Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heiko Langner: "Armenian Territorial Claims Are The Basis Of The Nag

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Heiko Langner: "Armenian Territorial Claims Are The Basis Of The Nag

    HEIKO LANGNER: "ARMENIAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS ARE THE BASIS OF THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT"

    Vestnik Kavkazussia
    Nov 29 2013

    29 November 2013 - 11:42am

    Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, head of the European Bureau of Vestnik
    Kavkaza

    Heiko Langner, a German political analyst, specialist on the
    post-Soviet space and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has expressed
    his point of view on the conflict in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.

    - Mr. Langner, what has brought you to such intensive research of
    the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

    - The conflict drew my attention in the late 1980s when the situation
    in the South Caucasus became tense. State mass media in the GDR was
    actively describing the events, taking the political side of Moscow and
    the Azerbaijani Soviet authorities. Actions of the Karabakh Armenians
    were pictured as anti-Soviet and nationalistic-separatistic.

    That time, I, as many other young people in the GDR, was having big
    hopes for the persona and politics of Mikhail Gorbachev, so I was
    shocked by the conflict in the Caucasus. It would not fit into the
    image of the Soviet Union formed by the state education system of the
    GDR. According to this image, the USSR was a voluntary state union
    of interconnected Soviet nations. A violent conflict spoke about
    the contrary.

    After the unification of Germany and the collapse of real socialism,
    the mass media of the FRG was dominated by a pro-Armenian outlook
    on the conflict for a long time. So in early 1990s, I supposed that
    mass media of the GDR gave false descriptions of the Nagorno-Karabakh
    conflict. In late 1990s, however, article with a pro-Azerbaijani
    approach to the problem were initiated again.

    Now, I cannot recall for sure when it happened but after a some
    meetings with Armenians in Germany, I noticed that they were telling
    the very same story very coherently. It seemed somewhat memorized
    and even learnt by heart. It was always noted that Armenian were only
    victims of the conflict but, nonetheless, they managed to win the war.

    It gave me a sense of distrust because it cannot happen practically.

    In the reality of war, the ones who fight actively cannot be only the
    victims, they regularly get in situations where they are the offensive
    side. And so the one who does not fight and always remains a victim
    cannot win the war. I noticed that something just was not adding up,
    so I got down to more intensive research of the conflict about 15
    years ago. Since then, I got into details of the Karabakh problem.

    Whether a person is an expert in this case or not is eventually decided
    by others. This should be decided by readers of the interview, I will
    accept that.

    - What reasons for the conflict do you see?

    - I can assure you that the first reason is not a competition between
    different principles of the international law like territorial
    integrity or the right for self-determination. These two principles
    are in no way mutually exclusive and can instead complement each
    other within the framework of a decision on granting autonomy from the
    central government, on condition of will of the sides. There are many
    examples in the world for this. The conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh
    is based, in my opinion, first of all, on contradictory images of
    the historic appurtenance of the region. Armenians consider it their
    part of the 'historic Armenia.' It should be noted that the huge
    space, which includes, besides Armenia, large territories of modern
    Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and in maximum version even
    Syria and Lebanon, has never seen Armenian statehood in over 700
    years and the Armenian population lived under domination of other
    states. We should add that the Armenian population in its historic
    reality of settlement has never been a majority, and was forced to
    share the territory with numerous other groups of the population that,
    doubtlessly, had and have the same fundamental right to live there.

    Throughout history, the Armenian population has been facing situations
    of mass threat for its existence and banishment throughout history,
    starting with the Mongol invasion, and this has deeply anchored in the
    memory of the nation. For this reason, earlier strives for 'national
    rebirth' and own statehood was closely connected to understanding of
    ethnic homogenous state. Ethnic uniformity became a determinant for
    existence of the Armenian, equally with the desire to consolidate all
    territories inhabited by Armenians in a national state. No wonder
    the Armenian SSR, which like other USSR republics, was founded as
    a nationally-determined territory (because the socialist policy was
    supposed to be presented in a national form), had a constant decline
    of the non-Armenian population.

    With all understanding of the tough history and sufferings of Armenian
    people under domination of foreign states, there cannot be any excuse
    for exile and displacement of other population groups. Today, Armenia
    with its 98% of ethnic Armenian population is the only mono-ethnic
    states in the South Caucasus. This can be explained by natural
    development, especially in such historically multi-ethnic region as
    the South Caucasus. The situation has become a result of focused
    policy, realized with a different level of intensity for decades,
    even despite communist dominance. And the goal of this policy is to
    form an ethnically homogenous state.

    - How do you think this policy has affected the situation around
    Nagorno-Karabakh?

    - From 1918 to 1920, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh belonged to
    the first independent Azerbaijani Republic, though even then, there
    were disputes about the ownership of the region. After sovietization
    of both states, the 'Caucasian Bureau' decided to finally leave
    Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian autonomous region, as part of the
    Azerbaijani SSR, in 1921. Although three Armenian representatives
    took part in the vote, Armenia has never given up its claims for
    the territory. In the 1960s, a petition campaign was initiated for
    the Moscow center to have the autonomous region transferred from the
    Azerbaijani SSR to the Armenian SSR. Moscow was consistently against
    it, rightly considering such pretensions as a precedent threatening
    the existence of the Soviet Empire. I have an impression that many
    young people of Azerbaijan do not know about this and often think that
    Moscow has always been on Armenia's side. But this is wrong. Armenia
    initiated attempts to expand its national territory by merging
    compact territories inhabited by Armenians beyond the republic. This
    way, they tried to realize their national dream to form the united
    'Great Armenia.'

    The same happened in the late 1980s. Back then, interethnic tensions
    with violent acts and pogroms erupted, resulting in both nations
    getting hurt. The current conflict has a long background rooting
    from realization of Armenian territorial pretensions, for which the
    principle of the right of people for self-determination is being
    instrumentalized today. Perhaps, even now, the majority of Karabakh
    Armenians, despite 20 years of de facto separation, do not want their
    own state and would prefer joining Armenia.

    In the Soviet times, Azerbaijan was territorially happy and interested
    in protection of the then status quo, while Armenia wanted to
    fundamentally change it for its benefit. This is why it is clear
    who has more responsibility for escalation of the conflict. This
    can even be seen from the chronology of events. The National Supreme
    Council in Baku deprived Nagorno-Karabakh of the status of autonomy
    in November 1991, two years after Nagorno-Karabakh had unilaterally
    proclaimed its 'independence.' Moscow has always been the judge in this
    conflict. In reality, the conflict has lived throughout all the time
    of USSR's existence, and Moscow only 'froze' it for some time. During
    Perestroika, it was unfrozen again and after the collapse of the USSR,
    it quickly grew into an interstate war. The burden of history should
    not be underestimated. The key to settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
    conflict lies in the hands of the Kremlin

    To be continued

    http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/48119.html

Working...
X