Liz Fuller’s bias undermines the credibility and impartiality of RFE/RL

It has been an unfortunate fact that much of Western media kowtows and accepts Armenian claims on Azerbaijani lands and history at face value, without any diligent and serious checks required in such cases. Even more worrisome, when such media is U.S.-government funded, such as Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) -- which is funded by the U.S. Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). But truly troublesome, when a biased journalist, such as Liz Fuller (Elizabeth Carlson), a commentary and analysis co-editor at RFE/RL, is embedded deep in such a media outlet, and waging her little war against an entire nation.

Mrs. Fuller’s bias and prejudice towards Azerbaijan, as well as Turkey, has been evident and documented for well over a decade (many letters of protest sent by multiple members of the Azerbaijani community stretch back to at least 1998, you can read some of them here: http://www.zerbaijan.com/letters/rferl_khojaly.htm and here: http://www.zerbaijan.com/letters/rferl_khachkars.htm). This partiality and tremendous slant has become vividly evident and beyond any reasonable doubt in the past months.

RFE/RL, led by Mrs. Fuller’s efforts, started to give a regular platform to former high-ranking Armenian officials such as its first foreign minister Raffi Hovannisian and another former foreign minister Vartan Oskanian (Vardan Oskanyan), who would write commentaries on subjects directly related to Azerbaijan, as well as Turkey. Despite being a norm of professional journalism to give an equal platform to the opposing side, no former foreign minister, foreign policy advisor or expert from Azerbaijan had been offered a similar platform, despite them being available for commentary and periodically being interviewed by the RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service.

More importantly, as RFE/RL initiated a series of op-ed’s on Karabakh, the first two such commentaries were once again penned by Raffi Hovannisian (Ten Priorities for Turkey: Nothing Personal, April 8, 2009, http://www.rferl.org/content/Ten_Priorities_For_Turkey_Nothing_Personal/1604835.html) and Vartan Oskanian (Nagorno-Karabakh: War, Peace, or BATNA?, June 4, 2009, http://www.rferl.org/content/NagornoKarabakh_War_Peace_Or_BATNA/1746559.html). Such high-ranking double-assault on the historical facts about the Karabakh and Naxcivan regions of Azerbaijan prompted a response from Azerbaijan, coming from Elnur Aslanov, a head of the department in the presidential administration of the country. (Advice for Armenia on Resolving the Karabakh Dispute, June 9, 2009, http://www.rferl.org/content/Advice_For_Armenia_On_Resolving_The_Karabakh_Dispute_/1750389.html).

Despite allowing the Armenian side score 2:1 against the Azerbaijani side with their two articles against just one Azeri response, Mrs. Fuller-led efforts resulted in a astonishing propaganda piece by some Robert Avetisyan getting published in RFE/RL (Nagorno-Karabakh Must No Longer Be Barred From The Negotiating Table, July 14, 2009, http://www.rferl.org/content/NagornoKarabakh_Must_No_Longer_Be_Barred_From_The_Negotiating_Table_/1776580.html). The piece combined every single propaganda cliché, myth and clear falsifications that have been a staple for Armenian media. Adding insult to injury, Mr. Avetisyan was identified as “the permanent representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic to the United States”. This is despite the fact that this person, and this entity, are legally registered by the U.S. Justice Department in its Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) database (where any lobbyist and NGO can get registered under any name they want, even as a King of Yerevan), and not by the U.S. State Department as a legitimate diplomatic representation. After all, U.S. does not recognize the Armenian separatists’ puppet entity, and has been condemning their “elections” and them as “criminal secessionists”. It is thus a U.S. government policy to not extend any recognition to whatever Mr. Avetisyan represents, and he and his group cannot even meet with anyone inside the State Department.

