I've recently purchased the book, hoping to enrich my knowledge and understanding of the complex Caucasus region. I have to say that while the book contributes to the issues of studying some of the recent socio-political events in the Caucasus and has interesting ideas, it falls way short on the part of properly researching and presenting the history and legal aspects. Considering that a centuries-old map of Europe is adorning the cover of the book and the term "history" and "politics" are part of the title, it would lead one to believe that the subject of history and legal aspects would be presented with more scrupulous attention, especially when published by a major university press by a group of scholars. But the book also falls short in its "artistic freedom" chapter.
To begin with, the book has many strange errors and mistakes, which are too many and cannot be always charitably described as simply typos. For example, on page 233, in the very first sentence of a chapter about artistic freedom, the Azerbaijani artist Javad Mirjavadov is identified as ethnically "Assyrian". On that same page, his wife's surname is at first spelled as "Mirjadova", but already in the second line of the same page it is corrected to "Mirjavadova". On the page 235, it now describes Azerbaijani artists as "Azirian" (some unknown to us ethnic group). Of course, both are wrong, the late Mr. Mirjavadov was Azerbaijani. Aside from this very unfortunate editing, it does not mention a plead of great and often still-living artists, such as Togrul Narimanbekov, Tahir Salakhov, Sattar Bahlulzade and a few others, who are perhaps better known in the artistic world on a global scale than the also great artists mentioned in the chapter.
Then, on page 116, the chapter on the political history of South Caucasus, uses some uncited figure of 6.5 million as the supposed Armenian population worldwide, when the correct number is almost double that, at 11 million, according to multiple sources cited in Wikipedia (a better source than no source at all). The chapter then proceeds to mention genocide allegations, whilst not presenting the Turkish view (also, in the endnote #27 page 131, it claims that "15 to 20 countries have recognized the genocide in the meantime" - that's incorrect, only 3 countries have recognized it in terms of full parliamentary and presidential/head of state recognition. The rest of the 18 nations had one of their parliament's chambers, typically the lowest one, and sometimes their regional legislatures, pass non-binding resolutions that did not amount to any state/national recognition).
Furthermore, it then proceeds stating that in the 1918 war between Dashnak Armenia and the Ottoman Empire (the chapter describes it as Ottoman in one sentence and as Turkey in the next - a peculiar way to go about treating history. I guess there is no difference between Austro-Hungarian Empire on one side, and Austria and Hungary on the other, either, or UK/GB vs. simply England), "Armenia lost the most Eastern strip of land (Erzinan [sic! - it's actually Erzincan], Erzurum, Van) to Turkey" [Ottoman Empire, as Turkey was founded in 1923]. This is of course incorrect - these lands that Armenia supposedly "lost" were not Armenia's to begin with, but were Ottoman Empire's, and not in some distant past, but right in the historic period Dr. Companjen, the chapter's author and book's co-editor, is writing about. That land was Ottoman, and it did not belong to Armenia at all. Thus, Armenia could not have "lost" something it did not legally possess in the first place.
Then, without any clarifications, it is written than Adjara was given to Soviet Georgia "in exchange for the Kars territory, which included the mount Ararat, holy homeland to the Armenians". Aside from the dubious claim about mount Aghri Dagh (Ararat) being "homeland to the Armenians" - father of history Herodotus wrote that Armenians were "Phrygian outcasts" - the territory of the Russian Empire's Kars Oblast (Kars, Ardahan, Artvin, Olti, Sarighamish, etc) was occupied by Russian army in 1878 during the Russo-Ottoman War. Thus, the Ottoman Empire took its own territory back from the Soviet Russia (or Soviet Georgia, if you prefer) in exchange for giving up its territory of Ajaria. Mount Aghri Dagh is holy to all the people in the region, including Turks, Kurds and the Azerbaijanis, as well as Assyrians and others.
On page 117, the author makes a claim that "President Kocharvan [sic! - should be Kocharyan] was eventually succeeded by Andranik Margaryan of the Republica Party. After his death in March 2007, Margaryan was succeeded by Serzh Sarkisyan in February 2008". It should be known that President Kocharyan was succeeded by Sarkisyan only, and that Prime Minister Margaryan was never even a presidential candidate, much less a president. It's unclear what is the source of this peculiar information, as much of the book it lacks proper citations from knowledgeable sources, and as a result, greatly suffers from it.
Meanwhile, on the same page, the book states that "Nagorno-Karabakh is at present a self-proclaimed independent state, not recognized by the UN or by the International community". If it is not recognized by anyone, as Prof. Companjen correctly summarizes, then why state that it is "at present a ... independent state"?! At least if the author were to state "a de facto independent state, but de jure part of Azerbaijan" it would be a little more correct, but still fall short of the obvious - that NK is an Armenia-occupied region of Azerbaijan. Black is black and one has to call a spade a spade. When the book is supposedly about democracy and human rights, what about the human rights of the 800,000 Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs from the historic Karabakh region? What about their democratic rights that have been trampled with for over 20 years now? How about the obvious link between arrested development in the region, and specifically in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the causal effect of Armenia's occupation of NK on that? What about all those pan-European organizations, such as EU, PACE and CoE decisions that clearly recognize and treat Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan? Is their determination less valuable for the author than when analyzing elections, party politics, and other contemporary political aspects? Why such a double standard?
Finally, on page 118, the author remarks that in "In 1920 ... the region [NK - ed.] was perceived by some to be part of Armenian territory". Again, no citations and references to these mysterious "some". Why care about the "perceptions" by some unidentified and clearly non-authoritative "some" sources, when there are factors like law, legal recognition, and the Paris Peace Conference? If the author cared to investigate the topic a little more, she would have learned that NK has been firmly part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic of 1918-1920. Since Azerbaijani sources are too few, and might be considered "biased" (unlike, for some reason, the Armenian sources which are cited throughout the book, such as R.G.Suny (1993) and I.Bremmer (1988)), let us refer to the top Armenian-American professor, Prof. Richard Hovannisian of UCLA, "The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919". University of California Press, 1971, [...]
