Charlie Rose

bagemin  11/27/2009 11:42 PM Report

Dear Nazemejid,

Just thought you might find this link below interesting. This is no call for a new debate...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DEED61638E13ABC4950DFB1668382609EDE

nazamejid  08/27/2009 10:03 PM Report

You are right: this debate is meaningless. And I am having a lot of trouble understanding your logic or lack thereof as well. First you were claiming that Armenians are entitled to this land because they lived here thousands of years and that my sources were not scientific enough for you. Now you’re saying that just because Armenians were able to force thousands of people out t of heir homes and off their and now constitute 100% percent of the population here, they shouldn’t return the land that they had taken over because that would create havoc. The havoc had already been created by the actions of the Armenian Dashnaks in 1987, a party that had been longing about creating Great Armenia at any cost. And when you’re questioning who helped to create Azerbaijan, ask yourself who created this havoc. That’s what I am calling twisting my words and looking at the authentic historic sources in your own mirror. As far as the territorial integrity is concerned, if neither of the former Soviet republics are entitled to territorial integrity, then why Armenia is claiming what did not belong to it either historically or administratively? Good luck finding sources that would confirm that Nagorno-Karabagh or Nakichenvan ever belonged to Armenia.

bagemin  08/24/2009 03:28 PM Report

Dear Nazamejid,

I don't understand what you mean "twisted your words" when I literally copied and pasted your statement in quotes! If that's called twisting than this debate is meaningless!

I am still having a trouble to understand your point of view because:

1) You said that (and I again copy and paste what you wrote, I AM NOT twisting anything):

"I believe that you would agree that if every modern country had to return territories that didn’t belong to them thousands or even hundreds ago, it would create havoc in the world." Thus, according to your logic with which I may or may not agree, it doesn’t matter who lived in Nagorno Karabach before, the Armenians currently constituting 100% of Nagorno Karabach’s population simply shouldn’t return the land that they live on in order to avoid havoc. It doesn’t matter how they became a majority.

2) Your next point goes to criticize the Armenian claim for the independence, because (again I copy and paste in quotes)…” After signing the Turkmenchai Peace Treaty between Russia and Persia in 1828, 40,000 and after signing the Adrianopol Peace Treaty between Turkey and Russia in 1829, 90,000 were resettled in Caucasus.”

So, they can’t use their basic human right of independence, because they were re-settlers in 1820s?!? One should wonder when the Azeri Turks RESETTLED there!? I think first you should decide for yourself what notion you support.

3) As far as territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, I again will repeat myself: “Nagorno-Karabakh has NEVER been part of Azerbaijan, it WAS part of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic which was part of Soviet Union. So, the territorial integrity concept cannot be applied in this case.

4) By the way, I wonder who helped in the creation of Azerbaijan according to your source?!

nazamejid  08/22/2009 03:06 PM Report

Dear bagemin,

I provided you with this source to show that Nagorno-Karabakh never belonged

to Armenia, and modern day Armenia itself was formed with the Russian help.

You took my words, twisted them around and tried to prove that just because Armenians in the 19the century comprised the majority on certain territories of Azerbaijan, they are justified in their present day territorial claims and have to own this land at any cost. However, you are purposefully overlooking the fact how Armenians came to be the majority on this territory. I will again refer you to some facts. After signing the Turkmenchai Peace Treaty between Russia and Persia in 1828, 40,000 and after signing the Adrianopol Peace Treaty between Turkey and Russia in 1829, 90,000 were resettled in Caucasus. The inflow of Armenians to the Caucasus continued after the Russian-Turkish wars in the second part of the 19th century according to many sources, some of which are even used by the Armenian authors, such as Elchibekian and Ishkanian. Here are a few quotes from the book Azeri Turks: Power and Identity under the Russian Rule by the American historian Audrey Alststadt who thoroughly examined all existing sources on Azerbaijan’s history, including the census from the tsarist times.

I am sure all this information will not influence your beliefs and opinions, however, your claim that Armenians were always a majority here, and hence have a right to this territory is false which is proven by many authentic historical sources. As far, as the right of the Armenian population to “ self-determination”, they have already exercised its right to self-determination by having an independent state of Armenia.