Such political blindness by RFE/RL, to go against U.S. policy, can hardly be excused, but Mrs. Fuller’s advocacy to legitimize Armenian aggression and occupation of Azerbaijan, even at the expense of credibility, ethical and professional journalism standards of her employer, RFE/RL (http://docs.rferl.org/en-US/professional_code.pdf) should not be overlooked.

After RFE/RL carried such a propaganda piece by Mr. Avetisyan, several active members of the Azerbaijani community requested to have their response to be published by RFE/RL as well, since their status was equal, or actually greater, than Robert Avetisyan’s. While the response was finally published on September 1, 2009 (Karabakh Peace Process Must Be Fully Inclusive, http://www.rferl.org/content/Karabakh_Peace_Process_Must_Be_Fully_Inclusive_/1812056.html), it took over one month of constant talks with various RFE/RL departments and editors, including Mrs. Fuller, to have the op-ed approved for publication.

Specifically, one of the co-authors, Dr. Vugar Seidov has initiated the contact with RFE/RL to offer a response, but received no response for 3 days. This prompted a second email, but again resulted in no response. After a phone call to RFE/RL, they promised to check their email and respond, but again, no response was given for 5 days. It was followed up with a second phone call, which finally resulted in the initial response from RFE/RL – they said a response would not be published…. This resulted in many complaints by the co-authors to the U.S. and Azerbaijani governments, as well as RFE/RL’s President and its Azerbaijani Service, for allowing such depravity by Mrs. Fuller to persist. Then another co-author, Dr. Javid Huseynov, wrote to RFE/RL, and received a total of seven emails from Mrs. Fuller, as well as at least five emails from another RFE/RL editor. As stated above, the whole process was intentionally dragged, and took more than one month to complete. We sincerely doubt that Mr. Avetisyan’s shameful piece, or those by Messrs. Oskanian and Hovannisian, had to go through so many edits and processes.

While most RFE/RL editors and journalists were faithful and true to their professional code, were fair and balanced, Mrs. Fuller tried everything in her power to weaken, dilute, and twist the words and meaning of the article. We are including three versions of the article: first -- the actually published piece available from RFE/RL’s website <http://www.rferl.org/content/Karabakh_Peace_Process_Must_Be_Fully_Inclusive_/1812056.html, second – the longer piece submitted by the authors, and third – the Liz Fuller edited article that she pressured to be accepted by the authors for publication. The co-authors would like to thank all those who helped make this publication a reality, and hope that an internal and outside review and audit will be conducted to stop such dissipation by some biased journalists as Mrs. Fuller.

Dr. Vugar Seidov, Ph.D., AzerTAG
Dr. Javid Huseynov, Ph.D., AAC
Dr. Adil Baguirov, Ph.D., USAN
Ms. Tomris Azeri, ASA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article #1: the original lengthy response submitted on July 23, 2009:

THE RETURN AND EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF KARABAKH's ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IS THE ONLY PATH TOWARDS LASTING PEACE
by Javid Huseynov, Adil Baguirov, Vugar Seidov, Tomris Azeri

The process of a peaceful settlement of the long-standing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan also necessitates an intercommunal dialog as an essential component of re-establishing trust between the two nations. Participation of the Armenian and Azerbaijani NGOs, the diaspora communities in third countries and other interest groups within two societies can become an integral part of this broader process of reconciliation.

In this context, one could only welcome the title of a commentary published by the representative of Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic Armenian community, Mr. Robert Avetisyan, in RFE/RL on July 14, 2009 – "Nagorno-Karabakh Must No Longer Be Barred From The Negotiating Table". After all, the engagement of Karabakh's ethnic communities in negotiations is an absolute must for reestablishing peace in that region. In fact, the conditions for an equal engagement of all parties in the conflict were already enshrined in the "Baker Rules" proposed in 1992 by the peacemaking mission of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, OSCE Minsk Group predecessor), led by then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker III. These rules, agreed to by all sides, recognized the two communities of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan as "interested parties", and Armenia and Azerbaijan – as "principal parties".

