Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
QuoteReplyTopic: The future of Karabakh Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 22:36
Originally posted by bg_turk
Whenever somebody disagrees with your perspective either they do not know or they are denialists.
You were claiming Dashnaks were responsible
for the whole conflict when in fact they didn't have much say in it at all.
Originally posted by bg_turk
You both keep repeating that Armenians had the right to
"democratically secede", and accuse me of ignoring the "demographic
realities". I find it absolutely ridiculous,
ludictrous even, that you dare to talk about demographic realities and
invoke the principle for self-determination for
140,000 Armenians in Karabakh, while at the same time you totally
ignore the faith of
800,000 Turks that were cleansed and forced out from their own land as
a result of that so-called struggle for self-determination. By that
same principle of self-determination the Lanchin corridor will never be
Armenian, and by that same principle Armenia must immediately vacate
all Azeri territories that were overwhelmingly Azeri populated before
the invasion.
The demographic reality of the region is that over 75% of the
population was Armenian, and even if a fool-proof democratic vote had
been employed, the region would have separated. It was Azerbaijan's
unwillingness to recognize this fact that Karabakh is not part of their
country which led to their use of pogroms and military force, the
ensuing conflict
and the rest of the mess. Should warcrimes be investigated on both
sides? Of course! But Azerbaijan still refuses to accept the basic
premise of negotiations that Karabakh is not part of their country and that they invaded a sovereign region, and
this will make the return of the buffer zone and the refugees nearly
impossible, especially when you consider they also refuse to open the
borders.
Originally posted by bg_turk
I take no stalinist position. My position is in comformity with
international law and the pricniple of respect for the territorial
integrity and soveregnity of existing states. The 140,000 Armenians in
Karabagh may or may not have had the right to join mama Armenia if they
found it intolerable to live with Turks, but this does not mean that
800,000 Azeri Turks should be forced out from their homes just to
accomodate the Armenian nationalist and shauvinistic whims of creating
a greater Armenia for Armenians only.
Following international law would mean understanding that all
people have a right to self-determination and that military force is
not a justified way of stopping a peaceful separation just because it
reduces the power of the host country. If you believe the region with
its pre-war population of 75% Armenians should belong to Azerbaijan
after Stalin's unjustified annexation and decades of economic neglect by Azerbaijan, then it would be very obvious as to
what your understanding of international law is. Your approach is
Stalinist because you agree
that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan despite its Armenian majority, much
like Stalin himself when he took the region from Armenia and gave it to
Azerbaijan (he also took Nakhichevan from Armenia and gave it to
Azerbaijan).
The question is ill-posed in that it assumes
that the Armenians army and rebels, that invaded Azerbaijan were only
protecting Armenians, and not plundering, burning and ethnically cleansing in a
systematic cold-blooded campaign. Armed terror bands relied on local Armenians
[whom you claim they were protecting] to idetify Turkish villages and homes and
then recruited ordinary people to burn down the homes of their neighbours. An
Azeri refugee recounted how his one-time Armenian neighbour told him: "We
don't kill you because we want your land. We kill you because you are a
Muslim."
Actually, Armenians gained the buffer zones at the end of the war not in the
beginning. Are you implying the whole Armenian population was a rebel and thus it
was justifiable for the Azeri forces to launch an attack?
Originally posted by bg_Turk
The question is ill-posed because it has as a
premise that Armenian terror gangs and troops were merely protecting. But if
that was their purpose they would have stopped at Karabakh without the need to
capture the vast slathes of land which were 100% Azeri populated.
Well the Karabakh capital and most of the Armenian held
towns were under fire from Azeri forces from those slathes of lands (which I by
no means would call vast). Why is it ok for Azeries to attack but not for
Armenians in the need to stop the shelling?
Originally posted by bg_turk
Armenians were not defending themselves,
they were fighting a war of agression and expansion. So emboldened were they by
their success, that in May 1992 they even initiated attacks on Nakchievan. What
on earth did Armenians want from Nakchievan where there were no Armenians to
protect is totally beyond me? What were they protecting there? If it was not
for the Turkish guarantee for the security for Nakchievan, it would probably
have been occupied as well. God know what would have happened to the people
there.
No they didntthere could have been a conflict in
Naxicevan but there wasnt. The Armenian government actually allowed Heydar Aliev to travel to Baku from Naxicevan
(which he was the governor of). Aliev actually had close contact with the
defense minister of Armenia, so close that he even knew the mother of the
defense ministerthe notions of war on Naxicevan were spread by Bozkurts who
wanted Turkey to get involved, people like Iskender and his type in Turkey.
I am still waiting for an answer:
"who was supposed to protect the Armenian civilians when Azeri forces attacked"?
Following international law would mean understanding
that all people have a right to self-determination and that military force is
not a justified way of stopping a peaceful separation just because it reduces
the power of the host country.
Really? Where does international law say that? Quote any UN resolution or
convention that endorses your imaginary "right to secede".
All recognized sources of international law establish that the right to
self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal
self-determination - a people's pursuit of its political, economic, social and
cultural development within the
framework of an existing state.
This internal right to self-determination within existing boundaries endorsed
by international law, should not be confused with the ambivalent external
self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the
assertion of a right to unilateral secession), a right which is not
guaranteed by international law, and hence why the secessionist entity in
Karabakh remains isolated and unrecognized.