“ From the 16th century Causcasia was incorporated into the Safavid system, represented by its administrators, beklerbeks. The territory was divided into four beklerbekliks: Tabriz (center at Tbriz city) Shkhur-Saada (Nakhijivan, with center at Nakhijivan city), Shirvan (center at Shmakhi), and Karabakh (center at Ganje) These four regions were called Azerbaijan by the Safavid adminstration, and their combined tax was between 300,000 and 500,000 tumans” p.9

“ In the first decade of Russian rule, immigration appears to have been confined to Russians – mainly military and later civil bureaucrats, political exiles and a few traders – Armenians from Iran, as provided in the Treaty of Turkemchai. Armenian immigration affected mainly the Shemakhi, Ganje, and Karabakh regions and areas west including Erevan” “Armenian immigration would grow as tens of thousands of families increased the size of Armenian communities in towns and created Armenian majorities in some rural areas” p. 28

According to the Imperial Census of 1867 in the same book on page 31 the poulation of Elizavetpol gubernii (Karabakh was part of that gubernii) was the following: Azerbaijani Turks -878,415, Russians – 17,875, Armenians – 292,188, total population –878,415.

bagemin  08/20/2009 01:46 PM Report

Dear Nazamejid,

I was quite astonished by your previous comment when you said:

"...majority of Armenians who lived in Nagorno-Karabach were resettled there from Persia under the Turkmenchai treaty between the Russian tsar and Persia." That's the reason that I asked the source that you so rigorously rely on. It seems that you haven't examined your source well enough as it has indeed confirmed the fact that:

"... when Armenians were trying to establish political control over the ARMENIAN-POPULATED regions of the Russian Empire (Yerevan and its surroundings, Nakhichevan, KARABACH, Akhalkalak and Akhaltsikhe) and even over Cilicia, which is not considered by Armenians to be part of their historical homeland (the “cradle” of Armenian identity and civilization). “

Hence, the status of the territory should be determined by the free will of its inhabitants and not the imperial desires of the bigger nations such as Russia, Turkey or in this case, Azerbaijan. I deeply condemn the Russian imperialistic policies regarding Caucasian nations particularly against Ichkeria. However, your argument is bizarre to say the least. Why wouldn’t the Armenian populated autonomous republic of Nagorno-Karabach have the right to be independent? Just because some other countries don’t want to!?! History has many examples: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Czech Republic and Slovakia, KOSOVO finally! Why not Karabach?

nazamejid  08/19/2009 07:27 PM Report

Dear Bagemin,

I was only referring to independent sources such as British and Russian government documents from the pre-Soviet era.

And no, I did not state that Azerbaijan has no right to this land because Caucasian Albanians lived there thousands years ago. I believe that you would agree that if every modern country had to return territories that didn’t belong to them thousands or even hundreds ago, it would create havoc in the world. Here is an excerpt from the British government archives and the link where you can obtain the complete document on how a modern day Armenia came to be. I would like to reiterate that history is often swayed to reinforce a favored opinion. You are maintaining that Nagorno-Karabakh never belonged to Azerbaijan. According to this excerpt, it did not belong to Armenia either. As far as holding a referendum on the territory of an autonomous region to declare its independence from the country on whose territory it exits, how do you think other countries would handle such a situation? Russia, for example, has over 20 autonomous regions on its territory. I want to see its reaction to the referendums of independence in these autonomous regions. A recent war in one of the autonomous regions, Chechnya has shown how they would deal with these referendums. By the way, the fifteen members of the former Soviet Union you are referring to, were independent countries prior to being forced to join the Soviet Union.

Here is the link and below is an excerpt: http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=19

"This collection of documents and maps provides scholars with an independent research publication whose primary aim is to illustrate key events, using material from British government archives, as markers in defining Armenian territory. These 70 years are crucial in the formation of the boundaries of what now constitutes the state of Armenia. The "Armenian Question" came under international scrutiny with the rise of modern nationalism in the Armenian communities living in the Ottoman and Russian empires. Borders had always shifted to and fro on the territory inhabited by Armenians. What changed from the 19th century onwards was that the Armenians - despite being militarily and politically weak - now tried to set a political agenda of their own (ultimately, the creation of an independent Armenian state encompassing a large part of what they considered to be their historical homeland) and to gain the maximum from the rivalry of the Great Powers in Anatolia and the Transcaucasus.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The Armenian Question (as it was called at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries) came under international scrutiny as a separate item in international politics only because nationalism in its modern sense had begun to penetrate the Armenian communities living in the Ottoman and Russian empires. Borders had always shifted to and fro on the territory inhabited by Armenians. What changed from the 19th century onwards was that the Armenians - despite being militarily and politically weak - now tried to set a political agenda of their own (ultimately, the creation of an independent Armenian state encompassing a large part of what they considered to be their historical homeland) and to gain the maximum from the rivalry of the Great Powers in Anatolia and the Transcaucasus.