However, Mr. Avetisyan stopped short of mentioning the ethnic Azerbaijani community, which prior to the conflict in 1988 comprised a third of Nagorno-Karabakh's population and 99% of the population of 7 other, surrounding and currently occupied, regions of Azerbaijan. Instead, he focused on denying the historical existence of Azerbaijanis, being not only counter-productive in terms of peacemaking but also introducing a number of gross historical misrepresentations and factual errors, which inherently called for our further clarification.

The modern Christian heritage of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh has its roots in the ancient Kingdom of (Caucasian) Albania, which in Armenian transliteration carried the name of Aghvank. Caucasian Albanians, the pre-Islamic ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, were Christians closely linked with neighboring Armenians and Georgians. But unlike the non-indigenous Indo-European-speaking Armenians, Caucasian Albanians were an indigenous Caucasian-speaking group.

According to the Armenian-American scholar, Professor R.G.Suny of the University of Michigan, in ancient and medieval times, the territory of present-day Nagorno-Karabakh region was a part of the kingdom of Caucasian Albanians. Upon the coming of Islam in medieval times, the Albanians in the eastern plain leading down to the Caspian Sea mixed with the Turkic population and eventually became Muslims (R.G.Suny, "Looking Towards Ararat: Armenia in Modern History", Indiana University Press, 1993, p. 193).Mr. Avetisyan claimed that the fifth-century "Canons of Aghven" were an Armenian constitutional edict because they were compiled in Artsakh. However, in the 1st century A.D., the region occupied by Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania (Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "NKAO, Historical Survey", 3rd edition, 1973). Further, according to the prominent Western historian on Caucasian Albania and Armenia, Professor C. J. F. Dowsett of Oxford, in the 9th century A.D., upon the Arab conquest of the Caucasus, Artsakh was ruled by the [Caucasian] Albanian princes: Artnerseh, Sahl ibn Sunbat, and Esay Abu Muse (C. J. F. Dowsett, "A Neglected Passage in the ‘History of the Caucasian Albanians’", BSOAS, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463). So Artsakh could not have been a part of the Parthian-ruled Armenia in the 5th century A.D.

The monastery of Amaras mentioned by Mr. Avetisyan, along with the monastery of Gandzasar also oft-claimed as an "ancient Armenian monument", were in fact the citadels of an autochthon Albanian Apostolic Church up until 1836, when it was incorporated into the Armenian Apostolic Church by the edict of Russian Czar. While Gandzasar was the center of the Catholicosate of Caucasian Albania up until that time, the Monastery of Amaras was claimed by the Armenian Church only in 1848.

Despite these facts, Mr. Avetisyan went on reiterating the popular Armenian claim that "Nagorno-Karabakh has never been part of Azerbaijan", and that, in 1921, it was "incorporated" into Azerbaijan. However, the only independent state in Karabakh after centuries of Muslim domination and the assimilation of Caucasian Albanian, Turkic and other ethnic groups into the modern Azerbaijanis, was the 18th century Karabakh khanate, established by Panah-Ali Khan Javanshir with a capital in the present-day city of Shusha. Another Armenian-American scholar, Professor Robert Hewsen, named Ibrahim Khan (the next ruler of Karabakh and the son of Panah-Ali) as the "Azeri khan of Karabakh" (Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, Vol. 6, 1995, p. 270). According to Russian censuses, Armenians comprised a minority in Karabakh and on the territory of present-day Armenia for the most of 19th century, despite their major resettlement from the Ottoman and Persian Empires after the Russian conquest of Caucasus. After the demise of Russian Empire, in 1918-1920, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was under the control of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, whose authority over Karabakh was officially recognized by the Allied Powers. Further, upon the establishment of Azerbaijan SSR, the Bolshevik Kavburo voted in 1921 not to "incorporate" but to "retain" it in Azerbaijan.

Mr. Avetisyan denied the existence of Azerbaijani people by stating that "Azerbaijanis" were indicated in 1939 census per the 1936 USSR Constitution. However, the millions of people, who recorded themselves as Azerbaijanis in that census, did not appear in 1930s all of a sudden. Undergoing the same process as all nations of the world, the uniform Azerbaijani national identity developed from the pre-Christian periods of ancient Caucasian Albania and Atropatene, incorporating Islamic and Turkic elements in medieval times, to become the first secular and democratic Muslim nation in 1918. Prior to 1936, Azerbaijanis were called Turks until Stalin, at the advise of his ethnic Armenian advisor, Anastas Mikoyan, decided to disassociate the Turkic people of Caucasus and Central Asia from Turkey. Under the similar move, in 1920, Soviet authorities granted Zangezur region to Armenia, separating Azerbaijan in two disjoined parts.

In its efforts to settle the historical differences with Turkey, the Armenian side often appeals to the notion of justice. Yet, similar to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" is just another self-proclaimed mono-ethnic entity in the Caucasus, established as a result of a foreign military aggression and a forceful exodus of the entire ethnos from the region. In fact, the "NKR" entity is not an independent party, as it cannot sustain itself today without the existence of its main sponsor, the Republic of Armenia. Neither does Mr. Avetisyan have a right to speak on behalf all people of Nagorno-Karabakh, third of which were stripped off the right to elect him, solely due to their ethnicity.

In the midst of a variety of opinions, never-ending grievances and misinterpretations of historical facts, one can only conclude that the focus in the Armenian-Azerbaijani debate over Nagorno-Karabakh should shift from the historical into the legal and political dimensions. So, Mr. Avetisyan's citing of the fact that the Parthian-ruled Kingdom of Armenia became a Christian state in 301 AD, by the way a century after the conversion of Abgar IX of the Kingdom of Edessa (Osroene) to Christianity by St. Thaddeus, is neither relevant nor productive in terms of emphasizing the importance of Karabakh's Armenian community. (For reference, Caucasian Albania adopted Christianity as a state religion in 313 AD). It only appears as another attempt by the Armenian side to baselessly transform the interpretation of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem from a purely interethnic conflict into a "clash of civilizations" of Christianity and Islam, seeking Western sympathy for Armenian side.

Mr. Avetisyan complained that Baku refuses to enter into a dialog with the "elected officials of NKR", while all reputable international organizations, such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, not to mention the ethnic Azerbaijanis of Nagorno-Karabakh, unequivocally called the "elections" in the occupied region as illegal and the "elected officials" as illegitimate for an obvious reason – no elections can be recognized and taken seriously when almost third of the population remains in exile waiting for repatriation. Naturally, no government can engage in a dialog with an illegal entity imposed by the neighboring country, as a result of ethnic cleansing and occupation. The only counterpart with whom the leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian community can and should enter into a dialog are the leaders of region's Azerbaijani community.

The representative of Karabakh's Armenian community further claimed that the first violence in the conflict were the tragic events of Sumgait in February 1988, which he dubbed as "an Azerbaijani response" to a "peaceful demand" for Nagorno-Karabakh's subordination to Armenia. But the first acts of violence took place few months earlier, in the fall of 1987, in the Armenian region of Gafan, followed by clashes in Askeran region of Nagorno-Karabakh in early February 1988, when 2 Azerbaijanis, the first victims of the conflict, were killed by the Armenian mob. By late February 1988, most of the Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia concentrated in Sumgait. Among the convicted perpetrators of the events in Sumgait were 3 ethnic Armenians – Eduard Grigoryan, Zhirayr Azizbekyan and Arkadi Oganov – who altogether killed over a fourth of the 26 Armenian victims (see the interviews of the then Deputy Prosecutor General of the USSR, Gen. Aleksandr Katusev). Ironically, Mr. Avetisyan mentioned Sumgait events, in which both Azerbaijani and Armenian perpetrators were arrested, tried, and sentenced by the court of law, while omitting the 1992 Khojaly massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenian armed forces with 20 times the number of victims of Sumgait. Unlike Sumgait riots, the war criminals who committed Khojaly massacre, and many of whom now hide in Armenia and Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan, were never brought to justice.

