New stage of Garabagh problem?

Akif  Naghy

Higher activity of Russia in regard of Garabagh problem creates false impression in society and raises false hopes. In fact, Russia’s activity is aimed to hide its true intentions. The noise provoked artificially around the latest meeting in Sochi makes it necessary for us to consider the issue once more. I would like to repeat once again the opinion multiply expressed about the essence of the problem: Garabagh dispute has been created by Russia, which took the advantage of the problem and continues to do it now. Russia put its “stigma” over Garabagh, wishes that no one dare to stretch hands towards “stigmatized” Garabagh and everyone has to accept that Garabagh is only the tool in its policy. In my point of view, this truth is evident for everyone. However, we allow to deceive ourselves without any reason, make illusions and behave like those, who desire to be deceived. In other case, we would not hopefully expect negotiations initiated by Russia and swamp in detailed discussions. It is strange, but even experienced politicians in hope for Russia’s justice propose to make compromises, fulfill its demands and recreate its military bases. All these are offered as a way to regain Garabagh. It seems that supporters of this position forget the essence of Russian empire. I have to remind just one fact: Aliheydar Garayev in 1920 at last meetings of Azerbaijan parliament insisted that if the red army would not come, we would be unable to solve the Garabagh crisis and resist Armenian claims. I do not blame Aliheydar Garayev in treachery. It was his position, his attitude to Russian mirage and his self-deception. Russia’s red army came and immediately presented Zangezur region as a gift to Armenians (Aliheydar Garayev could not even imagine that Zangezur would be taken from Azerbaijan and given to Armenians). It could present to Armenians the highlands of Garabagh also, but preferred to keep it in form of “autonomy” for future bargaining. Giving an autonomy to 5-10 thousand of Armenians in fact meant to give over that territory to Armenia. The territory named as “Daglyg Garabagh” formally continued to be within the borders of Azerbaijan. And it is a fact that during 70 years of Soviet era the legislation of Azerbaijan was not working in Daglyg Garabagh. Azerbaijani, who lived there were under constant pressure, threats and persecution. They were the subject of real genocide. This was the policy supported by Moscow. For 70 years period Moscow supported separatist intentions of Armenians of Daglyg Garabagh, encouraged them and did not allow it to burn out. It is not accidental that in any point of former USSR any attempt for nationalist and separatist actions, including even the smallest notes in newspapers were immediately stopped by severe punishment. But there is absolutely no information about punishment of Daglyg Garabagh’s Armenians for their thoughts or actions. Under such circumstances of impunity, Armenians from time to time published papers written in nationalist and separatist mode, distributed leaflets, forced Azerbaijani to flee from Daglyg Garabagh, even committed murders and continuously sent letters to Moscow. That is why there is no doubt that this policy was mutually agreed.

Events started in 1988 were the continuation of the same policy. Despite that it was multiply repeated, I would like to underline once again that Russia holds Garabagh or Garabagh crisis under its control and uses the crisis for its own interests. It is possible to divide Garabagh crisis into 3 stages in respect of attitude of Moscow: 1988-1994 – (hot stage), the ceasefire stage lasted since 1994 and the new stage, which shows some evidences now.

Brief look at the hot stage, i.e. the period of military operations, clearly reflect the game of Moscow. Up to the end of this stage Moscow did not allow to any of the parties to take superiority and fulfilled the tactics of “alternate success”. In spring-summer of 1991 the Kremlin did not impede successful military operations of Azerbaijan in direction of Chaykend-Garabulag-Hadrut, liquidation of military bases of Armenians and to liberation of a large territory. Armenians being in a difficult position, made step back from their irreconcilable position and sought for compromises. Delegation headed by Valeriy Grigoryan, the party official, was sent from Khankendi to Baku.  Position of this delegation was based on idea of Daglyg Garabagh being within borders of Azerbaijan and holding negotiations in this aspect. The Kremlin immediately interfered. Mikhail Gorbachev invited Levon Ter-Petrosyan to visit Novo-Ogaryovo on July 20^th. After meeting in Novo-Ogaryovo, Armenians turned again into the claiming party. Grigoryan, the head of delegation upon his return to Khankndi was killed shortly afterwards, on August 10. On September 2, Armenians proclaimed so-called “Daglyg Garabagh Republic”. Through September-November Armenians captured almost all villages of Daglyg Garabagh populated by Azerbaijani. The second action characteristic for policy of Russia during the hot stage is related to the military campaign in summer and fall of 1992. As a result of successful operations of Azerbaijan’s Army the most of Daglyg Garabagh’s territory was liberated from the enemy. Robert Kocharyan confessed later: “the situation was dreadful, forces of Azerbaijan had captured 48 percent of territory of Garabagh”. In the summer of 1992 Armenians fled by a large groups towards Khankendi. Video recordings made by Armenians themselves show these human flows. An old Armenian woman shouted towards the camera: “Who imprecated us?” Are we helpless orphans to be so tormented?”