Armenian political demands were always flexible in the period under study. Armenian politicians and thinkers have realized on countless occasions that - because of the constraints imposed by the international balance of power - they can only aim, at a certain political juncture, at something much less than their ultimate political objective. This is why the events described in these documents are to be seen as markers in defining shifts in Armenian national expectations as well. Moreover, a belief has grown, over the years, among many politically-conscious Armenians that only Armenian political control over a certain territory can ensure the survival of the ethnic Armenian character of that part of the imagined historical homeland; hence, the links between political and ethnic boundaries in most Armenian minds.

For the Armenians, Armenia encompasses a much larger territory than the six eastern vilayets of the Ottoman empire. The documents refer to many political events when Armenians were trying to establish political control over the Armenian-populated regions of the Russian Empire (Yerevan and its surroundings, Nakhichevan, Karabagh, Akhalkalak and Akhaltsikhe) and even over Cilicia, which is not considered by Armenians to be part of their historical homeland (the “cradle” of Armenian identity and civilization). Armenia was only an imagined territory from the Middle Ages until the end of May 1918 with no corresponding consistent administrative unit. The territory known today as Armenia (which was shaped through international agreements made in 1920-21) is much smaller than many Armenians think it should be.

Much documentary evidence has already been published about the position of the Ottoman Armenians during the First World War and in this relatively short collection the documents therefore focus on other points as well. This is not to lessen the significance of the deaths of a great many people.

The two Transcaucasian federations, in the spring and early summer of 1918 and then - under Soviet rule - in 1922-36, were separated from one another by the Independent Republic of Armenia (1918-20) and the internationally recognized sovereign Soviet republic of Armenia (1920-22). The documents relating to the period 1918-21 provide a detailed account of those years. The following territorial questions are covered: the future of the six Ottoman vilayets; the future of Cilicia; arrangements with Azerbaijan over mountainous Karabagh, Zangezour and Nakhichevan; frontier arrangements with Georgia.

The collection concludes with events in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the Soviet Government not only made territorial demands on Turkey and encouraged 100,000 Armenians to return to the Armenian SSR, but also forced thousands of ethnic Azerbaijanis living in Armenia to move to Azerbaijan and thus make room for the incoming Armenian repatriates. “

bagemin  08/18/2009 11:37 AM Report

Dear Nazamejid

In my humble opinion, the many sources that you rely on claiming that Armenians were resettled in Nagorno-Karabakh from Persia are not scientific. I am not a historian, but all the archeological evidence contradicts your so called sources. By the way, even you state that Azeri have no right to claim that land, as "It were Albanians who lived there thousands of years ago". But as you said that's not the point. Nagorno-Karabakh has NEVER been part of Azerbaijan, it WAS part of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic which was part of Soviet Union. So, the territorial integrity concept cannot be applied in this case. As with 15 members of Soviet Union including Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh people expressed their basic human rights via referendum to declare its independence from SOVIET UNION.

bagemin  08/18/2009 11:37 AM Report

Dear Nazamejid

In my humble opinion, the many sources that you rely on claiming that Armenians were resettled in Nagorno-Karabakh from Persia are not scientific. I am not a historian, but all the archeological evidence contradicts your so called sources. By the way, even you state that Azeri have no right to claim that land, as "It were Albanians who lived there thousands of years ago". But as you said that's not the point. Nagorno-Karabakh has NEVER been part of Azerbaijan, it WAS part of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic which was part of Soviet Union. So, the territorial integrity concept cannot be applied in this case. As with 15 members of Soviet Union including Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh people expressed their basic human rights via referendum to declare its independence from SOVIET UNION.

nazamejid  08/15/2009 07:16 PM Report

Thank you for your brief lecture about the history of Nagorno-Karabakh.

