Armenian political scientists slam Baku’s regime in their article
published in Russia Today
14:45, 9 August, 2014
YEREVAN, AUGUST 9, ARMENPRESS. The Armenian political scientists Vahan
Dilanyan and Vilen Khlgatyan authored an article for RT titled “A not
so ‘frozen’ conflict in the South Caucasus”, where they analyzed the
recent developments over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and sharply
criticized the terrorist nature of Baku’s regime. “Armenpress” News
Agency introduces the article in its entirety.
“As the world is preoccupied with the events unfolding in Gaza and
eastern Ukraine, another zone of conflict has flared up in the South
Caucasus.
The military attacks of the Azerbaijani army intensified in mid-July
straining the status quo on the Line of Contact (LoC) between Artsakh
(Nagorno-Karabkah Republic) and Azerbaijan as well as along the
Azerbaijan-Armenia border.
Between July 28 and August 2, five Artsakhi and twenty-five
Azerbaijani soldiers were killed as a result of these actions. The
numbers of dead are higher than all of last year’s deaths.
While both states were quick to blame one another, the fact remains
that only Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated its intentions to restart
the war in order to conquer Artsakh and force its freedom loving
people to live under the Ilham Aliyev tyrannical regime. Only
Azerbaijan has consistently portrayed Armenians as the evil ‘other,’
and only Azerbaijan has regularly refused to ease tensions on the LoC
via confidence building measures such as removing snipers, or at the
very least agreeing not to fire upon civilians farming near the border
regions.
The high numbers of casualties among Azerbaijani soldiers suggest that
they are the attacking side. Moreover, a defending side cannot leave
armaments and equipment on the other side’s territory.
The Azerbaijani policy of firing at the peaceful population living in
Armenian border villages, as well as medical vehicles with the symbol
of the International Red Cross, cynically violates core humanitarian
principles, affirmed in the Geneva Conventions. Baku also sponsors and
utilizes human resources to conduct sabotage and subversive acts
within Armenia and Artsakh.
Such a move could accelerate the growth of terrorism in Azerbaijan,
where the irrational facets of the hatred culture serve as a basis for
the development of a pathological cruelty that is at the root of
terrorism. Stemming from low socio-economic conditions and
homelessness in many regions of the country, Azerbaijanis are an easy
target for recruiters of terrorist and radical extremist groups.
Experience shows that there is an active link between terrorist
attacks and a conflict zone, with the latter serving as a fertile soil
for conducting such attacks. The large number of Azerbaijani nationals
engaged in terrorist activities in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Syria, and recently Iraq, alongside the Islamic State (formerly known
as ISIS) reaffirms this notion.
The recent inhuman behavior by Azerbaijani saboteurs as part of an
intelligence-diversion activity in Artsakh’s Shahumyan district,
resulted in the callous killing of a 17 year old Armenian. This is yet
another example of the kill-mania of Aliyev’s regime and the
terroristic essence of the Azerbaijani party. An earlier expression of
this was the hero’s welcome given to Azerbaijani officer and convicted
axe murderer, Ramil Safarov, who, during a NATO training seminar,
hacked to death a sleeping soldier with an axe solely because he was
Armenian.
Meanwhile, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen states (US, France,
Russia) were quick to resort to their usual script of telling all
sides to respect the ceasefire, refrain from violence, and look for a
peaceful political solution.
What this policy of false parity generates is a sense of impunity for
the Azerbaijani regime to continue to raise tensions, threaten war,
andstigmatize Armenians in the eyes of their citizens, in other words,
the exact opposite of what the Co-chairmen states desire.
The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmanship also lacks (thus should be
granted) a mandate to conduct investigations of incidents in the
conflict zone, and requires more resources to prevent and condemn such
aggressive acts.
Additionally, the so-called Madrid principles of conflict settlement
proposed by the mediators, which have been serving as a factor
ensuring relative stability in the region, are much more unrealistic
in light of Azerbaijani behavior both internally and externally.
The recent spate of attacks coincides with Baku’s crackdown on civil
society and democracy activists. Most recently Arif and Leyla Yunus,
and Rasul Jafarov were arrested on trumped up charges of tax evasion
and treason.
