Tweet
ARMENIANS SEND A PROTEST MESSAGE TO "NEW YORK TIMES" NEWSPAPER
Times.am
June 2 2011
Armenia
A message is spread by Facebook social network, which informs about
an anti-Armenian article published in New York Times on May 31. The
article is named "Frozen Conflict Between Azerbaijan and Armenia
Begins to Boil" and aims to present Azerbaijanis as victims,
confirms Azerbaijani moral right to restart war against NK and
"restore Azerbaijani territorial completeness". The initiators offer
Facebook users to send many messages to NY Times editorial and tell
them truth about NK issue and Azerbaijan. Here is a text of message
which is offered to be edited, changed somehow, may be shortened.
"Mr. Bill Keller, I have read Ellen Barry's recent article which caused
me great frustration. Mrs. Barry's biased approach in the article
makes me think that the article was written under the influence of
the Azerbaijani propaganda.
This article is mostly dedicated to the description of undesirable
consequences for Azerbaijan that were caused as a result of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But the author is silent about the fact
that it was Azerbaijan first to launch an aggressive war against
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to organize the bombing of some border
areas of Armenia itself. Moreover, both international and Soviet law
did allow Nagorno-Karabakh to achieve its independence. The fundamental
human rights of Karabakh Armenian population had been violated for
decades, and the culmination of violations was the ethnic cleansings
of late 1980s. The population of Karabakh had the right to exercise
remedial secession, just as the Eritrea, East Bangladesh, East Timor,
Kosovo, South Sudan and other cases.
There are also detailed sad stories of Azerbaijani refugees,
but the author is tacit about Azerbaijan's brutal policy towards
its own population. Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, views its refugees
only as a tool of its policy. For many years refugees in Azerbaijan
were not allowed to leave their tent camps as if they were kept in
concentration camps.
Mrs. Barry repeats the official position of Azerbaijan and insists
that the current framework of the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations
have exhausted itself. But she is silent about the fact that
the main barrier of progress in the negotiations is Azerbaijan's
destructive approach of failing the negotiation (incidentally she
talks as if the international community is negotiating with Armenia
(yet, the negotiations are between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the
participation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and mediated by the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs)). The point is that Azerbaijan has been poisoning
its own population with Armenophobia and revanchism for about two
decades, and now the government doesn't know what to answer to the
people of Azerbaijan, when the OSCE Minsk Group mediators insist
that the status of Karabakh should be decided through a legally
binding free expression of will of its people. Moreover, calls for
a new aggression are repeatedly cited in the article, and the author
treats those calls quite normally.
However, the OSCE Minsk Group mediators in their statements
clearly point out that the resumption of war is unacceptable for the
international community, that the settlement of the conflict should be
based on a comprehensive application of the three basic principles:
the prohibition of threat or use of force, self-determination and
territorial integrity. Mediators also stress that all conflicting
parties should prepare their people for peace and not for war. In fact,
the citations of aggression used by the author in fact endorse the
fact that the international mediators' calls for peace are directed at
Azerbaijan. Any use of force is clearly prohibited in international
law, and this time the international community is determined to
prevent the repetition of such actions by Azerbaijan.
But from the New York Times' article from May 31 one gets the
impression that it is natural that Azerbaijan is preparing for war,
as if it is a party that has been treated unjustly.
Mr. Keller, I sincerely hope that your editorial would be more
careful in printing such biased articles in the future. Azerbaijan
spends millions of dollars for its PR campaign abroad. And I hope
the New York Times' esteemed reputation can not be marred by the
petrol-dollars from the Caspian Sea.
Best Regards"
Times.am
June 2 2011
Armenia
A message is spread by Facebook social network, which informs about
an anti-Armenian article published in New York Times on May 31. The
article is named "Frozen Conflict Between Azerbaijan and Armenia
Begins to Boil" and aims to present Azerbaijanis as victims,
confirms Azerbaijani moral right to restart war against NK and
"restore Azerbaijani territorial completeness". The initiators offer
Facebook users to send many messages to NY Times editorial and tell
them truth about NK issue and Azerbaijan. Here is a text of message
which is offered to be edited, changed somehow, may be shortened.
"Mr. Bill Keller, I have read Ellen Barry's recent article which caused
me great frustration. Mrs. Barry's biased approach in the article
makes me think that the article was written under the influence of
the Azerbaijani propaganda.
This article is mostly dedicated to the description of undesirable
consequences for Azerbaijan that were caused as a result of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But the author is silent about the fact
that it was Azerbaijan first to launch an aggressive war against
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to organize the bombing of some border
areas of Armenia itself. Moreover, both international and Soviet law
did allow Nagorno-Karabakh to achieve its independence. The fundamental
human rights of Karabakh Armenian population had been violated for
decades, and the culmination of violations was the ethnic cleansings
of late 1980s. The population of Karabakh had the right to exercise
remedial secession, just as the Eritrea, East Bangladesh, East Timor,
Kosovo, South Sudan and other cases.
There are also detailed sad stories of Azerbaijani refugees,
but the author is tacit about Azerbaijan's brutal policy towards
its own population. Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, views its refugees
only as a tool of its policy. For many years refugees in Azerbaijan
were not allowed to leave their tent camps as if they were kept in
concentration camps.
Mrs. Barry repeats the official position of Azerbaijan and insists
that the current framework of the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations
have exhausted itself. But she is silent about the fact that
the main barrier of progress in the negotiations is Azerbaijan's
destructive approach of failing the negotiation (incidentally she
talks as if the international community is negotiating with Armenia
(yet, the negotiations are between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the
participation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and mediated by the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs)). The point is that Azerbaijan has been poisoning
its own population with Armenophobia and revanchism for about two
decades, and now the government doesn't know what to answer to the
people of Azerbaijan, when the OSCE Minsk Group mediators insist
that the status of Karabakh should be decided through a legally
binding free expression of will of its people. Moreover, calls for
a new aggression are repeatedly cited in the article, and the author
treats those calls quite normally.
However, the OSCE Minsk Group mediators in their statements
clearly point out that the resumption of war is unacceptable for the
international community, that the settlement of the conflict should be
based on a comprehensive application of the three basic principles:
the prohibition of threat or use of force, self-determination and
territorial integrity. Mediators also stress that all conflicting
parties should prepare their people for peace and not for war. In fact,
the citations of aggression used by the author in fact endorse the
fact that the international mediators' calls for peace are directed at
Azerbaijan. Any use of force is clearly prohibited in international
law, and this time the international community is determined to
prevent the repetition of such actions by Azerbaijan.
But from the New York Times' article from May 31 one gets the
impression that it is natural that Azerbaijan is preparing for war,
as if it is a party that has been treated unjustly.
Mr. Keller, I sincerely hope that your editorial would be more
careful in printing such biased articles in the future. Azerbaijan
spends millions of dollars for its PR campaign abroad. And I hope
the New York Times' esteemed reputation can not be marred by the
petrol-dollars from the Caspian Sea.
Best Regards"