Mr. Avetisyan referred to a non-existent document(s) of the CSCE, which he said documents "an openly declared genocidal intentions of [Azerbaijan's] military campaign [against supposedly Nagorno-Karabakh]". If such documents existed in nature, the author would have not hesitated to provide details. On the contrary, in a letter addressed to the UN Security Council on November 9, 1993, the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Minsk Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh detailed the territories occupied by Armenian forces and outlined the required timetable for their withdrawal. In addition, Mr. Avetisyan accused Azerbaijan of not complying with four 1993 UN Security Council Resolutions, all of which, ironically, call for the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. It has been 16 years since Mr. Avetisyan and his protectors in Yerevan have ignored these international demands.

It shall be understood that while the present conditions of Armenia's military occupation preclude the much desired participation of Karabakh's ethnic Armenian community in the peace process, a lasting peace in Nagorno-Karabakh can only be achieved after the return and peaceful co-existence of all of region's ethnic communities, cessation of all occupation, and moving away from constant and continuous attempts to degrade, insult, ignore and deny the very right to exist of the Azerbaijani community of Karabakh, and the Azerbaijani people as a whole.

Tomris Azeri, President of Azerbaijan Society of America (ASA)
Adil Baguirov, Ph.D., Co-founder and Managing Director of U.S. Azeris Network (USAN)
Javid Huseynov, Ph.D., Co-founder and General Director of Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC)
Vugar Seidov, Ph.D., AzerTAG, Founder of the Azerbaijani National Cultural Association (Hungary)

Note: All four authors hail from once Azerbaijani-populated regions currently controlled or otherwise occupied by Armenia

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article #2: 1,300 word article submitted on August 4, 2009:

THE RETURN AND EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF KARABAKH'S ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IS THE ONLY PATH TOWARDS LASTING PEACE

by Javid Huseynov, Adil Baguirov, Vugar Seidov, Tomris Azeri

In the context of Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations for a peaceful resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the reengagement of region’s ethnic communities is an important topic. The conditions of such reengagement were enshrined in the "Baker Rules" proposed in 1992 by the mission of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, OSCE Minsk Group predecessor), led by then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker III. Agreed to by all sides, these rules recognized the two communities of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan as "interested parties", and Armenia and Azerbaijan – as "principal parties".

In this context, one could only welcome the title of a commentary published by the representative of Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic Armenian community, Mr. Robert Avetisyan, in RFE/RL on July 14, 2009 – "Nagorno-Karabakh Must No Longer Be Barred From The Negotiating Table". Yet the author stopped short of mentioning the ethnic Azerbaijani community, which prior to the conflict in 1988 comprised a third of Nagorno-Karabakh's population and 99% of the population of 7 surrounding occupied regions of Azerbaijan. Instead of discussing the legal and political aspects of conflict resolution, the focus has shifted to counter-productive historical allegations aimed at denying the existence of Azerbaijanis. In this light, some historical facts pertinent to the region need to be clarified.

Historical context and identity

The modern Christian heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh has its roots in the ancient kingdom of Caucasian Albania, called “Aghvank” in Armenian. Unlike the Indo-European-speaking Armenians, [Caucasian] Albanians – the pre-Islamic ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis – were an indigenous Caucasian-speaking group. Both Caucasian Albania and the Parthian-ruled Armenia were converted to Christianity in 4th century A.D. While the religion was brought to Armenia by St. Gregory the Illuminator, an ethnic Parthian noble, the first Christian church in Caucasus was built in Albania. The Church of Kish, presently located in Sheki region of Azerbaijan, was established by St. Eliseus, a disciple of St. Thaddeus, who in 201 A.D. converted king Abgar IX of Edessa, making Osroene the first Christian state.

