'Voices From Afghanistan' Exhibit Profiled In 'The Washington Post'

"The Post's" Style section highlights the exhibit at the Library of Congress, which showcases some of the thousands of handwritten scrolls and letters sent in by listeners to RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan. More

Commentary

Forward To The Past: Russia, Turkey, And Armenia's Faith

Russia, too, must deal with Armenia in good faith.

October 21, 2008

By Raffi K. Hovannisian

The recent race of strategic realignments reflects a real crisis in the world order and risks triggering a dangerous recurrence of past mistakes. Suffice the testimony of nearly all global and regional actors, which have quickly shifted gears and embarked on a collective reassessment of their respective strategic interests and, to that end, a diversification of policy priorities and political partnerships.

It matters little whether this geopolitical scramble was directly triggered by the Russian-Georgian war and the resulting collapse of standing paradigms for the Caucasus, or whether it crowned latently simmering scenarios in the halls of international power. The fact is that the great game -- for strategic resources, control over communications and routes of transit, and long-term leverage -- is on again with renewed vigor, self-serving partisanship, and duplicitous entanglement.

One of the hallmarks of this unbrave new world is the apparent reciprocal rediscovery of Russia and Turkey. Whatever its motivations and manifestations, Turkey's play behind the back of its trans-Atlantic bulwark and Russia's dealings at the expense of its "strategic ally" Armenia raise the specter of a replay of the events of more than 85 years ago, when Bolshevik Russia and a Kemalist Turkey not content with the legacy of the great Genocide and National Dispossession of 1915 partitioned the Armenian homeland in Molotov-Ribbentrop fashion and to its future detriment.

Time To Face Up

Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh, in Armenian) was one of the territorial victims of this 1921 plot of the pariahs, as it was placed under Soviet Azerbaijani suzerainty together with Nakhichevan. That latter province of the historical Armenian patrimony was subsequently cleansed of its majority Armenian population, and then of its Armenian cultural heritage. As recently as December 2005, Azerbaijan (like Armenia, a member of the Council of Europe) completed the total, Taliban-style annihilation of the medieval Armenian cemetery at Jugha that contained thousands of unique cross-stones.

Nagorno-Karabakh, by contrast, was able to turn the tide on a past of genocide, dispossession, occupation and partition and defend its identity, integrity, and territory against foreign aggression. In 1991 -- long before Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia became buzzwords -- it declared its liberty, decolonization, and sovereignty in compliance with the Montevideo standards of conventional international law and with the Soviet legislation in force at that time.

Subsequent international recognition of Kosovo, on the one hand, and the later withholding of such recognition for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other, demonstrate that there exists no real rule of law applied evenly across the board. On the contrary, such decisions are dictated by vital interests that are rationalized by reference to selectively interpreted international legal principles of choice and exclusivist distinctions of fact which, in fact, make no difference.

It's time to face up to the farce -- and that goes for Moscow and Ankara too, judging by recent pronouncements by high-level officials. And if the two countries are driven by the desire for a strategic new compact, then at least their partners on the world stage should reshift gears and calibrate their policy alternatives accordingly. Iran, the United States, and its European allies might find here an objective intersection of their concerns.

What Is Needed

Russia and Turkey must never again find unity of purpose at the expense of Armenia and the Armenian people. The track record of genocide, exile, death camps, and gulags is enough for all eternity.

These two important countries, as partners both real and potential, must respect the Armenian nation's tragic history, its sovereign integrity and modern regional role, and Nagorno-Karabakh's lawfully gained freedom and independence.

Football diplomacy is fine, but Turkey can rise to the desired new level of global leadership and local legitimacy only by dealing with Armenia from a "platform" of good faith and reconciliation through truth; lifting its illegal blockade of the republic and opening the frontier that it unilaterally closed, instead of using it as a bargaining tool; establishing diplomatic relations without preconditions and working through that relationship to build mutual confidence and give resolution to the many watershed issues dividing the two neighbors; accepting and atoning, following the brilliant example of post-World War II Germany, for the first genocide of the 20th century and the national dispossession that attended it; committing to rebuild, restore, and then celebrate the Armenian national heritage, from Mount Ararat and the medieval capital city of Ani to the vast array of churches, monasteries, schools, academies, fortresses, and other cultural treasures of the ancestral Armenian homelands; initiating and bringing to fruition a comprehensive program to guarantee the right of secure voluntary return for the progeny and descendants of the dispossessed to their places and properties of provenance; providing full civil, human, and religious rights to the Armenian community of Turkey, including the total abolition the infamous Article 301, which has served for so long as an instrument of fear, suppression, and even death with regard to those courageous citizens of good conscience who dare to proclaim the historical fact of genocide; and finally, exercising greater circumspection in voicing incongruous and unfounded allegations of "occupation" in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh's David-and-Goliath struggle for life and justice, lest someone remind Ankara about more appropriate and more proximate applications of that term.