"The first conference of the nation's governors took steps to upgrade the quality of the militia by providing it uniforms and higher pay and by petitioning the Ministry of Interior to establish training academies. The conference also rectified certain unnatural variants in the administrative boundaries separating the ten existing provinces: Erevan, Etchmiadzin, Surmalu, Daralgiaz, Zangezur, Novo-Bayazit, Dilijan, Karakilisa, Alexandropol, and Kars" (p. 449). As you can see, Karabakh is not on the list of 10 provinces of the Dashnak Armenia of 1918-1920. Let's read further:
"That the Elisavetpol guberniia was bound to Azerbaijan was clearly demonstrated by the fact that nearly every road led eastward toward Baku, not westward to Erevan. The Armenians of Karabagh depended on Baku for a large share of their supplies, and thousands of them were either seasonal laborers or permanent employees in the oil fields and offices of that rapidly expanding metropolis on the Caspian Sea." (ibid., p. 82)
"The uezd of Zangezur, an area of 2,744 square miles subdivided into the districts of Sisian, Goris, Ghapan (Kafan), and Meghri, formed the strategic passageway between eastern Transcaucasia and the Erevan guberniia. Zangezur, like Karabagh, was inhabited by a mixed population, made up in 1916 of 101,000 Armenians and 120,000 Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a combined". (ibid., p. 86)
"Andranik struck at the defiant fortified Muslim villages that controlled the major routes connecting the four major subdistricts of Zangezur. The process of transforming Zangezur into a solidly Armenian land had begun. The destruction wrought by Andranik drew sharp protests in Erevan from General Halil Pasha, who threatened the Armenian government with retaliation. In reply Premier Kachaznuni claimed to possess no jurisdiction over the partisans. He reminded Halil that Nuri Pasha, having declared the entire Elisavetpol guberniia Azerbaijani territory, had banned regular Armenian units from Zangezur. Certainly, therefore, Armenia should not be held responsible for the prevailing state of affairs in that region. Kachaznuni's sincerity might well have been doubted, but his arguments were reasonable". (ibid., pp. 87-88)
"... The armed encounters between the Armenians on the one side and the native Muslim inhabitants..." (ibid., p. 194)
"while the ultranationalist Georgian press warned against trusting the Armenian "wolves in sheep's clothing", at least until a final territorial settlement has been reached, Zhordania's government closed ranks with Armenia to resist the extension of an invitation to the local administration at Kars. In a devious tactic, the two Christian countries consented to an advisory voice of the South-West Caucasus Provisional Government only on condition that Azerbaijan assent to like representation for Mountainous Karabagh. Azerbaijan naturally could not jeopardize her tenuous hold over the Armenian-populated highland by acquiescing in such a proposition. The overthrow of the South-West Caucasus Republic in mid-April and the Armenian occupation of Kars seem to have obviated that aspect of the issue. Azerbaijan no longer pressed for inclusion of delegates from Kars, and Armenia tacitly accepted the impracticability of gaining a rostrum for Mountainous Karabagh." (ibid., p. 356)
In Richard G. Hovannisian, "The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February-August 1920", on page 162 and beyond of the same book, Prof. Hovannisian once again openly admits that Armenia never controlled NK.
So we have the #1 Armenian scholar admit that Armenia never had NK, and that it was Azerbaijan's.
Likewise, when it is incorrectly stated that "But in 1921 the young Joseph Stalin, who was working for the `Kavkas Bureau' in Moscow at the time, assigned Karabakh to Azerbaijan", please note this explanation of this typical cliché:
"NK was not "part of Armenia until 1923" or "part of Azerbaijan since 1920's" and was not "ceded" to Azerbaijan by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, as many Western authors and news reports repeat to this day. Archival documents and expert determinations, such as the abovementioned 2001 U.S. Department of State fact sheet, prove beyond any doubt that NK was never part of Armenia and instead, was part of Azerbaijan. However, the most important document in this context is the July 5, 1921 plenum of Kavbureau CC RCP(b) decree (Caucasus Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks), in which Stalin, along with several Armenian members, such as A.Nazaretyan and A.Myasnikyan, decided on "leaving" (or "retaining"; the term in original Russian that was used in the document: '''''''' (ostavit')) NK within Azerbaijan and not "transferring" (or ceding; in Russian: '''''' (otdat')) it to anyone: "Nagorno-Karabakh to leave within the borders of Azerbaijan SSR".
Other scholarly references proving that Karabakh was Azerbaijan's even before Stalin are attested, for example, by Prof. Audrey Altstadt: "Early in 1920, the Peace Conference recognized Azerbaijan's claim to Karabagh".
Thus, when you "retain" or "leave" something somewhere, it obviously means that it was there in the first place (that is, Karabakh belonged to Azerbaijan since before the Sovietization). Due to unfortunate mistranslations and manipulations of the key terminology from Russian into English from these official Soviet documents pertaining to the history of Karabakh region, too many, to be even mentioned here, veteran journalists and political scientists have fallen into the trap of perpetuating the regrettable clichés and mistakes." Source: CAUCASIAN REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, VOL. 2 (1) - WINTER 2008 [...]
There are just too many mistakes like this - the book has a very loud title, but does not live up to the expectations. Poor editing, too many factual errors persist throughout the book. It should come as no surprise, since its editors are not known to be experts on the region and have not publishing anything significant on the region in the past. It does have some fresh ideas and perspectives, and might be useful for some who study strictly humanitarian and otherwise non-historical, non-political, non-legal, non-economic issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment