 2018, it renowned its resolutions demanding Armenia to withdraw from Azerbaijan. Despite of these demands, Armenian forces still exist within the borders of Azerbaijan.
* https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm
* https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm
2. Today Armenia delibrately attacks on Azerbaijani civilians that live far from the warzone with banned cluster bombs. It was noted by the Amnesty as well as the Human Rights Watch
* Human Rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/30/armenia-cluster-munitions-kill-civilians-azerbaijan?fbclid=IwAR3d42JOtvgcGsBj3SOeFRs8VqIio9eXgwFAfrZhHLCdCtJHuvkpNczOCrc
* Amnesty: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-first-confirmed-use-of-cluster-munitions-by-armenia-cruel-and-reckless/
3. As of today, 91 civilians in the out of war territory Azerbaijanis were killed by Armenia.
* https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26464&LangID=E&fbclid=IwAR2qEn6D49u1AxQI6GlCt9oM83v7lmSYN4hA5T75CdYUKH72bnZ7Ubajg5o
4. Azerbaijan using its right for self-defence is pushing illegal troops of Armenia that illegally stand inside the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan.
You can make any claims about internal problems of Azerbaijan. But it does not change the reality and does not justify Armenia to break all the internation law and go against the UN and other reputable organizations.
It is very important
Why don’t you reference your sources ? Census files, etc? The data is not accurate!
Thanks for this article!
Thank you for very informative article 👍
If Azerbaijan wishes peaceful solution why do they attack. If they want to “solve” the issue via military force how can they have a “perspective on the route to peace”?
Azerbaijan does not attack. Azerbaijan has always and today support peaceful solution. That is why Azerbaijan has been negotiating for almost 27 years. However, the Madrid Principles lead by representatives of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, France and the US has been rejected by Mr.Pashinyan, the prime minister of Armenia in 2018. Now, by using its right for self-defence (the UN act) after 27 years to restore its internationally recognized borders and aiming to bring back its 800 000 IDPs home.
The link to the rejected the Madrid Principles agreement: https://www.osce.org/mg/51152
The UN resolutions on occupation of Armenia of Azerbaijani terriroty: https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm
May I ask the authors if they have examined the official statistics of the USSR on the population in Nahorno Karabakh in 1989 – this was the year of the census in the whole country. The total population of the autonomy in 1989 is 189085.
Ethnically pathetic statistics was:
– Armenians: 145.450 (77%)
– Azeris: 40.688 (21%)
– Russians: 1922 (1%)
The rest: Ukrainians, Belorussians, Greeks, Tatars, Georgians…
So total – 189.085 people lived there in 1989.
Let’s repeat: 189.085 people inTOTAL lived in Nagorno Karabakh in 1989.
Where is this figure – 600.000 Azeris only picked up?! Can you explain?
P.s. the census information is public and easy to google or even request from the Authorities that are responsible for the archives of USSR census documents.
The amount of refugees stems out of IDPs from seven regions surrounding Karabakh, which were predominantly populated by ethnic azeris, and are currently under the military control of Armenia for the so-called “security buffer zone”, and the azeri refugees from Armenia itself, who were being ethnically cleansed since the very first moments of the conflict. There is no cultural/historical claim from Yerevan to these 7 regions, they are not part of “artsakh” yet they have been under occupation for about 30 years.
Before writing such stupid things you must reaserch the history of Armenia…. Between 1988-94 600.000 ethnic Azeris didn’t loose their homes…
“Now an Azeri journalist writes to me in a serious expression that Karabakh Arabah historically belongs to them. I repeat, the Azeri journalist seriously believes that Azerbaijan, the 2,800-year-old Artsakh, belongs to them. I turn to this journalist, to the Azerbaijanis, who say such things, you have logic, well, you think seriously about this nonsense, does anyone believe it? How can 2800-year-old Artsakh be a part of Azerbaijan formed in the 20th century? Can you imagine the degree of stupidity? Can you imagine your false nonsense now causing bloodshed? “Artsakh is Armenian, it has always been a country of Armenians.” Vladimir Solovyov
In 1988-94, 600,000 ethnic Azeris were not deported from Artsakh. that’s a lie.
I can’t find “Artsakh” in the geopolitical map of the world. If you mean Karabakh, then it is a region with 7 districts + Nagorno Karabakh. From this region, around 800k Azerbaijani people were expelled by Armenian forces between 1988-1994. All this region is as part of Azerbijan in the geopolitical map of the world which is accepted all countries in the world, including Armenia itself.
The world is ruled by azerbaijani and turkish prostitutes is ruled by Prostitutes. What does it mean to bomb civilians? The immorality of azerbaijan and turkey is only a consolation in the words of condemnation. I’m talking about the structures in the picture below. Tell me how much I will pay, I will pay twice as much as Turkey. You are all inhuman animals. YOU ARE DEVILS.
Today, azerbaijan denies everything in its unleashed war. His people are not worth a penny for him. Aliyev makes an irregular statement and no one holds him accountable. Aliyev is an unbalanced drug addict. He cannot be entrusted with such a responsible job, that is why Turkey has taken everything into its own hands.
The person in this picture is quite a liar and a murderer. This fool cannot be trusted by an entire nation. A man who is convinced that his policy has expired and wants to throw mud left and right as long as he can.
heydar aliyev was more literate and more politically accomplished than this ignorant murderous animal.
The person in this picture is quite a liar and a murderer. This fool cannot be trusted by an entire nation. A man who is convinced that his policy has expired and wants to throw mud left and right as long as he can.
aliyev is a liar, the first bad president of zerbaijan.
heydar aliyev was more literate and more politically accomplished than this ignorant murderous animal.
I appeal to Azerbaijanis who have heads and brains. After this war, Aliyev will give Nakhichevan to Turkey to carry out his monstrous plan. Turkey does not need Armenians or Azeris to implement this plan. Believe me before it’s too late. We used to be good to each other and we can continue all that. do not listen to your leadership. They are all liars
Recognize Artsakh
The level of your argumentation. Thank you!
This might explain why the French journalist being threatened by Armenians.
Reporters Without Borders also noted it. https://rsf.org/en/news/tv-journalist-hounded-france-over-nagorno-karabakh-report
Again, NO country in the world, including Armenia recognizes “Artsakh”. It does NOT exist in the geopolitical map of the world, All the cuntries in the world, including Armenia recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.
This is aidiculious and stupid falsification of histroy. Please do better research of your history and ARMENIA and ARTSAKH history.
You have your own written history, I have my own history. And the world is not ruled by history. If so then today Romans should be ruling the world. So please refer to the reputable insitutions and today’s reality. Some of them are mentioned below.
1. The UN condemns Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan and demands Armenian troops to withdraw from Azerbaijan. In 2018, it renowned its resolutions demanding Armenia to withdraw from Azerbaijan. Despite of these demands, Armenian forces still exist within the borders of Azerbaijan.
* https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm
* https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm
2. Today Armenia delibrately attacks on Azerbaijani civilians that live far from the warzone with banned cluster bombs. It was noted by the Amnesty as well as the Human Rights Watch
* Human Rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/30/armenia-cluster-munitions-kill-civilians-azerbaijan?fbclid=IwAR3d42JOtvgcGsBj3SOeFRs8VqIio9eXgwFAfrZhHLCdCtJHuvkpNczOCrc
* Amnesty: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-first-confirmed-use-of-cluster-munitions-by-armenia-cruel-and-reckless/
3. As of today, 91 civilians in the out of war territory Azerbaijanis were killed by Armenia.
* https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26464&LangID=E&fbclid=IwAR2qEn6D49u1AxQI6GlCt9oM83v7lmSYN4hA5T75CdYUKH72bnZ7Ubajg5o
4. Azerbaijan using its right for self-defence is pushing illegal troops of Armenia that illegally stand inside the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan.
In todays geopolitical map “Artsakh” does NOT exist. If you mean Karabakh, all the countries recognise it as part of Azerbaijan, including Armenia. NO country in the world recognize “Artsakh”.
Esta información es falsa, una vergüenza Azerbaiyán! Dicen tantas mentiras madre mía.