As for Russia, true strategic allies consult honestly with each other and coordinate their policies pursuant to their common interests. They do not address one another by negotiating adverse protocols with third parties behind each other's back; they do not posture against each other in public or in private; and they do not try to intimidate, arm-twist, or otherwise pressure each other via the press clubs and newspapers of the world. Russia, too, must deal with Armenia in good faith, recognizing the full depth and breadth of its national sovereignty and the horizontal nature of their post-Soviet rapport, its right to pursue a balanced, robust, and integral foreign policy, as well as the nonnegotiability -- for any reason, including the sourcing and supervision of Azerbaijani oil -- of Nagorno-Karabakh's liberty, security, and self-determination.

The Armenian government, in turn, must of course also shoulder its share of responsibility for creating a region of peace and shared stability, mutual respect and open borders, domestic democracy, and international cooperation. An ancient civilization with a new state, Armenia's national interests can best be served by achieving in short order a republic administered by the rule of law and due process, and an abiding respect for fundamental freedoms, good governance, and fair elections, which, sadly, has not been the case to date.

Armenia urgently needs a new understanding with its neighbors that will preclude once and for all its being cast again in the role of either fool or victim.

Raffi K. Hovannisian served from 1991-92 as foreign minister of the Republic of Armenia. He is the founder of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies and represents the opposition Heritage Party in the Armenian parliament. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

This forum has been closed.

Comment Sorting

Comments page of 2

by: Bill McGauran from: Seattle, Washington

October 21, 2008 16:52

I’ve always been under impression that Armenia, on behalf of NKR people, has been negotiating with Azerbaijan the status of the NK. However, it appears that mediators have recently predetermined the outcome of the negotiations, namely are pressuring Armenia to recognize territorial integrity of Azerbaijan at the expense of Karabakhis right to self determination. I’d suggest the best strategy for Armenia would now be to temporarily withdraw from the negotiation table because there is nothing to negotiate about.

Who’s given the right to decide the fate of Karabakhi people to Matt Bryza, US Government, EU, Armenian Government or any other entity? It sounds as if Karabakhis do not want to be subject to Azerbaijan or any other government. Karbakhis themselves should be granted the right, and are in fact the only ones that have that right, to decide what their fate is or which country they want to be part of.

Armenia is better off recognizing Kosovo and NKR simultaneously. NKR should be recognized at its current borders, i.e. the very territories that it currently exercises sovereignty over, including the security zones around NK. Armenia then should facilitate negotiations between NKR and Azerbaijan. After Azerbaijan recognizes NKR, then it'd perhaps be possible to return a few non-strategic areas back to Azerbaijan as good will gesture. NKR must have common borders with both Armenia and Iran.

Matt Bryza is a known neocon crook who’s married to a Turkish citizen, no one expected him to play a helpful role. Nor should government of Armenia pin hopes on Russia, USA or specially Turkey.

Long live all liberty-loving nations. Who are other governments or entities to infringe upon other people’s right for self-determination? Who gave them such a right? Otherwise, the Netherlands would still be under Spanish control and USA would be a colony of England. No government has a moral right to decide which people have a right to freedom and self-governance and which ones do not.

Any government that tries to militarily impose its unjust will on other peoples, infringes other peoples’ rights, and commits ethnic cleansing must be deprived of the privilege to govern. Governing other peoples is a privilege not a right as compared to the self-determination right of people. It is well documented that Azerbaijan tried unsuccessfully to massacre all Armenians of NK, lost its brutal war against civilians and should never be given the privilege of governing NK again, ever.

by: Anton from: Auckland

October 21, 2008 23:35

As far as I can understand from reading Russian news and analytic articles, Armenia may be soon faced before the choice to ultimately determine its political and geopolitical orientation. Rising of Turkish involvement in the area has an ambiguous meaning for Armenia - on the one hand restoring ties with Turkey allows Armenia to establish a connection with the outer world and break out from todays isolation, but on another hand pan-Turkic policies of both Turkey and Azerbaijan may cause Armenia to lose its political sovereignty.Therefore the price of opening the country might be the loss of the country itself.

Russia seems to be offering to Armenia to open the transport corridor through Georgia - for Armenia this means full siding with Russia on all geopolitical issues, as this suggests partition of Georgia and excludes any good relationships with the West or Turkey.

Russia is prepared to set up the second military base in Armenia, looking at its north-western border, which makes it in close proximity from Adjaria, former Georgian autonomy, absorbed by Saakashvili's government. Also I met the expressed vision of Georgia just as a 20 kilometers wide zone adjacent to the railway, while the rest of the country is seen as populated by national minorities - Adjars, Armenians, Azeri and minor Georgian tribes, not fully representing Georgians as a nation. Therefore, Russia may be considering negotiating with Azerbaijan the swap, Georgian land with Azeri population for Nagorno-Karabach, and plans to fully control the railroad from Tskhinval to Armenia (the railroad to Tskhinval from Russia seems to be soon established).

Obviously, to pursue both options is impossible, as one targets to unite Azerbaijan with Turkey while another may result in complete barrier between them. Russia and Turkey do not see each other as geopolitical partners and would probably not be able to maintain trust to each other, however if now US troops leave Iraq, Turkey would face a civil war because of Kurdish separatism, and Russia probably relies on this factor to curb Turkey's influence in the region of Transcaucasis.

by: john from: Canada

October 22, 2008 22:06

Nagorny Karabagh, has held its independance almost as long as Azerbijan has held her own idependance so I find it hard to understand how the Azeri's feel Karabagh has no right to self-determination. In 1988 an earthquake nearly flattened Armenia proper and during that same time massacres were happening in the cities of Baku and Sumgait, an ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Azerbijian. The native Armenians were left no choice but to defend there very lives, from another genocide, but this time succeeded, and at the same time liberated Karabagh which territorially belonged to Armenia before Stalin annexed her to the Azeris in the 1920's. Durring this time Soviet troops along with Azeri militia tried to retake Karabagh but again failed as Armenia proper decided to lend a hand to the Armenians of Karabagh. Since 1989 Karabagh gained its sovereignty by self-deffense and self-dertemination, for those 2 reasons alone I believe would warrant Karabagh as a legitimate nation. Kosavo has less a right to be independant than Karabagh considering Karabaghis made their stand against a murderous Azeri regime and won decisively , where as Kosavo was handed independance by the US and EU.

by: Emin from: Azerbaijan

October 23, 2008 18:44

This is incredible. I am glad that this commentary is only a matter of opinion of an obviously biased former political figure, who summed up everything about Armenian, Russian, Turkish and Azerbaijani relations in a few paragraphs. The author says that poor ancient civilization turned a modern democratic state(eyem, not so democratic if you ask the experts on democracies, same applies to Azerbaijan) has been brutally victimized, partitioned and taken advantage of by the Russians, Turks and unsuccessfully by the Azeris. I have to say, it keeps surprising me how uninterested the Azeri side is in joining these debates either because they are tired of talking about it, have a lack of interest in talking about it, or realize that wasting time lime me and others on here doesn't change the situation on the table. For those of you biased, uninformed, mainly ethnic Armenian comment posters, I have the following to say. Arguing against you is useless since the denial of the reality and the truth has been the ultimate stick in the hands of the people and the smarter than the people leadership who use the stick against them. You may give Nagorno Karabakh an Armenian name, call it Armenian, and continue the ocupation of the administrative districts of Azerbaijan outside of NK. But no matter what you say, you can't change what is the reality. An illegal occupation of land that legally belongs to another state. This commentary talks about the international law and principles based on self-determination, yet everyone seems to forget that Azerbaijan, too, was in the process of gaining self determination from the Soviet Union, just like Armenia, and regardless of whether you agree with it or not, NK was a part of Azerbaijan and was recognized as such. The hypocritical statements on the part of some here who say NK has the right to self determination, so does the State of New Mexico with its majority Hispanic population. Should they form a Mexico friendly republic as well? That would never happen, Washington DC would never allow for that to happen! Why? Because New Mexico is a legal territory of the US and is considered as such by the US constitution. So why all of a sudden Azerbaijan's constitution is irrelevant? Many of you outsiders claim to know much about the conflict, yet when it comes to understanding it, you all drool Armenian propaganda. It's is unbelievable to me that the guy from Seattle would talk about Azeris trying to massacre Armenians in Karabakh while the international community heard and the press wrote clearly about who was massacring whom in NK. Go learn about the Khojaly massacre before making insensitive and ignorant statements about Azeris being the aggressors. Read about the brutal decapitations, barbaric mutilations, and uncivilized rapes and killings that the ethnic Azeris in NK have sustained. it's funny how you all talk about the pain Armenians have gone through but when the shoe changes the foot, you all bleed hypocrisy. It's shameful and I'm glad RFERL has nothing to do with it.

by: Steve

October 24, 2008 15:18

Emin, you're delusional. America is a secessionist state. Was that an unjustified secession? Give me a break. And don't even bring up one-sided Khojali arguments without mentioning what Armenians suffered. The conflict didn't begin nor end there.

by: Brazilian Guy from: São Paulo

October 25, 2008 07:43

The biggest problem in the question relating Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia and Turkey is that all these countries have democracy deficits, to say the least.