Official Baku aims to channel the unhappiness of its citizens away
from its inept and corrupt rule toward the external enemy by
escalating tensions against Armenia and Artsakh. Other than mild
criticism from the OSCE, and the US State Department, no pressure has
been brought to bear on Aliyev’s regime for its increased
authoritarianism.
The reasons are obvious enough: the West needs Azerbaijan as part of
its wider plan to weaken Russia’s stranglehold on energy supplies to
the EU, and fears that any criticism will drive Aliyev to seek a
partnership with Russia instead.
The planned withdrawal from Afghanistan also requires Azerbaijani
support, since some NATO equipment will require transit through
Azerbaijan.
Moreover, since the West knows it has no chance of prying Armenia away
from its alliance with Russia, it is not willing to expend much if any
of its political capital to force Azerbaijan to behave.
After all, the West prefers Azerbaijan’s hydrocarbons to anything
Armenia may have to offer them.
The aforementioned resulted in the inclusion of Azerbaijan along with
several other countries in a new US Senate bill called the “Russian
Aggression Prevention Act” aimed at “preventing further Russian
aggression toward Ukraine and other sovereign states in Europe and
Eurasia, and for other purposes.”
If enacted the bill authorizes substantial increase of
“military-to-military interactions” of the US armed forces with the
ones of Azerbaijan “including specifically increasing the current
tempo of military exercises and training efforts and exchanges” as
well as “strengthening existing, bilateral and multilateral defense
cooperation agreements including agreements related to cyber defense
cooperation.”
The irony here is that the bill would encourage Azerbaijan to continue
its aggressive policies, since it is the most militarized and
warmongering party in the region, and the primary obstacle to the
creation of regional security architecture.
>From the other side, Russia, which is preoccupied with its internal
economic situation due to Western sanctions, and the civil war in
Ukraine, might be loath to see another conflict flare up so close to
its borders. Although there is a possibility of the Kremlin
stimulating these tensions in order to find a pretext to station its
‘peacekeepers’ in the area, officials in Yerevan and Stepanakert have
repeatedly and categorically eschewed such a prospect.
Hence, at the end of this week, Sargsyan and Aliyev will meet Putin in
Sochi. Although Moscow aims to control a region of its so-called
“exclusive zone of interests” with only one meeting, nothing of
substance for conflict resolution will come out of the Sochi talks.
However, President Sargsyan must use the occasion to bring up the
topic of Azerbaijan’s militarization with a strong notice of criticism
toward Russia’s willingness to sell billions of dollars in armaments
to Baku, and how this is directly contributing to a rise in bloodshed.
Therefore Sargsyan ought to press for a halt in sales of weaponry to Azerbaijan.
Nevertheless, tensions will remain high along the LoC with further
escalations and incidents initiated by the Azerbaijani side. If things
continue as they have, it is only a matter of time before one side
miscalculates, likely Azerbaijan, and ignites a new round of war.
Even if a rational war is not predicted, an adventurous one is likely.
The situation could get out of hand as a result of misinformation
stimulating policymakers within the Baku regime to remain belligerent
and escalate the conflict.
Due to the effective and accurate policy of Armenia’s Ministry of
Defense, which is releasing cautionary statements, holding meetings
with foreign military attachés, ambassadors, and providing up-to-date
information on the developments along the LoC, an appropriate
information environment has been set for an Armenian counter-attack.
Thus, if Azerbaijan continues to keep tensions high, the Armenian
military response would be intense and unexpected.
In any scenario the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen states, and other
interested actors, such as the UK will bear as much responsibility as
the instigating party. One cannot arm the aggressor on the one hand
and expect peace on the other.
Vahan Dilanyan and Vilen Khlgatyan for RT Dr. Vahan Dilanyan is a
recognized expert on regional security and conflict resolution. He
serves as the Chairman of the Political Developments Research Center
(PDRC), a think-tank based in Yerevan.
Vilen Khlgatyan specializes in integrated strategy and national
security with an emphasis in the geopolitics of energy. He is the Vice
Chairman of the PDRC.”
http://armenpress.am/eng/news/772103/armenian-political-scientists-slam-baku%E2%80%99s-regime-in-their-article-published-in-russia-today.html