The territory of present-day Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) belonged to Caucasian Albania in the 1st century A.D. (Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1973). Upon the Islamic conquest of the Caucasus in the 9th century, Artsakh was ruled by the Albanian princes (C. J. F. Dowsett, "A Neglected Passage in the ‘History of the Caucasian Albanians’", BSOAS, 19(3), 1957), while the [Caucasian] Albanians in the eastern plain [of Karabakh] mixed with Turkic population and became Muslims (R.G. Suny, "Looking Towards Ararat: Armenia in Modern History”, 1993). Inevitably, the "Canons of Aghvan" composed in 5th century A.D. were a part of [Caucasian] Albanian historical heritage shared by present-day Azerbaijanis.

The monasteries of Amaras and Gandzasar were the citadels of an autochthone Albanian Apostolic Church up until 1836, when Russian authorities incorporated it into the Armenian Apostolic Church. At the time, Gandzasar was the See of the Catholicate of Caucasian Albania, while the Amaras monastery was claimed by the Armenian Church only in 1848.The first independent state in Nagorno-Karabakh was the 18th century Karabakh khanate, established with a capital in present-day Shusha circa 1751 and ruled by an “Azeri khan” (R. Hewsen. Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, Vol. 6, 1995, p. 270). Despite major resettlements of Armenians from Ottoman and Persian domains, they remained a minority on the territories of present-day Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia throughout the most of 19th century. After the fall of Russian Empire, in 1918-1920, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was under the control of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, whose authority over Karabakh was officially recognized by the Allied Powers. After the establishment of Azerbaijan SSR, in 1921, the Bolshevik Kavburo voted not to "incorporate" but to "retain" Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

While the nationality of “Azerbaijani” was indicated in the 1939 Soviet census, the millions of Azerbaijanis did not appear out of nowhere. The formulation of a uniform Azerbaijani identity started in pre-Christian Caucasian Albania and Atropatene, incorporating Islamic and Turkic elements in medieval times, to become the first secular democratic Muslim nation in 1918. Prior to 1939, Azerbaijanis were called Turks until Stalin, at the advice of Anastas Mikoyan, decided to disassociate the Turkic people of Caucasus and Central Asia from Turkey. Under a similar move, in 1920, Soviet authorities granted Zangezur region to Armenia, separating Azerbaijan in two disjoined parts.

Political and legal aspects

In its efforts to settle the historical differences with Turkey, the Armenian side often appeals to the notion of justice. Yet the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" is an unjustly established mono-ethnic Armenian entity in the Caucasus. It is not independent because it cannot sustain itself without the existence of its sponsor, Armenia. But most importantly, it was established after an exodus of one ethnos forced by another. The so-called “NKR officials” cannot speak on behalf of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, because third of those were stripped of the right to choose due to their ethnicity. Therefore, Azerbaijan along with all reputable organizations, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, consider the “NKR elections” and “NKR officials” to be illegitimate.

Armenian side often claims that the Sumgait events of February 27, 1988 were a precursor of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. But the first acts of violence took place a few months earlier, in the fall of 1987, in the Armenian region of Kafan. These were followed by clashes in the Askeran region of Nagorno-Karabakh in February 1988, when 2 Azerbaijanis were killed by the Armenian mob. By late February 1988, most of the Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia concentrated in Sumgait. Among the convicted perpetrators of Sumgait events were also 3 ethnic Armenians who killed fourth of their 26 fallen compatriots (per Deputy Prosecutor General of the USSR).