And transnational accords are much more easy to implement and maintain when the nations that sign them are democratic.

by: john from: Canada

October 25, 2008 17:17

Emin, you compare New Mexico with Karabagh, but you fail to mention that New Mexico was not subjected to ethnic cleansing, and please do not deny the "Truth" of what really happened in Sumgait and Baku. I've read the Black Garden several times by Thomas de Wall and there is a whole chapter about what went on in those cities, Decapitations, rapes and beatings preformed not by the Azeri police or army, but committed by ethnic Azeri population. This is a fact, that even you can't deny. Soviet forces, were called in to settle these ethnic massacres.
If you want to compare situations Kosavo would be a perfect story. A province forced massacre of native Albanians, in order to cleanse the state of Kosavo and keep the Serb minority, only difference Karabagh was it's own republic before the 1920's, while Kosavo was never a free republic in its history. And to add on to that the fact that the Armenians rose up against the aggressor and fought a war which they earned there freedom back.
And just in case your wondering if I'm Armenian, I'm a Canadian Hungarian just in case your interested and we have seen some of those atrocities committed in Hungary, by a certain bloodthirsty soldier name Ramil Safarov, he was the soldier who decapitated an Armenian soldier in his sleep, and is now currently spending his life in a Hungarian jail for murder.

by: Anton from: Auckland

October 26, 2008 07:04

The biggest problem there is not democracy or autocracy, but the historical background of the area. In essense the root of all problems in Caucasis is Mongolian invasion of 13t-14th centuries, as this brought to the area new tribes and ethnic groups, who settled there after ethnically cleansing the locals. Turks, Azeri, Ingush, Chechens, Daghestani and some others are not historical locals, but "new arrivals", while Ossetians, Georgians, Armenians, Adygs are indigenous people, early civilizations and traditionally Christian cultures. The cultural level of the locals was incomparable with this of the invading nomadic tribes, so the people preserved the historical memories of the invasion and still see the Turkic (Kypchac) tribes as illegal occupants. Conversion of Mongolian horde into Islam only made the things worse, as religious difference was added on top of cultural and ethnic differences. To me it seems very difficult to peacefully resolve Karabakh issue to the satisfaction of both sides.

by: ordinary Azeri from: Baku

October 27, 2008 23:30

Such a provoking article should not appear at that website.
Even if Raffi has been FM, but his judgements and arguments are not different than a hothead and biased person.

I am far away to make this forum an area of word battle, but I try to make some points clear both for you and audience:

You intentionally claim the alleged devastations in Jugha to defame Azeris. If it happened, we - reagardless of ethnicity - should all curse it and punish those committing such crimes.
But, dear Raffi, can I ask you the fate of thousands of cemeteries, mosques in Nagorno Karabakh and surrounding districts? How about intentionally populating occupied Kelbajar, shusha and other occupied cities to attempt to change the demographic situation?

I can enlist myriad of examples to reveal your false arguments, which are directed to confuse and mislead the publicity.
On one hand you are talking about the necessity of stability in Caucasus, but on the other you provoke and insite the hatred by suggesting false, biased information. That is sdissapointing, particularly when a former Minister is misleading the public that way.

Forget Russia, Turkey, Iran and others. We - Armenians and Azeris should ourselves find the peace and constructive communication.
In english there is a proverb:"No on belives in God on an empty stomach". That means, the outsiders always would have an ambition or hidden agenda behind their peace attempts etc.

However, judging the past in a misleading manner and exchanging endless accusations between Azerbaijan and Armenia will never and never bring eternal atability to the regions.
As a former Minister and current politician you should better install such opinions in public than belligerent and provocative talk.

by: haji from: stockholm

October 27, 2008 23:59

Dear RFERL!

I am very disappointed reading such piece, which creates the wrong impression both on Azeris and the causes of the conflict.

I can not belive that the ex Minister for foreign affairs and current NGO/civil society is giving such vociferous and ambigious, misleading messages to the readers.

it exactly creates such an impression that "all are evil, except Armenia" or "all are aggressors, while Armenia is victim". How fair Raffi is as a civil society activist? Why you do not mention the Azeri IDPs/refugeess, whose number are over 800.000? As a former high profile official, you must know that the war has negatively affected both sides, but not only Armenia.
Azerbaijan's some 20 per cent of internationally recognised part are under occupation, while the IDPs remain stranded.
And that bloody war has not brough prosperity to Armenia and even ushed Armenia more to a corner. Ongoing migration, poverty, corruption - the same in Azerbaijan - are quite pervasive in Armenia today and most of occupied areas are either unmanned or fakely inhabited.

While talking on genocides, massacres etc, you should better mention the massive killings and ethnic cleansing in Khojali.

I do want really to bring all these with bits and bytes, but what disappoints me is that a Minister-turned-NGO activist is delivering such confusing opinions rather than talking on finding peace or middle line to solve the conflict.

Rafi-
I am sorry, but if we try to settle the proracted conflict with such endless mutual accusations, we will never have time for employing real public diplomcy mechanisms for the conflict resolution.

Sadly,
Haji