History can be very subjective and can be swayed to suit those who want to emphasize a particular point. According to many sources, majority of Armenians who lived in Nagorno-Karabach were resettled there from Persia under the Turkmenchai treaty between the Russian tsar and Persia. It were Albanians who lived there thousands of years ago, not Armenians. But that is not the point. As we know, many places historically changed hands from one group of people to another. The point is that every country, including Azerbaijan, is entitled to its territorial integrity, and autonomous republics within the republics of the former Soviet Union were not entitled to the territorial integrity. The UN Security Council condemned the Armenian invasion and occupation of Azerbaijan's territories in four resolutions, 822, 853, 874 and 884. When you are mentioning massacres of Armenians in Simgait and Baku, please don't forget Azerbajanians, many of whom were massacred in those seven regions and Nagorno-Karabakh occupied by Armenia plus those who lived in Armenia and were forced to flee. One horrific example is Hodjali in Nagorno-Karabakh where civilian population, old people, children and women, were exterminated by the Armenian military in the most horrific ways. Six hundred thirteen people were killed in one night, of those 83 children and 106 women. Any violence is repulsive, whether committed toward innocent Armenians or Azerbaijanis, and whether they are a minority or a majority on a certain territory. I am also questioning which group was a majority and a minority, but fleeing from homes where you lived as a minority is just as horrible as fleeing from those where you lived as a majority.

haigbalt  08/14/2009 03:19 PM Report

This comment is to remind nazamejid about what has really happened in (nagorno-Karabagh).

Nagorno-Karabagh, formerly ARTSAKH was the craddle of Armenian people for thousands of years, not hundreds.

It was Joseph Staline who gave it, together with Nakhitchevan to Azerbaijan, and has been considered AUTONOMOUS.

In 1987, the population of Nagorno-Karabagh, mostly Armenians, demanded independence from Azerbaijan because of some changes in policies of Gorbatchov. (Glasnotz)

Followed massacres of armenians by Azeris in Sumgait and Baku, those who survived fled to Armenia.

After the demise of the Soviet Union, war errupted between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh.

You are right that with the help of the Russians, Armenians conquered seven regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabagh, and that is why Azeris living in Nagorno-Karabagh fled from their homes to Azerbaijan, homes where they were living as a minority for hundreds of years..

As you should know there is a cease-fire since the end of the war (1993) and there are talks of negotiations between the two countries (with the help of the Americans, Russians, and French).

nazamejid  08/13/2009 09:17 PM Report

I believe that Mr. Balakian is right when he says that it is impossible to move ahead without acknowledging your past. In 1987, the Armenians who lived in one of Azerbaijan's provinces (Nagorno-Karabakh) proclaimed their independence and started a war in Azerbaijan. Sumiltaneoulsy, thousands of Azerbaijanis who had lived in Armenia for hundreds of years were forced from their homes, bitten, tortured and many escaped to Azerbaijan under horrific circumstances. Later Armenia with help from Russia was able to take over seven other provinces of Azerbaijan and has been holding on to these territories even since. Over million refuges from these territories, as well as those who escaped from Armenia, live in the capital of Azerbaijan and hope that one day they will be able to return home. Armenia refuses to acknowledge that taking over the other country's territory and forcing out the people from their homes is wrong and is pushing for Nagorno-Karabakh's independence. The Armenian government had an agenda that included "cleansing" of these lands of their ethnic population, Azeris. Thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands were kicked out of their homeland. How many times have we heard about this in the media? Not even once. If Armenia wants Turkey to acknowledge what happened in 1915, it should start with acknowledging its present actions - occupation of 20 % of the territory of Azerbaijan and expulsion of a million of people from their lands.

AntonGrambihler  08/13/2009 06:04 PM Report

Has Israel ever apologized for committing the FIRST HOLOCAUST which occurred when they wiped out the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites? Does Israel think that this happened so long ago it should be forgotten, but their claim to the Holocaust land should not be forgotten?

REMant  08/13/2009 02:27 PM Report

I don't think this unfortunate episode has been all that forgotten, and despite its scope it was only one of many such in this region, not to mention the rest of the world. It was undoubtedly not the model for the "final solution." The US was very fortunate to have the Turks as allies in Korea and elsewhere and Turkey is rightly seen as important to Middle East rapproachement, in addition to being pivotal in the Kurdish situation, so I'd like to remind ppl in or out of govt that, to paraphrase an old saw, "loose lips sink ships."