While you seem to defend this imaginary right to secession, you forget about
the real rights all endorsed by the Universal declaration of human rights.
Armenia has denied one million Azeri refugees the right to not be exiled, the
right to own their homes, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their properties,
the right to free movement and residence within the borders of their country, the
right to effective remedy and fair trial, all rights that, unlike the imaginary
right to secession, are formally and officially endorsed by the UN [1">
If you believe the region with its pre-war population of 75% Armenians should
belong to Azerbaijan after Stalin's unjustified annexation and decades of
economic neglect by Azerbaijan, then it would be very obvious as to what your
understanding of international law is. Your approach is Stalinist because you
agree that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan
despite its Armenian majority, much like Stalin himself when he took the region
from Armenia
and gave it to Azerbaijan
If my approach is Stalinist for not recognizing Karabakh as
a separate country, then so is the approach of all world country which continue
to recognize only the state of Azerbaijan
as the sole the legal government, and not the illegal secessionist entity.
(he also took Nakhichevan from Armenia
and gave it to Azerbaijan).
Do you by any chance complain about Nakchievan not being part of Armenia?
Nakchievan, whose population is 98% Azeri Turkish? Would you wish to see as
part of Armenia?
No they didntthere could have been a conflict in
Naxicevan but there wasnt.
mamikon, please do refrain from fallacious and factually incorrect statements that you cannot possibly back. There certainly was an Armenian attack on Nakchievan in May 1992. It occurred while the Armenian president, Petrosian, was in Teheran probably seeking Iranian support for his ambitions of territorial expansion.
The fall of Shusha provoked a political crisis in Baku in which the government changed twice in 24 hours. During this melee, Armenians appeared to launch an offensive against Nakhichevan in which 30,000 people were displaced.
In May 1992, Armenians forcibly gained control over Karabakh and appeared to attack
the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, an Azeri enclave separated from Azerbaijan by
Armenian territory.
After Armenian attacks on Nakhichevan in May 1992, Iranian Azeris demonstrated and Iran accused Armenia of aggression. Iran viewed the Armenian assault on Fizuli, 18 km. from Iran, in August 1993 as a security threat that could produce a refugee influx.
Russia condemned the May 1992 Armenian seizure of Lachin and attack on
Nakhichevan, saying, "Nobody can count on Russia's support for such illegal action."
After the victory of the Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF) in
the presidential elections of June 1992, Iran's conciliatory role
was effectively suspended, as the new president, Elcibey,
rejected any mediation or other political initiatives coming from
Iran. Following internal political pressures, the Iranian
government apparently did take a firmer stand against Armenia,
denouncing its attack on Nakhichevan. Despite this official
criticism, a further deterioration in Iran's relations with
Azerbaijan led to a rapprochement with Armenia.
Apparently an attack against Nakhichevan also took place in September 1993.
The Iranian
authorities made major
efforts to prevent the flight of Azeri refugees onto its
territory in September 1993, when fighting broke out in
Nakhichevan and about 200,000(29)
people were approaching Iran's
borders.(30) After his return from a
visit to Central Asia and the
Caucasus region, President Rafsanjani made the following
declaration in an interview with the Iranian press: "We regard
the refugees [from the Republic of Azerbaijan] in the same way as
our own refugees [who were displaced as a result of the Iraqi
invasion], but we prefer them to remain on the territory of
Azerbaijan so that they can achieve their aims sooner."(31)
I am still waiting for an answer: "who was supposed to protect the Armenian civilians when Azeri forces attacked"?
Protect Armenians from what?
I am also still waiting for an answer: Whom and what were Armenians intending to protect when they decided to attack Nakhichevan?
PS: In the future I would ask you to refrain from makin erroneous statements that both you and I know are not correct. It is a waste of my and your time to search for sources to correct erroneous allegations. To deny the Armenian attack against Nakhichevan was not very wise from you.
Erronous statements? well you should know...you made at least 10 only in the last page...would you like me to repost them?
With regards to my statement, it was by no means erronous. Note that even your sources tell of an apperent attack. The "attacks" were shootouts (bilateral) and it has not been yet determined who started. Naturally Armenia blamed it on Aliev (the governor of Naxicevan) and Aliev blamed on the Armenian ministry. The shootouts have been mentioned in both (Black Garden and Azerbaijan Diaries (which was much biased towards Azery side) and in both of them it was explicitly stated that no side took responsibility and no side wanted an escalation of conflict. Shortly after the shoot out Aliev went to the "conflcting" region of NAxicevan to rally the people and make sure they dont instigate an attack. This hardly counts as an Armenian assault. Reading your post one would say that Armenian captured the capital of Naxicevan....
Also, you once more misunderstood my post. I never said Armenians didnt shoot at Naxicevan, I said there was no conflict in Naxicevan, since both sides did not want to start a second front.
Originally posted by bg_Turk
Protect Armenians from what?
Well..on one side you have Armenians who have proclaimed independence from Azerbaijan. On the other you have an Azeri army marching towards civilians.
Somone should protect them no? Waiting...who?
Originally posted by bg_Turk
Whom and what were Armenians intending to protect when they decided to attack Nakhichevan?
You once more make it sound like Armenia has captured Naxicevan or destryoyed towns/villages in Naxicevan which is false. Note that there is still Naxicevan and under Azeri control, where no massive arms operations have taken place, as in Karabakh.