And once again the Moscow factor came into power. Renowned English writer Tomas de Waal writes the confession of one Armenian bureaucrat: “It was impossible to stop the refugees flow towards Stepanakert (Khankendi), the defense of the city was almost at zero, this flow, this tragedy was stopped by Russians, military helicopters of Russian Army raised to the sky and heavily bombarded Azerbaijani, and only after this the attack was stopped”. There are also other examples of Moscow’s tactics. However, these are sufficient. It can be seen, that position held by Moscow during the hot stage was focused on not giving superiority to any of the parties, to alternate success in military actions, to deepening of hostility by bloody actions, to zeroing the possibility of successful negotiations and preserving the conflict. Prolongation of this stage might take the situation out of Russia’s control. At that point, Turkey became actively involved and Afghan and Chechen factors impact already strengthened. Most dangerous version for Russia was related to armed Islamic groups activity in the region. That is why, Moscow decided to finalize the hot stage with Armenians having military superiority. The ceasefire agreement was concluded namely by mediation of Russia, and not by the USA, Europe, Turkey or Iran. Ceasefire period lasted for 16 years since May 1994 is also characterized by control of Russia. Initiatives undertaken through that stage in fact served to preserving of Russia’s control over the conflict and not to gaining any progress. And excitation related to signing of the Great Peace agreement in 1995, as well as meetings in Key-West, Rambouillet, Madrid, the Prague process are also events of the very same nature. Every time Russia makes some proposals, encourages negotiations, creates false hopes and then for a some period of time the silence and calmness are established. Sometimes, due to overplaying of Russia the processes take a serious nature with a danger to move out of control. In such a case in order to turn back the process into its course, Russia may undertake drastic measures. These drastic measures include resignation of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in 1998, shooting in the parliament of Armenia in 1999, leave of Armenian President from the meeting in Rambouillet breaking all diplomatic etiquette. Moscow took enough advantage from the ceasefire stage. Now it is time to develop new situation and go to a new stage.

Recent events may be regarded as attempts of Moscow to switch to a new stage. Higher activity of the West, initiatives of Turkey and frequently voiced war-calls in Azerbaijan force Russia to undertake some measures. It is not accidental that after the ceasefire agreement the first document signed between presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia was namely by initiative of Russia. Moscow (Maindorf) Declaration signed in November of 2008, negotiations held by initiative of Kremlin through 2009-2010, in particular, the meeting in Sochi are the evidences of a new stage. Russia has an intention to make some corrections in respect of situation in Garabagh. Intentions of Russia can be characterized as half-measures to solve the problem. Some half-measures are undertaken to solve the problem and these half-measures allow to keep the situation under control of Russia and even increases its influence. This situation proceeds from the very nature of half-measures version. According to the available program it is announced that there is a written or verbal agreement between presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The existence of such an agreement in reality is not important for Russia. The subject of most importance is the announcement about the agreement. According to the future agreement, for example, Azerbaijan will give a temporary status to self-proclaimed regime in Daglyg Garabagh and announce its non-objection to hold the referendum. In its turn, Armenia promises to free the regions surrounding Daglyg Garabagh. Upon achieving this agreement, the situation is developed under the control of Russia and the events enter into new stage. No one will be interested how and when this agreement will be implemented. The possibility of arena for new round of negotiations, meetings, attempts and especially false hopes will be mostly important. In reality, Armenia will find quite a large number of excuses not to keep its promises, the time will be temporized and the territory of Azerbaijan still will be under occupation. In the new stage once more the looser will be Azerbaijan. New situation will be described as a serious progress in resolution of the conflict and new processes undergo in the region. Turkey will open the borders and remove other aspects impeding good relations with Armenia. The West by assistance of Turkey will render significant support for development of Armenia. Armenia, strengthened under these circumstances, will turn into irreconcilable party in Garabagh dispute. Russia will take an advantage from the half-resolved and half-dead problem and will keep its influence over the conflict, as well as over Armenia. Hopes that the USA and Western countries would resist intentions of Russia did not come true. Due to compromises made by Russia in other areas, the USA stepped aside in case of Garabagh. In addition, resolution of Garabagh conflict by such half-measures and due to interests of Armenia is also suitable to interests of the West. This new stage may continue for several 5-years period, or even decades. To those, who do not believe, I would like to remind that nobody supposed that the ceasefire period would prolong for several 5-years. It seems that the start of a new stage is inevitable. What will be the content of this new stage depends on us. If Azerbaijan will continue to keep position of observer, Russia will form the content of the new stage according to its own interests. That is why, Azerbaijan has to take initiative and turn the new stage into war-phase and should start the war. The only way to regain the Garabagh consists in military operations. This is not just a slogan, this is the only way out dictated by reality.

To fulfill its policy, Russia uses Armenia as a tool. Armenia being the “clever tool”, implements its function and at the same time serves to its own interests. Interests of Russia and Armenia coincide and they both took advantage of that. To start the use of the tool, there must be someone to operate the tool, since the tool can not operate by itself. To fulfill the work the user needs the tool. We have not ability enough to remove the user, therefore, we have to break the tool. Up to now, in order to break or stop the tool, we have used various methods, i.e. diplomatic ways and there still no results. So, to break the tool we have no other way than to use the force and violence.