Thank you.History is events, history is not Armenian lies. Unfortunately, although genocide against Turks happens not once but many times, even if there is evidence, it is often ignored. we will make our voices heard to the world
Thank you for comprehensive article. It is important to educate university communities with careful analysis.
Fake fake fake fake , OMG !!!! 🤦♂️
Thank you, Rovshan and Murad. Good luck in this fight for justice. We are proud of you!!!
I guess I need to enlighten all Armenians and those who believe in their mythic narrative about the history of Karabakh. Try to find those who can translate for you this document from Russian. Kureckchay treaty on transfer of Karabakh to Russian empire. Signed in 1805 by Ibrahim-khan Shushinsky-Karabakhsky (as literary mentioned) from Azerbaijani side on behalf of Karabakh khanate, and general Sisianov from Russian side. No Armenian name is mentioned in the document. Nor are any Armenian properties referred to either.
https://karabakh.org/treaties/kurekchay-treaty/
Watch also this to know how Armenians were brought to Caucasus by Russians. Putin is explaining – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-1FK57LSik
All high level and low level officials who participates in ongoing occupation of #Azerbaijan land will be hel accountable and punished for their crimes. #KarabakhisAzerbaijan
#StopArmenianAggression
#StopArmenianOccupation
Given the background of the authors, it’s not surprising to see complete misrepresentation and falsification of facts, distortion of the true nature of the conflict.
1. The referendum and proclamation of the Republic of Artsakh was held in the territory of Nagorno-Karabgh autonomous oblast (NKO) in line with USSR law (http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/) the same laws that stipulated the cessation of any Union republic from the USSR. So, there is no need for drawing parallels with other countries.
2. The ethnic Azerbaijani population of NKO, that made up ~ 15% of the 150k population of NKO, decided not to participate in the referendum. Given the high turnover and the fact that over 98% of participants voted for the independence of the republic of Artsakh, Azeri population’s vote wouldn’t have an impact on the referendum outcome.
3. The USSR officially has been dissolved in Dec 1991, so there could not be any kind of occupation of NKO or Azeri territory in that year by Armenia as Armenia and Azerbaijan were parts of the USSR.
4. In response to the referendum, Azerbaijan started military aggression against Artsakh with the goal to displace the ethnic Armenians who, in response had to resort to self-defence.
5. As Azerbaijan has been ignoring all UN resolutions to stop hostilities in 1992-1994, 7 adjacent regions of Artsakh have been seized by forces of Artsakh as security measure. There was no any intentional or planned ethnic cleansing by Artsakh in the 7 seized regions. Azerbaijan is the only party to blame for the refugee problem because of its aggressive policy aimed at expelling Armenians of Artsakh from their ancestral land, disregard for their right to life and freedom.
6. The issue of refugees should be viewed in more comprehensive manner and one raising the issue should remember also the pogroms of Armenians in cities of Sumgait (1998), Baku (1990), ethnic cleansing in Shahimayan Region (1991) and as a result, the displacement of about 400k Armenians living in various parts of Azerbaijan SSR outside of NKO.
It would be good to do some research before writing such data. There could not be 600,000 Azeris, as there have never been more than 200,000 people in Artsakh, and 80% of them have always been Armenians.
This is a classic example of how history is falsified, first the numbers, then the dates, then the events and the heroes.
Please do not forget the 7 regions adjacent to Karabakh and the refugees fleeing Armenia. Omission of facts is another method of history falsification.
Peace loving Armenians are trying to rage war everywhere and with any means possible. Instead of trying to build dialogue they are still trying to prove that they existed before anyone else and what they know as a history is 100% true. No wonder 30 years of negations have never brought any conclusion and even if it would lasted for another 30 years nothing would change as the problem is with mindset indoctrinated to extreme nationalism to the level compared with fascism. If you really want peace, prosperity and development stop harassing your neighbors with territorial/cultural claims as you are the ones who live with them after war will over.
Thank you, Rovshan and Murad. Good luck in this fight for justice. We are proud of you!!!
Karabakh is Azerbaijan!!!
Great informative article by two serious and trusted researchers. Written by facts and real stories.