If they did attack (really attack) and now there were no more Azeries in Naxicevan, then yes they were at fault. Clearly, that is not the case here.
Erronous statements? well you should know...you made at least 10 only in the last page...would you like me to repost them?
By all means do so. And provide sources for your statements.
The "attacks" were shootouts (bilateral) and it has not been yet determined who started.
All the sources speak of an ARMENIAN attack, and that is what Russia and Iran called it too. But for a person who considers the etnic cleansing and eviction of more than a million Turks as an act of defense, such a misinterpretation can be forgiven.
Also, you once more misunderstood my post. I never said Armenians didnt shoot at Naxicevan, I said there was no conflict in Naxicevan, ...
So shooting in your opinion does not constitute a conflict? It is an act a friendship maybe?
Originally posted by bg_Turk
Protect Armenians from what?
Well..on one side you have Armenians who have proclaimed independence from Azerbaijan. On the other you have an Azeri army marching towards civilians. Somone should protect them no? Waiting...who?
Sure the seperatists who proclaimed independence in complete disregard to itnernational law and started cleansing the region from Turks already in 1987 might have needed protection. All criminals need protection from law enforcement.
The Armenian invasion allegedly to protect 140,000 Armenians in Karagabkh, lead to displacement of 800,000 Turks. Who will protect the rights of these 800,000 Turks?
On the one side you have 140,000 Armenian with the so-called right to secede, and on the other side you have 800,000 Turks whose most fundamental human rights have been trampled upon and all have been evicted from their homeland. Who is the one who needs protection now?
All the sources speak of an ARMENIAN attack, and that is what
Russia and Iran called it too. But for a person who considers the etnic
cleansing and eviction of more than a million Turks as an act of
defense, such a misinterpretation can be forgiven.
No, an APPERENT Armenian attack. And once more...cant you make a sentence without lying?
When have I justified ethnic cleansing in terms of defense? you were the one who said that Azeries were justified in indiscriminantly attacking Armenian civilians...
Originally posted by bg_Turk
So shooting in your opinion does not constitute a conflict? It is an act a friendship maybe?
Currently, there are shootings in the NKR border every month...is there a conflict? No (at least not a military one)
Originally posted by bg_Turk
Sure the seperatists who proclaimed independence in complete disregard
to itnernational law and started cleansing the region from Turks
already in 1987 might have needed protection. All criminals need
protection from law enforcement.
It wasnt the separatists it was the whole population (of Armenians)
Cleansing the region from 1987? Any PROOF? And why do I think you are going to ignore this too as you have done multiple times in the previous pages.
Originally posted by bg_Turk
The Armenian invasion allegedly to protect 140,000 Armenians in
Karagabkh, lead to displacement of 800,000 Turks. Who will protect the
rights of these 800,000 Turks?
Who will protect the rights of 350,000 Armenians who fled Azerbaijan?
Invasion? nope, self defense
Originally posted by bg_Turk
On the one side you have 140,000 Armenian with the so-called right to
secede, and on the other side you have 800,000 Turks whose most
fundamental human rights have been trampled upon and all have been
evicted from their homeland. Who is the one who needs protection now?
Wrong, on one side you have 140,000 Armenians who were lucky enough not to get exterminated, and 350,000 Armenians who were ethnically cleansed from Azerbaijan and are integrating in the Armenian society. On the other side you have 800,000 Azeri refugees who became so as a direct consequence of their government's actions, and who are still refugees after more than 10 years of halted hostilites, used as nothing more than a political tool.
The right of secession that I mentioned was within the frameworks
of the laws of the USSR in accordance to autonomous districts being
able to secede from the republic once the republic (Azerbaijan) secedes
from the USSR. Indeed, Karabakh declared its independence from
Azerbaijan, not the USSR, and this was in complete conjunction to the
laws of secession of autonomous republics in the former Soviet Union at the time:
Article 3.
In case the Soviet Republic has autonomous republics, autonomous regions
or any type of similar distinct territories within its borders, referendums
may be conducted separately in each of the autonomies. The people residing
in the autonomies are given a right to independently decide whether
to remain in the Soviet Union or in the seceding Republic as well as
to decide on their state legal status.
Referendum results are to be considered separately
for the territory of a Soviet Republic with a compactly settled ethnic
minority population, which constitutes majority on that particular territory
of the Republic.
Also:
Article 6.
Decision of a Soviet Republic to secede from the USSR must be made by
means of a referendum if so voted by not less than two-thirds of the
citizens of the USSR, who permanently resided on the territory of the
Republic and are eligible to vote in accordance with laws of the USSR
by the time the decision was made to conduct a referendum on secession
from the Soviet Union.
source: http://pridnestrovie.net/ussr_law.html (scroll down a bit)
An autonomous region within the USSR needs a 2/3 vote to secede
from the USSR OR the state which secedes from the USSR (in this case,
Azerbaijan). With a 77% Armenian majority in the region (not including
Azeris who were disgruntled due to the economic neglect of Baku), what
do you think the result of the referendum was?
Originally posted by bg_turk
The Armenian invasion allegedly to protect 140,000 Armenians in
Karagabkh, lead to displacement of 800,000 Turks. Who will protect the
rights of these 800,000 Turks?
On the one side you have 140,000
Armenian with the so-called right to secede, and on the other side you
have 800,000 Turks whose most fundamental human rights have been
trampled upon and all have been evicted from their homeland. Who is the
one who needs protection now?