Ironically, while Sumgait is highlighted in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not as much attention is paid to the 1992 Khojaly massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenian forces. Named the worst violence of the conflict by Human Rights Watch, Khojaly bore a civilian death toll of 20 times that of Sumgait. While both Azerbaijani and Armenian perpetrators in Sumgait were tried and sentenced by the court of law, those responsible for Khojaly were never brought to justice. And many of them hide in Armenia and the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

Contrary to the Armenian allegations that Azerbaijan intended to cleanse Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population, in a letter addressed to the UN Security Council on November 9, 1993, the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Minsk Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh detailed the territories occupied by Armenian forces and outlined the required timetable for their withdrawal. Additionally, all four of the 1993 UN Security Council Resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh call for the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. It has been 16 years since the “NKR officials” and their protectors in Yerevan refused to fulfill these international demands.

At present, Armenia's military occupation precludes the much desired participation of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian community in the peace process. But it is our firm belief that lasting peace in Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be achieved without the reengagement of its ethnic communities. Repatriation of Azerbaijanis of Nagorno-Karabakh and their peaceful coexistence with Armenian counterparts is a key prerequisite on this path. Furthermore, to reestablish the much-needed trust between the two nations, it is important for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis to refrain from attempts to insult or deny the right for existence of the opposite side.

Javid Huseynov, Ph.D., General Director of Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC)
Adil Baguirov, Ph.D., Managing Director of U.S. Azeris Network (USAN)
Vugar Seidov, Ph.D., AzerTAG, Founder of the Azerbaijani National Cultural Association (Hungary)
Tomris Azeri, President of Azerbaijan Society of America (ASA)
Note: All four authors hail from once Azerbaijani-populated regions currently controlled or otherwise occupied by Armenia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article #3: Mrs. Liz Fuller (Elizabeth Carlson) version (August 21, 2009):

THE RETURNAND EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF KARABAKH'S ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IS THE ONLY PATH TOWARDS LASTING PEACE [PLEASE SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE, SHORTER TITLE, AS IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IN ADDITION TO THE AZERBAIJANIS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RETURN TO KARABAKH]

by Javid Huseynov, Adil Baguirov, Vugar Seidov, and Tomris Azeri

In the context of Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the reengagement [what precisely do you mean by this term?] of the region's ethnic communities is an important topic. The conditions of such reengagement were enshrined in the so-called "Baker Rules" adopted in 1992 by a mission of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe headed by then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker III. Those rules recognized the two communities of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan as "interested parties", and Armenia and Azerbaijan – as "principal parties".

[cut this entire para in order to avoid the appearance of a polemic with Mr. Avetisyan]

In this context, one could only welcome the title of a commentary published by the representative of Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic Armenian community, Mr. Robert Avetisyan, in RFE/RL on July 14, 2009 – "Nagorno-Karabakh Must No Longer Be Barred From The Negotiating Table". Yet the author stopped short of mentioning the ethnic Azerbaijani community, which prior to the conflict in 1988 comprised a third of Nagorno-Karabakh's population and 99% of the population of 7 surrounding occupied regions of Azerbaijan. Instead of discussing the legal and political aspects of conflict resolution, the focus has shifted to counter-productive historical allegations aimed at denying the existence of Azerbaijanis. In this light, some historical facts pertinent to the region need to be clarified.

Historical context and identity

The modern Christian heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh has its roots in the ancient kingdom of Caucasian Albania, called “Aghvank” in Armenian. The Caucasian Albanians – the pre-Islamic ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis – were an indigenous Caucasian-speaking group. Both Caucasian Albania and the territory of present-day Armenia were converted to Christianity in the 4th century A.D. The first Christian church in the Caucasus was built in Albania, in what is today the Sheki Raion of Azerbaijan. The Canons of Aghvan composed in the 5th century A.D. were part of the Caucasian Albanian historical heritage.

Caucasian Albania included the territory of present-day Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh). At the time of the Islamic conquest of the Caucasus in the 9th century, Artsakh was ruled by Albanian princes.