Armenian invasion? The Council of Europe sees it differently:
Since 1989 the conflict between Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh has gradually changed into a real war, particularly
after the departure of the Soviet army from the region at the beginning
of 1992.
In January and February 1992 the Azerbaijan
armed forces launched a full-scale assault on Nagorno-Karabakh
including aircraft bombarding of its capital, Stepanakert.
As from the spring of 1992, the
Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces started to counter-attack and they
succeeded in opening the "Latchin corridor" between Nagorno-Karabakh
and Armenia. Assaults and counter-attacks took place throughout 1992.
Since the spring of 1993, the Nagorno-Karabakh troops have won a
growing number of military victories.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
http://assembly.coe.int/documents/workingdocs/doc94/edoc7182.htm#P158_6717
precisely, it was an apparent ARMENIAN attack. How much more apparent does an attack for you have to be so that you consider it an attack?
Originally posted by bg_Turk
It wasnt the separatists it was the whole population (of Armenians)
It was the "whole" 140,000 Armenians, maybe with the exception of
that Armenian woman who was beheaded for saying she felt safe under Azeri
adiministration and the 45,000 Azeri Turks who were later evicted from
Karabakh.
Cleansing the region from 1987? Any PROOF? And why do I think you are going to
ignore this too as you have done multiple times in the previous pages.
I do not ignore, I am simply tired to provide sources to disprove your
unsourced claims and attempts to sanitize Armenians crimes against Turk
civilians. But fine. Check this article if you have academic subscription[1]:
On p.600 we read that 200,000 refugee fled Armenia
and 50,000 fled Stepanakaert in 1988-89.
The first incident of violance against ethnic Azeris occurred right after the
referendum on Feb 20th, 1988,
where 2 Azeri Turks were killed and many more wounded. Some people had already
been displaced from Karabakh in late 1987 and settled around Sumgait.
It was the news of the Februray classhes against Azeris, that lead Azeri
refugees to seek revenge and organize progroms against Armenians in Sumgait
that nearby Azeri and Soviet troops did nothing to stop.
Who will protect the rights of 350,000 Armenians who fled
Azerbaijan?
The number of Armenians who left Azerbaiajan was 300,000.[1] Soviet forces were
the ones to organize this massive forced population transer of the 250,000
ethnic Turks from Armenia to Azerbaijan, and 300,000 ethnic Armenians from
Azerbaijan.
Invasion? nope, self defense
An act of ethnic cleansing cannot be termed as self-defense.
Originally posted by bg_Turk
Wrong, on one side you have 140,000 Armenians who were lucky enough not to get
exterminated, and 350,000 Armenians who were ethnically cleansed from Azerbaijan
and are integrating in the Armenian society. On the other side you have 800,000
Azeri refugees who became so as a direct consequence of their government's
actions, and who are still refugees after more than 10 years of halted
hostilites, used as nothing more than a political tool.
You are distoring facts once again. The 800,000 Azeri refugees are the
internally displaced people from occupied Karabakh and its surrounding
territories. There are also 250,000 Azeri Turks who were forced out of Armenia
as a result of the Soviet organizaed forced population exchange that saw the
expulsion of 300,000 (not 350 as you claim) Armenians from
Azerbaijan.
A roungh breakdown of Azeri refugees goes as follows:
47,000 registerd and estimated 100,000 unregistered from the SouthWest
152,000 from Khojaly, Shusha and Lachin who were expelled in
1992
at leat 60,000 forced out from Kelbajar in 1993
150,000 Agdam areas in 1993
50,000 Stepankert in 1988-1989
more than 100,000 were displaced as a result of the Zangelan
offensive in October 1993
Add to this the 250,000 displaced from Armenia and the
51,000 Meskhetian Turks who fled Uzbekistan in 1989, and one can idea about the humanitarian catastrophe
and disaster in Azerbaijan.
This essay, which is taken from a fuller report published bythe
United States Committee for Refugees, was written in early1994 and
is based in part on a site visit in September 1993.It focuses on
the critical needs of the estimated 100,000 newlydisplaced persons
from Azerbaijan's southwest who were fendingfor themselves with
little or no outside support, the most destituteand vulnerable
among a population of about a half million whobecame displaced in
1993 as a result of a push by ethnic Armenianforces into
Azerbaijani-populated areas outside the boundariesof
Nagorno-Karabakh. It also looks at the humanitarian tollgenerally, both
in Azerbaijan, which now is struggling to accommodateas many as 1,000,000
refugees and displaced persons, datingto the beginning of the
conflict in 1988, as well as in Armenia,which is attempting to cope
with an estimated 300,000 refugees,at a time when the
society as a whole is barely managing tosurvive the effects of
years of war, natural disaster, and isolation.Finally, the paper
attempts to examine the nationalities conflictwith a view toward
understanding why a humanitarian disasteron such a scale has
occurred and continues unabated
Armenian invasion? The Council of Europe sees it
differently:
UN resolutions pertaining to the Armenian invasion:
Noting with alarm the escalation in armed
hostilities and, in particular, the latest invasion
of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces,
.
Condemns the seizure of the district of Agdam and of all other recently occupied
areas of the AzerbaijaniRepublic;
.
Noting with alarm the escalation in armed
hostilities as consequence of the violations of the cease-fire and excesses in
the use of force in response to those violations, in particular the occupation of the Zangelan district and
the city of Goradiz in the Azerbaijani Republic, Reaffirming the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all
other States in the region,
As you can see the UN calls it an invasion, seizure,
occupation.
An autonomous region within the USSR
needs a 2/3 vote to secede from the USSR OR the state which secedes from the USSR
(in this case, Azerbaijan).
With a 77% Armenian majority in the region (not including Azeris who were
disgruntled due to the economic neglect of Baku),
what do you think the result of the referendum was?
The claim of the Karabakh Soviet was based upon Art. 70 of
the Soviet constitution which affirms the right of people to self-determination.
However, the claim was rejected on the basis of Art. 78 which states that the territory may be altered
only by mutual agreement of the concerned republics and subject to ratification
by the USSR. The
Armenian claim on Karbakh has neither been ratified by the ussr
nor agreed upon by Azerbaijan.
Nothing in the assertion of peoples right to self-determination allows for the
use of force to alter internationally recognized borders or to apply ethnic cleansing.
Nowhere does the USSR
constitution provide for the possibility for a secesion through violent means.
(1) The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal,
multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result
of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of
equal SovietSocialistRepublics.
(2) The USSR embodies the state unity of the
Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the
purpose of jointly building communism.
Article 78
The territory of a UnionRepublic may not be altered without its
consent. The boundaries between UnionRepublics may be altered by mutual agreement
of the Republics concerned, subject to ratification by the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
The U.N. resolution in regards to the Armenian invasion looks like
it is only referring to the siezure of areas outside of Nagorno-Karabakh which
comprise the buffer zone that Karabakh-Armenians currently occupy.
These locations had to be secured to cease the Azeri bombardment on
Karabakh. The conflict first began, according to the Council of Europe,
when Azerbaijan started using military aggression towards the residents
of Karabakh after they made it clear they wanted to secede. The U.N.'s
use of the term "invasion" refers only to those regions of Azerbaijan
outside of Karabakh that Armenians controlled AFTER the conflict had
been started by the Azeri military (in other words, it does not regard
the Armenian siezure of Karabakh as an invasion, only those cities
outside of Karabakh that Azerbaijan used as strategic locations to bomb Karabakh itself).
Originally posted by bg_turk
The claim of the Karabakh Soviet was based upon Art. 70 of
the Soviet constitution which affirms the right of people to self-determination.
However, the claim was rejected on the basis of Art. 78 which states that the territory may be altered
only by mutual agreement of the concerned republics and subject to ratification
by the USSR.
Yes but it is important to note that Karabakh was not just like
any other territory of Azerbaijan in that it was considered an
autonomous region and had the choice to choose its own destiny
according to Soviet law. It clearly states in the portion of USSR law
that
I posted (created in 1990) that an autonomous region can secede by
holding referendums with a 2/3 vote. Note that this law even applies if
an autonomous region wants to secede from a republic which has already
seceded from the USSR.
Article 3.
In case the Soviet Republic has autonomous republics, autonomous regions
or any type of similar distinct territories within its borders, referendums
may be conducted separately in each of the autonomies. The people residing
in the autonomies are given a right to independently decide whether
to remain in the Soviet Union or in the seceding Republic as well as
to decide on their state legal status.
Referendum results are to be considered separately
for the territory of a Soviet Republic with a compactly settled ethnic
minority population, which constitutes majority on that particular territory
of the Republic.
In case the Soviet Republic has autonomous republics, autonomous regions
or any type of similar distinct territories within its borders, referendums
may be conducted separately in each of the autonomies. The people residing
in the autonomies are given a right to independently decide whether
to remain in the Soviet Union or in the seceding Republic as well as
to decide on their state legal status.
Referendum results are to be considered separately
for the territory of a Soviet Republic with a compactly settled ethnic
minority population, which constitutes majority on that particular territory
of the Republic.
The Soviet consitution is clear in Article 82 that the Autonomus
Republics are part of the Union Republic and are within the ultimate soveregnity and jurisdcition of
the Union Republic, therefore Article 78 still applies.
(1) An Autonomous Republic is a constituent part of a Union Republic.
I searched the internet for the text of the articles you pasted above and the only sites
that cam up are a Nagorno-Karabakh site and a Trans-Dniester propaganda sites.
Both are entities unrecognized by the international community.
If there was any legal basis for Karabakh to be recognized as a
seperate state it would have been exploited already. The ultimate
arbiter of Soviet Law, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union
declared Karabakh's declaration of secession null and void. The
fact is that there is no legal basis for the autonomous region to be
recognized as a seperate state, and that is why it still remains an
illegal
state recognized by not a single state in the entire world.
These locations had to be secured to cease the Azeri bombardment on
Karabakh.
The conflict escalated in
March-April as Armenians seized Kelbajar and a swath of territory, displacing
thousands of Azeris. Armenians also attacked Fizuli and areas south of Karabakh.
Armenians claimed that they had responded to an Azeri build-up. A U.S. official
observed that the Kelbajar attack could not have been defensive as the site threatened
no nearby Armenian areas. On April 6, Secretary General Boutros-Ghali said that the
heavy weaponry involved in the offensive indicated more than Karabakh self-defense
forces involvement, implying Armenian Army participation. Armenia's Defense
Minister admitted that his forces had fired on Azeri positions in Kelbajar.