The monasteries of Amaras and Gandzasar belonged to the autochthonous Albanian Apostolic Church until 1836, when the Tsarist authorities incorporated that church into the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The first independent state in Nagorno-Karabakh was the Karabakh khanate established circa 1751 with its capital in present-day Shusha. According to U.S. scholar Robert Hewsen, it was ruled by an “Azeri khan.” Despite major resettlements of Armenians from Ottoman and Persian domains, Armenians remained a minority on the territories of present-day Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia throughout the most of 19th century. From 1918-1920, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, whose authority over Karabakh was officially recognized by the Allied Powers. The Russian Bolshevik leadership ruled in 1921 that Nagorno-Karabakh should remain part of the Azerbaijan SSR.

The formation of Azerbaijani national identity started in pre-Christian Caucasian Albania and Atropatene, incorporating Islamic and Turkic elements during the Middle Ages. The short-lived Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was the world's first secular democratic Muslim state. The ethnonym "Azerbaijani" was introduced in 1939 to replace the term "Turk" in order to differentiate between the Turks of Azerbaijan and the Turkic peoples of Central Asia.

Political and legal aspects

CUT -- there is no logical connection between this statement and the second half of the sentence In its efforts to settle the historical differences with Turkey, the Armenian side often appeals to the notion of justice. Yet the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" is a mono-ethnic Armenian entity unjustly established after the forced exodus of the Azerbaijani population of the region. It is not independent because it cannot sustain itself without the support of its sponsor, Armenia. The so-called “NKR officials” cannot speak on behalf of the former Azerbaijani population of the region. Azerbaijan considers the elections that have been held in Nagorno-Karabakh and its elected officials as lacking legitimacy. The United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the OSCE also regard those elections as legally invalid.

The Armenian side often claims that the slaughter of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait in late February 27, 1988 was a precursor of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. But the first acts of violence [how many people were killed? If there were no fatalities, any comparison with Sumgait is spurious] took place a few months earlier, in the fall of 1987, in the Armenian region of Kafan, triggering an exodus of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. Angry Armenians killed two Azerbaijanis in the Askeran region of Nagorno-Karabakh just days before the Sumgait massacre.

Sumgait was the first massacre of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but the death toll was far lower than that in February 1992, when Russian troops and Karabakh Armenian self-defense forces attacked the Azerbaijani village of Khojaly, killing over 600 civilians in what Human Rights Watch termed [when?] the worst single incident of violence of the conflict. While the Azerbaijani perpetrators (and three Armenians) were brought to trial and sentenced for their role in the Sumgait massacre, those responsible for Khojaly were never brought to justice. And many of them hide in Armenia and the occupied territories of Azerbaijan [source?] .Cut -- there is no logical connection between this and the following statement Contrary to the Armenian allegations that Azerbaijan intended to cleanse Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population,

In a letter addressed to the UN Security Council in November 1993, the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Minsk Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh listed the districts of Azerbaijan bordering on Karabakh that were occupied by Armenian forces and outlined a timetable for the withdrawal of those forces. The UN Security Council adopted four resolutions in 1993 calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities by both sides, a formal lasting ceasefire, and the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

At present, Armenia's military occupation of those seven districts precludes the much desired participation of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian community in the peace process [EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY]. Lasting peace in Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be achieved without the return of the former Azerbaijani population (which prior to 1988 accounted for approximately one quarter of the region's 160,000 inhabitants) and their harmonious coexistence with their Armenian neighbors. Furthermore, to reestablish the much-needed trust between the two nations, it is important for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis to refrain from any hostile, derogatory or inflammatory rhetoric.

Javid Huseynov, Ph.D., General Director of Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC)
Adil Baguirov, Ph.D., Managing Director of U.S. Azeris Network (USAN)
Vugar Seidov, Ph.D., AzerTAG, Founder of the Azerbaijani National Cultural Association (Hungary)
Tomris Azeri, President of Azerbaijan Society of America (ASA)
Note: All four authors hail from once Azerbaijani-populated regions currently controlled or otherwise occupied [how do you define the difference between these two terms?] by Armenia.