Source: Human Rights Watch/Helsinki. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Human Rights Watch, 1995
p.9
The attack on Kelbajar province began
on March 26 or 27 from the east and south [41]. Azeri civilians
were attacked, a violation of the prohibition on targeting civilians
[42]. On Match 27 Isa, a sixty-year-old collective farm administrator
from Takhtabashi in the far east of Kelbajar province, close to the border with
Karabakh, and several of his fellow villagers, all civilians and unarmed, were attacked
on the way to a funeral:
On the morning of March 27, I was riding on horseback with
my brother Ahad and our friend Hussein, to the funeral of a relative in Chirakli.
Suddenly a burst of machinegun fire opened up on us from the direction of
Vankli, a neighboring (Karabakh [43]) (page 10) Armenian-held
village close to our village. My brother and Hussein managed to escape, but
my horse was killed and I had to hide by some rocks. A short time later I
could see another group from our village on the way to the funeral. The [Karabakh]
Armenians opened up on them too, killing four and wounding one. Yusuf Zeinalov,
Habil Nagiyev, Mehman Musayev, and Yusuf Azizov were all killed
[44].
p.34
Mr. G, who had served in the Soviet
Army in World War II, was sure that the captures were from an Armenian battalion
which included about 200 troops, five tanks, and two armored personal carriers.
All the troops wore the same uniform; they even told him they were from the Armenian
army.
The captives were held in Hoje, during
which time Mr. G saw several big trucks enter and rob twelve to fifteen of the sixty
houses in Hoje; he could not see the rest of the houses. They were held two days
in Tartumaj village of Jebrayil, where the men were beaten but not interrogated.
Tartumaj was burned down when they arrived. Only two public buildings used to house
the battalion were still standing. The captives were held in a wooden shack like
those used to store wine. It had a dirt floor and nothing to sleep on. While in
this shack, they were fed once in two days.
The old man cried as he told
Human Rights Watch/Helsinki that the two women captives were raped before the eyes
of the male captives. The off-duty soldiers and officers [125]
came into the room where all the captives were held and raped the women two or three
times a day. The attackers didn't pay attention to the shouting or cries of the
women, nor to the pleas made on behalf of the young woman, age twenty-two, who had
just delivered and then lost her first-born child a few days earlier.
p.41
Sixty-year-old Cherkez, the village
elder in Buyuk Merjanli, Jebrayil Province, said that the village suffered indiscriminate
attacks by Karabakh Armenian forces that killed several civilians and destroyed
civilian property. Before the war Buyuk Merjanli was home to about 7.000 Azeris;
after the provincial capital Jebrayil fell at the end of August, most people fled.
Only about 200 were left in the village when the Karabakh Armenians attacked.
The front was about seven or eight kilometers from us when
fighting started on October 23. Initially we heard some firing in the distance,
then it became quite. We thought our troops had advanced. But we were wrong.
The [Karabakh] Armenians started to shell our village heavily, shells were
landing about 200 meters from my house. Some were killed. Houses were burning.
I had to crouch on the ground. Around 7:00 P.M. Azeri soldiers passed through
our village, retreating. As the shelling continued we all fled to the Araks
river, where we spent the night [159].
All that night, Cherkez and the villagers
of Buyuk Merjanli waited in fear by the Araks river. A couple kilometers away they
could see their homes burning. When morning broke on October 24, they could see
tanks in the village. A panic erupted.
Everybody just plumbed into the water. We had no other
choice. (page 42) The bridge was already in [Karabakh] Armenian hands. We
were cut off: [Karabakh] Armenians were in Mahmudlu to the south and Horadiz
to the north. I took my clothes off and tried to walk along the bottom, but
the current was strong. I made it to the other side and safety in Iran, but
two high school boys drowned. All that day we went to the river bank on the
Iranian side to help people. Another girl drowned crossing, plus a woman.
Their bodies were on the bank.
Iranian authorities on the Iranian side
of the Araks distributed food and dry clothes and also assisted people in crossing
the river. In the first two days of the offensive, the Tehran newspaper Hamchari
reported that 10.000 refugees had crossed the Araks river into Iran
[160].
This woman had serious bullet wounds
to both legs and one of her arms; another of her sons had an arm wound. They were
taken by Karabakh Armenian forces to the Stepanakert hospital. According to her,
"At first they wanted to amputate my son's arm. I cried and asked them not to, to
think of his future. Then the Armenian surgeon, Dr. Edik Stepanian, looked at me
and said "I'll do everything I can to save his arm. it could be my own child, and
I'll think of him as that"". Her son's arm was saved. After about a week she and
her son were exchanged for hostages held by the Azeris. Her husband, Khagani, a
young man of thirty-three, was not lucky and remains a hostage in Nagorno-Karabakh,
reportedly in the Shusha prison.
Kelbajar is a city wedged in between Armenia and Karabakh...how
could it not have threatened nearby Armenian areas? Look at the map:
Also, when you mentioned Republic of Armenia military involvement,
you conveniently left out this sentence which appeared right before the
portion you quoted:
By August 8-9,
Azeris captured Artsvashen, a pocket of sovereign Armenia within Azerbaijan
The Republican Armenian involvement in Kelbajar you mentioned was
AFTER this incident. The situation makes more sense now that I have
provided what you conveniently left out.
And the document on the secession that I quoted is known as "The law of the USSR of April 3, 1990 (Register of the Congress of
the People's Deputies of USSR and Supreme Soviet of USSR. 1990, issue
No. 13, p. 252)",
it is also referred to as the 1990 USSR Law on Secession. It was
adopted in 1990, 13 years after the constitution you quoted. Indeed,
the Supreme Soviet of the USSR has the legal authority to amend clauses
in the Soviet constitution.
And please stop posting individual stories. Listing the
humanitarian violations committed during the war is meaningless since both sides
are accused of a myriad of things.
So just looking from the map you concluded Kelbajar was a threat? On what grounds? The children and women that Armenians expelled from the province, many of whom died due to exposure fleeing under harsh winter conditions over the Murov mountains, were they also a danger?
Here is a section of the Human Rights Watch report pertaining to the capture of Kelbajar:
Rather than capture the rest of Karabakh
as Sarkissian predicted, Karabakh Armenian forces - with alleged Russian and Armenian
military support - seized all of the Kelbajar Province of Azerbaijan in a "blitzkrieg"
operation that began March 27 and ended by April 5 [39]. During
this offensive, they committed several violations of the rules of war, including
forced displacement of the civilian population, indiscriminate fire, and the taking
of hostages.
At the time of the offensive, mountainous
Kelbajar province was largely cut off from the rest of Azerbaijan. Armenia lie to
the west, the Lachin corridor (captured by Karabakh Armenian forces in June 1992)
to the south, Mardakert province (with its vital Terter-Kelbajar road in Karabakh
Armenian hands) to the east, and to the north, the Murov mountains reaching heights
of over 10.000 feet toward over the province. Because of prior Karabakh Armenian
land conquests, the only outlet from Kelbajar to Azerbaijan proper was over the
Murov mountains to the north through the Omar pass, a treacherous journey in winter.
An estimated 60.000 individuals
- equally divided among Kurds and Azeris - lived in Kelbajar province before the
offensive [40]. In the space of a week 60.000 people were forced
to flee their homes. Today all are displaced, and Kelbajar stands empty and looted.
The swift and short nature of the Kelbajar
offensive, the mountainous terrain with few good roads, over which it was fought,
and the late winter timing of the attack left the civilian population extremely
vulnerable; many were taken hostage or killed by indiscriminate fire, even though
most expected a Karabakh Armenian move against Kelbajar, civilians had little or
no advance warning of the actual attack and even less time to make their escape
after the limited roads still available were closed by advancing Karabakh Armenian
forces. The Azerbaijani army put up little resistance often melting away into the
civilian population. Main Karabakh Armenian units fired on escaping civilians, sometimes
mistaking them for retreating Azerbaijani forces.
A Caucasus-based American journalist in Kelbajar during the offensive
and evacuated by helicopter wrote that,
By Thursday afternoon, April 1, a fleet of six ME-8 civilian
helicopters, designed to carry a maximum load of thirty, managed to extract
several thousand women and children by doubling and trebling their loads.
The helicopters were forced to swoop through a narrow canyon to reach a tiny,
shell-pocked landing pad and then fly over a 4.000 meter mountain range to
return to their base in the Azerbaijani city of Yevlakh, about an hour away...even
if most of the civilian population is now gone or on its way out the situation
in Kelbajar is certainly desperate [57].
On noon on April 1, the last helicopter
flight left Kelbajar, and no more evacuation attempts were made because of the increased
shelling around the helicopter pad [58]. By April 3, Karabakh
Armenian forces were in complete control of Kelbajar.
I leave it to others to decide whether Kelbajar posed any threat to the Armenians and to judge what really lied behind the Armenian invasion.
Main Karabakh Armenian units fired on escaping civilians, sometimes
mistaking them for retreating Azerbaijani forces.
Theres your explanation right there. Did the Azeri military think
they could fire on Armenian forces from Kelbajar while invading
sovereign Armenia (who was not directly involved in the war prior) and then not
spark a reaction? The fact that the Azeri military was even active
there is a good enough reason to invade the city, seeing as they used
every other location around Karabakh as a launching pad for their
illegal invasion. Why would they fire on their enemy and then try to
blend in with the civilian population? Its their fault for putting
their own civilians in harms way.
And why do you keep forgetting that Azerbaijan siezed the Rep. of
Armenia town of Artsvashen prior to the takeover of Kelbajar? According
to your source, Azerbaijan siezed the Rep. of Armenia town of
Artsvashen on August 8-9, 1992. Kelbajar was taken in March of 1993.
Clearly the Azeris acted in that region first. Both towns are in the
west of Azerbaijan and very close to the Republic of Armenia (one of
them BELONGS to the ROA) and any Azeri military presence in the region
threatens the Armenians when you consider that Azerbaijan was not shy
about attacking anybody in this war (they initiated the military
conflict in Karabakh and then siezed sovereign territory from the
Republic of Armenia).
Theres your explanation right there. Did the Azeri military think
they could fire on Armenian forces from Kelbajar while invading
sovereign Armenia (who was not directly involved in the war prior) and then not
spark a reaction?
Survival,
To claim that Armenia was not involved in the war and that Azerbaijan was the first to invade sovereign Armenia is propestorous and ridiculous. In the year of 1989, when Azeri Turks were totally unaware of the catastrophe that was to befall them several years later, Armenia unilaterally attacked and invaded the sovereign Azeri territories enclaved within Armenia. All three pockets of Azeri Turkish land - Barxudarli, Yuxari Askipara and Karki - were annexed, and their populations cleansed. Was this not an act of war? And this in 1989, before any Azeri attack against Armenians whatsoever. Armenia did all of this without even bothering to declare a war. The names of these towns have since been changed.
Why would they fire on their enemy and then try to
blend in with the civilian population? Its their fault for putting
their own civilians in harms way.
There was nothing left of the Azeri army. It was in disarray, disorganized and scaterred. Soldiers deserted en masse. Some ran away other returned to their villages in order to save their families from being butchered by the Armenian agressor, just to find them looted and burning. To claim that Azeri soldiers could use their mothers, sisters and close family as a civilian shield is the ugliest claim that the Armenian propaganda machine has come up with. Azeri soldiers were just running away, as all people would do against a superior millitary force.
And why do you keep forgetting that Azerbaijan siezed the Rep. of
Armenia town of Artsvashen prior to the takeover of Kelbajar? According
to your source, Azerbaijan siezed the Rep. of Armenia town of
Artsvashen on August 8-9, 1992. Kelbajar was taken in March of 1993.
Clearly the Azeris acted in that region first. Both towns are in the
west of Azerbaijan and very close to the Republic of Armenia (one of
them BELONGS to the ROA) and any Azeri military presence in the region
threatens the Armenians when you consider that Azerbaijan was not shy
about attacking anybody in this war (they initiated the military
conflict in Karabakh and then siezed sovereign territory from the
Republic of Armenia).
As I told you already Armenia had already invaded all Azeri enclaves in 1989. Yet, even after this Azerbaijan did not annex Armenian enclaves within its territories. Azerbaijan only seized the Armenian territory in Artsvashen after the Armenian attacks in Karabakh and the invasion of Azerbaijan through Lanchin.
Concerning Kelbajar, I might just say that your whole defense theory that Armenians looted, cleansed and demolished the city in order to defend themselves is crap. At the time all major countries, including but not limited to USA and Russia, condemned the invasion of Kelbajara as an unjustifiable and unnecessary attack.
To claim that Armenia was not involved in the war and
that Azerbaijan was the first to invade sovereign Armenia is
propestorous and ridiculous. In the year of 1989, when Azeri Turks were
totally unaware of the catastrophe that was to befall them several
years later, Armenia unilaterally attacked and invaded the sovereign
Azeri territories enclaved within Armenia. All three pockets of Azeri
Turkish land - Barxudarli, Yuxari Askipara and Karki - were annexed,
and their populations cleansed. Was this not an act of war? And this in
1989, before any Azeri attack against Armenians whatsoever. Armenia
did all of this without even bothering to declare a war. The names of
these towns have since been changed.
It doesn't say anything like that in your source, and I have never
heard of Armenia annexing Azeri enclaves in 1989. In 1989 the Soviet
army was deployed in Yerevan, Baku and Karabakh in order to keep both
sides under control:
Karabakh seceded from Azerbaijan on July 12, 1988. Azerbaijan's Supreme Soviet
declared the act illegal according to the Constitution of the Soviet Union which stated
that borders of a republic could not be changed without its consent. In September,
Moscow imposed martial law on Stepanakert and Aghdam. In November, Soviet Interior
Ministry troops deployed to Yerevan, Baku, and Karabakh and, in May 1989, Soviet
Army troops were sent to Stepanakert. On December 1, 1989, the Armenian Supreme
Soviet declared Karabakh a part of Armenia. The Azerbaijan Popular Front (PF), then
an opposition political party with a militia, began a rail blockade of Armenia and
Karabakh, restricting food and fuel deliveries. Anti-Armenian violence occurred in
Baku in January 1990. In the ensuing Soviet Army occupation of Baku, many Azeris
died or were wounded. The Soviet Army began to disarm militias and allegedly joined
in deporting Armenians from Azerbaijan and Karabakh in spring 1991.
As I told you already Armenia had already invaded all Azeri enclaves in
1989. Yet, even after this Azerbaijan did not annex Armenian enclaves
within its territories. Azerbaijan only seized the Armenian territory
in Artsvashen after the Armenian attacks in Karabakh and the invasion
of Azerbaijan through Lanchin.
You're still calling the Armenian actions in Karabakh "attacks" as
if to imply that they struck first. We have already established that
Azerbaijan provoked Armenians by initiating pogroms and starting the
armed conflict (unless you haven't paid attention to anything I've said
thus far).
Originally posted by bg_turk
I searched the internet for the text of the articles you pasted above and the only sites
that cam up are a Nagorno-Karabakh site and a Trans-Dniester propaganda sites.
Both are entities unrecognized by the international community.
Why would state departments have a copy of the secession bill that
I posted on their websites? It goes against their very interests.
Indeed the only people interested in the bill are people who are
fighting for the rights of autonomous regions in the former USSR, which
is why they are the only ones bringing it to peoples' attention.
Originally posted by bg_turk
The ultimate
arbiter of Soviet Law, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union
declared Karabakh's declaration of secession null and void.
Yes but in 1990 the Supreme Soviet of the USSR signed the
secession law for autonomous districts which makes Karabakh's actions
legal.
The rest of the Azeri villages were occupied around the same time, but there are not many online sources for this. I am sure you can ask some knowledgeable person about the occupation, and they will confirm the time.
Armenia was the first to attack and occupy Azeri terrtiory.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum