Category: 2021

Asbarez: Dr. Umit Kurt to Discuss ‘The Armenians of Aintab’ in Zoom Presentation

Elizabeth Jabejian
by Contributor

 

 

 

in Latest, News, Top Stories

Dr. Ümit Kurt

Dr. Ümit Kurt, a Polonsky Fellow at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, will speak on “The Armenians of Aintab: The Economics of Genocide in an Ottoman Province” in a zoom presentation. The presentation, which will be held on Saturday, October 30 at 10:00 a.m. PST, is part of the Fall 2021 Lecture Series of the Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno. The lecture is based on the publication of his new book, “The Armenians of Aintab: The Economics of Genocide in an Ottoman Province” (Harvard University Press, 2021).

Ümit Kurt, born and raised in Gaziantep, Turkey, was astonished to learn that his hometown, called Aintab by the Ottomans, once had a large Armenian community. The Armenian presence had not only been destroyed—it had been replaced. Gaziantep was a typical Turkish city. Kurt provides an invaluable account of Genocide at ground level by digging into the details of the Armenian dispossession, examining, in particular, the population that gained from ethnic cleansing. Records demonstrate how much new wealth became available when the prosperous Armenians were ejected. Kurt shows that the prospect of material gain was a key motivator of support for the genocide. Those who benefited most then financed the nationalist movement that brought the modern Turkish republic into being. The economic elite of Aintab was thus reconstituted along both ethnic and political lines.

Ümit Kurt is a historian of the late Ottoman Empire with a particular focus on the transformations of the imperial structures and their role in constituting the republican regime. He received his Ph.D. from Clark University in 2016. Since then, he has held a number of postdoctoral positions in the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University and the Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno. Currently, he is a Research Fellow at Polonsky Academy in the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute and teaches in the department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of “Antep 1915: Genocide and Perpetrators” (2018), co-author of “The Spirit of the Laws: The Plunder of Wealth in the Armenian Genocide” (2015) and editor of “Armenians and Kurds in Late Ottoman Empire” (2020). He is the winner of the 2021 Discovery Early Career Research Award given by the Australian Research Council. 

Zoom Registration Link

For information about upcoming Armenian Studies Program presentations, follow their Facebook page, @ArmenianStudiesFresnoState or at the Program website.

The California Courier Online, October 14, 2021

Alex Jidarian

1-         Why Did the Turkish Institute
            In Washington Close Down?
            By Harut Sassounian
            Publisher, The California Courier
            www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com
2-         Armenian Neurobiologist Ardem Patapoutian Wins Nobel Prize
in Medicine
3-         Meet Joan Agajanian Quinn, Art “Accumulator” and Muse to
Warhol, Hockney
            The Los Angeles legend’s highly personal trove of art will
be exhibited
            at the Bakersfield Museum of Art throughout the fall until January
4-        Four Children: New Genocide Play Premiers in Kansas
5-         Armenia Continues Fight Against COVID-19

************************************************************************************************************************************************

1-         Why Did the Turkish Institute

            In Washington Close Down?

            By Harut Sassounian
            Publisher, The California Courier
            www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com
The Hoya, the student newspaper of Georgetown University in
Washington, DC, published last week a lengthy investigative article
about the demise of the Institute of Turkish Studies, established by
the Turkish government. Interestingly, a note at the bottom of the
article stated that it was written by Liam Scott and another staff
writer who “requested anonymity due to safety concerns in Turkey.”

Even though the Institute was established to paint a positive picture
of Turkey in the United States, it ended up antagonizing its own
American board members when the Turkish government decided to shut it
down.

In 1982, the government of Turkey founded the Institute of Turkish
Studies (ITS) at Georgetown University with an endowment of $3
million. The purpose was to give Turkey a respectable image in the
United States by recruiting and funding American academics who would
do research on Turkish topics. Throughout its existence, the ITS spent
around $350,000 a year to give “grants, scholarships, subventions, and
seed money” to 400 scholars in 19 universities to publish books and
journals in order to promote Turkish studies. The ITS stated that it
played “a key role in furthering knowledge and understanding of a key
NATO ally of the United States, the Republic of Turkey.”

Not surprisingly, the ITS had appointed as its Honorary Chairman of
the board of governors Turkey’s Ambassador to the U.S. to oversee its
activities and funding decisions. The board consisted of prominent
former State Department officials and well-known American scholars in
Ottoman and modern Turkish studies. The first Executive Director of
the ITS was Heath Lowry, a denialist of the Armenian Genocide.

I got involved in a legal dispute with the ITS in 1985 after I wrote
an editorial in the California Courier titled, “How the Turks Use Our
Tax Dollars Against Us.” I pointed out that many of the scholars who
had received grants from the ITS were the same ones who had signed a
statement denying the Armenian Genocide. The statement was published
as a paid ad in The Washington Post and The New York Times on May 19,
1985. Lowry was involved in drafting this statement and collecting
signatures for it. In my article, I reported that 20 of the 69
signatories of the statement had received tens of thousands of dollars
from the ITS. Lowry’s role in this ad was a violation of the
tax-exempt status of the ITS which was legally prohibited from
political lobbying at a time when the U.S. Congress was considering
adopting a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. The ITS also
contradicted its own statement that it “does not seek to influence
legislation nor advocate particular policies or agendas.”

Even though I had obtained the amounts received by the scholars who
had signed this denialist statement from an ITS brochure, the ITS sent
a letter threatening my newspaper with a major lawsuit, unless I
published a lengthy retraction, which I refused to do. The ITS dropped
the lawsuit.

The Hoya article provided extensive details about the collapse of the
ITS, a Turkish propaganda project disguised as an academic endeavor.
The Institute was closed down in September 2020 because some of the
independent-minded scholars on its board had refused to go along with
the directives of the Turkish government.

The Hoya wrote that “according to former ITS Executive Director Sinan
Ciddi and former ITS board members Walter Denny and Steven Cook,
Turkey’s decision to defund the ITS came amid rising government
pressure to blindly support and loyally promote Erdogan. The ITS was
caught in the line of fire of government repression that has
characterized Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic Turkey, they said.”

Ciddi, a Georgetown professor of Turkish studies, told The Hoya that
the ITS was initially a separate entity from Georgetown University.
Later on, the University “provided the ITS with office space and
administrative assistance, but the university did not have a say in
the Institute’s operations. Georgetown also supplemented the salary of
the Institute’s executive director after the ITS lost funding from the
Turkish government.” Prof. Jenny White, who served on the ITS board
for nearly 20 years, told The Hoya that the ITS was “the best
advertisement that there could have been for Turkey.”

In 2006, former Binghamton University professor Donald Quataert
resigned as chairman of the ITS board after insisting on the
importance of researching the Armenian Genocide, reported The Hoya.
The Middle East Studies Association’s Committee on Academic Freedom,
in an open letter to then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
complained that “Quataert resigned because of pressure from the
Turkish government. Several other ITS board members resigned in
support of Quataert.”

As Erdogan became more repressive, the Institute was viewed by the
Turkish government as funding academic research that was not favorable
to Turkey. In May 2015, Turkish ambassador to the U.S. Serdar Kilic,
during the semi-annual dinner at the Turkish Embassy in Washington,
DC, complained to ITS chairman Ross Wilson that “some recent work from
the ITS was negative toward the Turkish government and expressed
interest in redirecting the work of ITS to politically benefit the
government,” The Hoya reported. Amb. Kilic then cancelled the
scheduled ITS dinner in the fall of 2015. Finally, “in early September
2015, Saltzman and Evinch, a Washington, D.C. law firm representing
Turkey’s U.S. embassy,” told the Institute that the Turkish government
would no longer fund the ITS. Later, Kilic sent a letter confirming
the end of funding.

“After Turkey cut the organization’s funding, the [Georgetown
University’s] School of Foreign Service provided the ITS with
additional financial and administrative support,” The Hoya reported.
The ITS had enough funds to continue its operations till Sept. 30,
2020 when it finally closed its doors.

The saga of the failed Institute of Turkish Studies should be a lesson
to all universities not to repeat the mistake of Georgetown, welcoming
a politically-motivated project contrary to its academic standards.
Mixing academics and politics is never a good idea!

************************************************************************************************************************************************
2-         Armenian Neurobiologist Ardem Patapoutian Wins Nobel Prize
in Medicine

, published last week a lengthy investigative article about the demise
of the Institute of Turkish Studies, established by the Turkish
government. Interestingly, a note at the bottom of the article stated
that it was written by Liam Scott and another staff writer who
“requested anonymity due to safety concerns in Turkey.”

Even though the Institute was established to paint a positive picture
of Turkey in the United States, it ended up antagonizing its own
American board members when the Turkish government decided to shut it
down.

In 1982, the government of Turkey founded the Institute of Turkish
Studies (ITS) at Georgetown University with an endowment of $3
million. The purpose was to give Turkey a respectable image in the
United States by recruiting and funding American academics who would
do research on Turkish topics. Throughout its existence, the ITS spent
around $350,000 a year to give “grants, scholarships, subventions, and
seed money” to 400 scholars in 19 universities to publish books and
journals in order to promote Turkish studies. The ITS stated that it
played “a key role in furthering knowledge and understanding of a key
NATO ally of the United States, the Republic of Turkey.”

Not surprisingly, the ITS had appointed as its Honorary Chairman of
the board of governors Turkey’s Ambassador to the U.S. to oversee its
activities and funding decisions. The board consisted of prominent
former State Department officials and well-known American scholars in
Ottoman and modern Turkish studies. The first Executive Director of
the ITS was Heath Lowry, a denialist of the Armenian Genocide.

I got involved in a legal dispute with the ITS in 1985 after I wrote
an editorial in the California Courier titled, “How the Turks Use Our
Tax Dollars Against Us.” I pointed out that many of the scholars who
had received grants from the ITS were the same ones who had signed a
statement denying the Armenian Genocide. The statement was published
as a paid ad in The Washington Post and The New York Times on May 19,
1985. Lowry was involved in drafting this statement and collecting
signatures for it. In my article, I reported that 20 of the 69
signatories of the statement had received tens of thousands of dollars
from the ITS. Lowry’s role in this ad was a violation of the
tax-exempt status of the ITS which was legally prohibited from
political lobbying at a time when the U.S. Congress was considering
adopting a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. The ITS also
contradicted its own statement that it “does not seek to influence
legislation nor advocate particular policies or agendas.”

Even though I had obtained the amounts received by the scholars who
had signed this denialist statement from an ITS brochure, the ITS sent
a letter threatening my newspaper with a major lawsuit, unless I
published a lengthy retraction, which I refused to do. The ITS dropped
the lawsuit.

The Hoya article provided extensive details about the collapse of the
ITS, a Turkish propaganda project disguised as an academic endeavor.
The Institute was closed down in September 2020 because some of the
independent-minded scholars on its board had refused to go along with
the directives of the Turkish government.

The Hoya wrote that “according to former ITS Executive Director Sinan
Ciddi and former ITS board members Walter Denny and Steven Cook,
Turkey’s decision to defund the ITS came amid rising government
pressure to blindly support and loyally promote Erdogan. The ITS was
caught in the line of fire of government repression that has
characterized Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic Turkey, they said.”

Ciddi, a Georgetown professor of Turkish studies, told The Hoya that
the ITS was initially a separate entity from Georgetown University.
Later on, the University “provided the ITS with office space and
administrative assistance, but the university did not have a say in
the Institute’s operations. Georgetown also supplemented the salary of
the Institute’s executive director after the ITS lost funding from the
Turkish government.” Prof. Jenny White, who served on the ITS board
for nearly 20 years, told The Hoya that the ITS was “the best
advertisement that there could have been for Turkey.”

In 2006, former Binghamton University professor Donald Quataert
resigned as chairman of the ITS board after insisting on the
importance of researching the Armenian Genocide, reported The Hoya.
The Middle East Studies Association’s Committee on Academic Freedom,
in an open letter to then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
complained that “Quataert resigned because of pressure from the
Turkish government. Several other ITS board members resigned in
support of Quataert.”

As Erdogan became more repressive, the Institute was viewed by the
Turkish government as funding academic research that was not favorable
to Turkey. In May 2015, Turkish ambassador to the U.S. Serdar Kilic,
during the semi-annual dinner at the Turkish Embassy in Washington,
DC, complained to ITS chairman Ross Wilson that “some recent work from
the ITS was negative toward the Turkish government and expressed
interest in redirecting the work of ITS to politically benefit the
government,” The Hoya reported. Amb. Kilic then cancelled the
scheduled ITS dinner in the fall of 2015. Finally, “in early September
2015, Saltzman and Evinch, a Washington, D.C. law firm representing
Turkey’s U.S. embassy,” told the Institute that the Turkish government
would no longer fund the ITS. Later, Kilic sent a letter confirming
the end of funding.

“After Turkey cut the organization’s funding, the [Georgetown
University’s] School of Foreign Service provided the ITS with
additional financial and administrative support,” The Hoya reported.
The ITS had enough funds to continue its operations till Sept. 30,
2020 when it finally closed its doors.

The saga of the failed Institute of Turkish Studies should be a lesson
to all universities not to repeat the mistake of Georgetown, welcoming
a politically-motivated project contrary to its academic standards.
Mixing academics and politics is never a good idea!

JERUSALEM—The Synod of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem issued a
statement on September 9 ratifying and confirming the decision to
lease the lands owned by the patriarchate in Goveroun Bardez to a
company which will build a hotel (this statement appeared in The
California Courier on September 16, 2021).

The Higher Presidential Committee of Church Affairs in Palestine
issued a letter on September 22 expressing concerns about this lease.
On Sept. 22, a letter was sent by Ramzi Khoury, head of the
Palestinian Higher Presidential Committee for Churches Affairs in
Palestine, to Catholicos of All Armenians Patriarch Karekin II calling
land transactions in the Armenian Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem
a violation of international law, since the area inside the Old City
is an “integral part of the Palestinian occupied territories” governed
by relevant international resolutions.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry has also been “urged to intervene,”
according to a statement by the Higher Presidential Committee.

Father Baret Yeretzian, Real Estate Director of the Armenian
Patriarchate of Jerusalem, sent an open letter to the Head of the
Palestinian higher Presidential Committee for Churches Affairs in
Palestine, responding to accusation leveled against the Armenian
Patriarchate for leasing a property in Jerusalem’s Old City known as
the Cows’ Garden to an Israeli hotel company. The California Courier
received the full text of the open letter, from Yeretzian to Khoury,
which is printed below:

“The Armenian Patriarchate is the exclusive owner of its property and
shall remain so at all times, the Patriarchate’s ownership was not
undermined under the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate, the
Jordanian and the Israeli regimes.

The un-protected lease is for a limited period of time and for the
specific purpose of a hotel.

The Patriarchate has full authority and exclusive prerogative to do as
it pleases with its properties.

The denomination and race of the counter party is irrelevant. The
Patriarchate was negotiating similar deals indiscriminately with
Armenians from Russia, with an Arab from Jordan, and people of other
nationalities none of whom followed through.

It is our duty to utilize our properties for the welfare of our
Patriarchate and we have been doing so for centuries.

Irresponsible comments that are made public might encourage extremists
to take extreme measures. One should also remember that he might be
held responsible for such consequences.

You claim that you want to protect our land, let me remind you when we
begged your committee to help us against the Abu Hawa family who
infiltrated in our property on Mount of Olives, you turned blind eye
on us, we did request also others without mentioning their names, they
did the same.

We cannot help suspecting that your criticism against us is aimed to
undermine and weaken the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, in favor
of your own religious leadership who sold properties in the heart of
the Old City of Jerusalem. The Armenian Patriarchate maintains its
neutrality and un-involvement in political and racial matters. Please
do not drag us into such disputes and do not use us in order to
promote your political agenda.

Let me remind you we hold in highest esteem and sympathy the
Palestinian and Jordanian people, and I have the honor of being a
Jordanian citizen myself.”
************************************************************************************************************************************************

3-         Meet Joan Agajanian Quinn, Art “Accumulator” and Muse to
Warhol, Hockney

            The Los Angeles legend’s highly personal trove of art will
be exhibited

            at the Bakersfield Museum of Art throughout the fall until January

By Stefani Dias, Abby Aguirre

(W Magazine / The Bakersfield Californian)—Like many fascinating
stories, this one starts with two dynamic women. One a nexus of the
California contemporary art scene and the other a passionate advocate
for the arts in her hometown. Both are united by a desire to celebrate
what defines the California art scene.

At the Bakersfield Museum of Art, “On the Edge: Los Angeles Art,
1970s-1990s, from the Joan and Jack Quinn Family Collection” is an
unprecedented exhibition, featuring more than 150 objects from nearly
70 artists including Ed Moses, Billy Al Bengston, Lynda Benglis, Peter
Alexander, Frank Gehry, Robert Graham and Ed Ruscha.

This collection from the Quinns, amassed over decades of friendships
with these artists, is on display for the first time on this scale. A
previous 2010 exhibition at the Pilgrim School in Los Angeles, timed
to the dedication of its new arts center, only featured a fraction of
the works and was a limited four-day display whereas the Bakersfield
exhibition will remain on display through Jan. 8.

Joan Agajanian Quinn credits BMoA curator Rachel McCullah Wainwright
with her decision to share the family’s personal collection with the
public. She persisted until she wore me down — and I’m glad she did,”
Quinn said. “I’m very excited, honored to be there. Rachel has been
absolutely fantastic. … I appreciate what she’s done, bringing those
family feelings that we have out to the forefront, to understand what
this collection is.”

For many viewers, “On the Edge” is a stunning display of some of the
best art from the West Coast, but for Quinn it goes much deeper. Joan
and her husband, who passed away in 2017, helped foster a creative
community for artists to grow and share their work as the contemporary
art scene continued to evolve.

Some of the artists Quinn has known for decades, meeting many in her
youth — including Dora De Larios in middle school, Billy Al Bengston
while working at a department store in high school, and Ken Price and
David Novros in the art department at USC. Over the years, she and her
husband supported their friends by buying art and encouraging John’s
lawyer colleagues to also buy art. As a journalist, Joan also promoted
the arts as the West Coast editor of Interview magazine, society
editor of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, and writing for Condé Nast
Traveler and House & Garden.

“These things have been on the walls in my house, placed on the walls
by each artist,” Joan Quinn said of her collection. “They came in and
installed their work. Played off of each other like friends on the
wall.”

“What separates the Quinns (from other collectors) is the work that
she did to promote these artists,” Wainwright said. “She was the one
buying the pieces directly from these artists in their studios before
they became successful. As I’m planning this show, she’s having
conversations weekly with these artists. The relationships have been
maintained.”

Joan Quinn has had her portrait painted by dozens of artists —
including David Hockey, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Ed Ruscha, Billy Al
Bengston — as have members of her family, and some of those works open
the new exhibition.

“She was excited to show the portraits, using the portraits to start
the story,” Wainwright said. “It’s a more historical and academic
approach to the story.”

Quinn said having an educational component to the exhibition was
another reason she was excited to be involved with BMoA. “Rachel said
schools come in and have lectures. That’s what demystifies the museum.
It’s not sacred ground. You can go in and be inspired and be
fulfilled. New ideas come into your mind. You follow suit and maybe be
an artist yourself.”

Additional programming includes a symposium on Nov. 18 with exhibiting
artists including Andy Moses, Ned Evans, Laddie John Dill, Charles
Arnoldi and Lita Albuquerque.

There will be a Zoom panel discussion about Steven Arnold, a protege
of Salvador Dalí, on Oct. 19 with Vishnu Dass, director of “Steven
Arnold: Heavenly Bodies,” biographer Michael Michaud and Stephen
Jerrome, society photographer for the Herald Examiner.

And on Oct. 28, the museum’s annual Masquerade will include a
screening of the Arnold documentary and will take its inspiration from
Arnold’s The Nocturnal Dream Show series of midnight movies.

Along with enjoying the works, Quinn would like to encourage viewers
to begin or build their own art collection, driven by their interests
not their investments. “I hope that people can see that you don’t have
to have someone telling you what to buy. We never had an art adviser
or art consultant.”

“My husband and I never sold anything. It was like having our friends
on our walls. Don’t think of it as an investment. It’s something that
you want to love, be with every day.”

The Quinn marriage seems to have been a love story of Johnny Cash and
June Carter proportions. “They were opposites that matched perfectly,”
their daughter Amanda told W Magazine. Amanda’s twin sister, Jennifer,
referenced one of the portraits—a pair of double doors made of found
printed metal by Tony Berlant. “My dad is the rooted tree, and my mom
is the tornado of movement,” she explained.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

4-        Four Children: New Genocide Play Premiers in Kansas

KANSAS CITY—Kansas City Actors Theater is staging Four Children, a
play based around eye-witness accounts of four genocide survivors,
including Vahram Dadrian’s “To the Desert: Pages from My Diary.”

Vahram Dadrian was exiled with the rest of his family from Chorum to
Jersh (Jordan) in 1915. An aspiring writer, he kept notes of his
experiences and wrote them out into a full diary after WWI. His
account gives voice to his own experiences, as well as those of others
he saw around him. These included the emaciated remnants of
deportation convoys and other inmates of death camps.

“This is a powerful play that keeps the Armenian experience in focus
in the United States,” said Anoush Melkonian of the Gomidas Institute.
“We thank Kansas City Actors Theater for this timely and bold
production.”

Four Children will feature between October 7 to 24, 2021

***********************************************************************************************************************************************

5-         Armenia Continues Fight Against COVID-19

Armenia is continuing the fight against the third wave of COVID-19
cases, as the country continues promoting the vaccination phase.

The U.S. State Department on July 26 warned American citizens to
reconsider travel to Armenia due to the increase in cases of the
Covid-19.

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a
Level 3 Travel Health Notice for Armenia due to COVID-19, indicating a
high level of COVID-19 in the country,” said the State Department.

The State Department also urged U.S. citizens not to travel to the
Nagorno-Karabakh region due to armed conflict.

“The U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S.
citizens in Nagorno-Karabakh as U.S. government employees are
restricted from traveling there,” the State Department added.

There were 18,540 active cases in Armenia as of October 11. Armenia
has recorded 272,356 coronavirus cases and 5,549 deaths; 248,267 have
recovered.

************************************************************************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************************************************************************

California Courier Online provides readers of the Armenian News News Service
with a few of the articles in this week’s issue of The California
Courier. Letters to the editor are encouraged through our e-mail
address, . Letters are published with
the author’s name and location; authors are required to disclose their
identity to the editorial staff (name, address, and/or telephone
numbers for verification purposes).
California Courier subscribers can change or modify mailing addresses
by emailing .

RFE/RL Armenian Report – 10/12/2021

Chakrian Hovsep 
                                        Tuesday, 
Putin, Pashinian Again Discuss Regional Developments
Russia- Russian President Vladimir Putin and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol 
Pashinian meet in Moscow, 
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian met 
in Moscow again on Tuesday for talks that apparently focused on the 
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
An Armenian government statement said they discussed “ongoing developments” in 
and around the conflict zone, efforts to shore up stability in the region and 
the implementation of Russian-brokered agreements to establish transport links 
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russian-Armenian relations were also on the 
agenda, added the statement.
Neither the government nor the Kremlin announced any agreements reached by the 
two leaders.
“We will talk in a formal and informal setting -- have lunch together, discuss 
current affairs, talk about prospects,” Putin told Pashinian in his opening 
remarks at what was their fourth meeting in less than a year. He said they will 
talk about a short-term and long-term “settlement in the region.”
“Unfortunately, we still cannot speak of a full stabilization of the situation 
in our region,” Pashinian said for his part. He stressed that Russia continues 
to play the “key role” in international efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and his Armenian counterpart Arshak 
Karapetian also met in Moscow on Monday.
The Armenian Defense Ministry said they discussed Russian-Armenian military 
ties, the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and “a number of issues 
relating to regional security.” It did not elaborate.
The Russian Defense Ministry issued no statements on Shoigu’s latest talks with 
Karapetian.
Putin also said on Tuesday that he wants to “compare notes” with Pashinian with 
regard to next month’s summit of ex-Soviet states, including Armenia, Azerbaijan 
and Russia. The leaders of all three countries are expected to attend it.
Both Pashinian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev expressed readiness 
earlier this month to meet with each other. Their most recent face-to-face 
meeting was hosted by Putin in Moscow in January.
Karabakh Refugees Protest In Yerevan
        • Nane Sahakian
Armenia - Refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh protest outside the main government 
builing in Yerevan, September 9, 2021.
Refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh again rallied outside the main government 
building in Yerevan on Tuesday to accuse the Armenian authorities of neglecting 
their grave socioeconomic problems.
The nearly 100 protesters are former residents of Karabakh’s southern Hadrut 
district occupied by Azerbaijani forces during last year’s war.
More than 10,000 ethnic Armenians lived in the district before the outbreak of 
the six-war in September 2020. Virtually all of them fled their homes, taking 
refuge in Armenia as well as other parts of Karabakh.
The Karabakh authorities have provided some Hadrut refuges with temporary 
accommodation and pledged to resettle others since a Russian-brokered ceasefire 
stopped the hostilities last November.
The majority of those refugees remain in Armenia where they rent cheap 
apartments, huddle in temporary shelters or live with their local relatives. The 
Armenian government for months supported them with monthly cash handouts meant 
to cover their accommodation expenses.
The mostly unemployed protests rallying outside Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s 
office said the government stopped providing the modest financial assistance in 
August.
“They promised to at least pay our rent,” said one man. “But we haven’t gotten 
anything for the last two months. How should we live?”
“We have no homes, no accommodation, and they are now depriving us of hope for 
the future,” complained another protester. “They don’t even take care of our 
daily needs.”
The government is said to be planning to launch a new aid program whereby every 
underage refugee will receive 50,000 drams ($104) a month for housing expenses. 
Adults will be eligible for half that amount. It is not yet clear when the 
government will approve the new scheme.
Citing security concerns, many former Hadrut residents are also reluctant to 
move to other rural areas in Karabakh close to the new Armenian-Azerbaijani 
“line of contact” around the disputed territory.
“We lost everything, from homes to handkerchiefs,” said one woman. “Should I 
endanger the lives of my children? Of course not.”
Other refugees point to a lack of available housing in Karabakh.
Ex-President Sarkisian’s Foreign Trips Probed
        • Marine Khachatrian
Armenia - Former President Serzh Sarkisian addresses supporters outside a court 
in Yerevan, March 18, 2021.
An Armenian law-enforcement agency has launched a formal investigation into the 
legality of private trips to Germany taken by former President Serzh Sarkisian 
during his decade-long rule.
Citing information provided by Armenia’s Civil Aviation Committee, the 
Yerevan-based Union of Informed Citizens (UIC), said last month that Sarkisian 
used a government plane to travel to the German resort town of Baden-Baden on at 
least 16 occasions from 2008 through 2017.
In a written complaint submitted to state prosecutors, the non-governmental 
organization claimed that the flights were financed by taxpayers’ money 
illegally and without any justification. The Office of the Prosecutor-General 
ordered the Special Investigative Service (SIS) to look into the claims.
The SIS announced on Tuesday that it has opened a criminal case in connection 
with what it called a possible abuse of power. It said at least some of 
Sarkisian’s flights to Germany appear to have been carried out in breach of 
official rules and procedures for the use of the government jet.
A spokesperson for the law-enforcement body told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that 
investigators have not yet identified any suspects in the case.
A lawyer for Sarkisian, Amram Makinian, dismissed the inquiry as a publicity 
stunt organized by the current Armenian government. “This is the most baseless 
criminal case I’ve ever seen,” he said.
Makinian insisted Sarkisian did not violate any laws or regulations. He said the 
ex-president had simply taken advantage of “social security guarantees” given to 
high-ranking government officials by Armenian law.
Sarkisian, who co-heads one of the opposition groups represented in Armenia’s 
current parliament, admitted earlier this year spending vacations in 
Baden-Baden. But he flatly denied allegations that he visited the world-famous 
German resort for gambling purposes.
Sarkisian’s political allies have repeatedly accused law-enforcement authorities 
of targeting him and his relatives on government orders.
Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2021 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.

Pakistani press: First NLC trucks reach Istanbul, Baku under TIR

Nahapetian Samvel

The Newspaper’s Staff ReporterPublished  – Updated about 20 hours ago
Facebook Count

The NLC’s first road movement received an overwhelming response from the government and business communities of both Turkey and Azerbaijan. — Dawn

LAHORE: The National Logistics Cell (NLC) has revived two international road corridors after it successfully completed the first-ever one-side commercial run by transporting high value products from Pakistan to Turkey and Azerbaijan under the Transports Internationaux Routiers (TIR) convention.

“Our trucks carrying containers loaded with goods reached Istanbul and Baku via Tehran on Oct 7 night under the TIR admission. The vehicles had moved from Karachi on Sept 27 and completed the journey of over 5,000 kilometres within 10 days,” said an NLC official spokesman.

The NLC’s first road movement received an overwhelming response from the government and business communities of both Turkey and Azerbaijan. And the first commercial run was made possible with all-out support of Iran, the spokesman added.

Special ceremonies were held at Istanbul and Baku to mark establishment of the road connectivity bet­ween the brotherly countries in the region.

The reception ceremony held at Murat Bey Customs Post, Istanbul, was attended by senior officials of Turkish Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Trade, Chamber of Commerce & Commodity Exchanges of Turkey, ECO Secre­tariat, Transport Ministry of Iran and representatives of Turkish logistics industry.

Pakistan’s Ambassador in Turkey, Muhammad Syrus Sajjad Qazi, and Umberto de Pretto, Secretary General of Geneva-based IRU, were also present on the occasion.

“The landmark step will stren­gthen road connectivity between Pakistan and Turkey which will ultimately help in promotion of bilateral trade,” the spokesman quoted Mr Qazi as having said at the ceremony.

A similar ceremony was also held at Baku to welcome the launching of TIR operations by NLC to Azerbaijan. The exporters and logistics companies of Azerbaijan evinced keen interest in the TIR operations.

High value goods including textile-related equipment, raw material, electronics, plastic, household items, computers, home appliances, non-perishable food items, dried fruit, furniture, carpets etc are preferred to be transported in containers and once these are sealed/packed after necessary legal procedures (security, customs, etc) cannot be checked on the way, as these, once loaded, are to be opened only at the final destination under the TIR admission.

It may be mentioned that the NLC had been granted TIR admission in August by the Pakistan National Authorisation Committee of International Transport Union. Under the admission, the cell has been allowed movement of cargo across the borders without procedural hiccups.

Published in Dawn, October 12th, 2021




Stalin’s Blunder that Made Turkey a NATO Member

Tambiyan Samvel 
Russia Beyond
By Boris Egorov
Oct. 11, 2021
[The Soviet Union’s diplomatic onslaught on Turkey brought nothing but
Ankara's accession to NATO.]
In June 1945, the Soviet Union was at the peak of its power: Nazi
Germany had been defeated, the whole of Eastern Europe was firmly
inside Moscow's sphere of influence, and the Red Army, the strongest
in the world at the time, was preparing to enter the war against Japan
and deliver a decisive blow.
In these circumstances, the Soviet leadership believed it was high
time to exert diplomatic pressure on Turkey, with which it had a
number of important military, political and territorial disputes. The
Soviets’ newfound authority and enormous influence, as well as the
fact that the Western allies desperately needed Soviet help in the war
against the Japanese, convinced Stalin that dealing with Ankara would
be like taking candy from a baby. Subsequent events proved otherwise.
Rough neighborhood
Turkey's policy during WWII had provoked highly contradictory feelings
in the Kremlin. On the one hand, Anakra’s proclaimed neutrality and
refusal to let the Wehrmacht through its territory were welcomed by
Moscow in every conceivable way.
On the other hand, in the darkest days of the Soviet-German
confrontation, the Turks maintained a large grouping of troops on the
USSR’s southern border. In the fall of 1941, at the invitation of
Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, Turkish Army Generals Ali Fuad Erden
and Hüseyin Hüsnü Emir Erkilet visited the occupied Soviet
territories.
The Kremlin believed that in the event of the defeat of the Red Army,
and the fall of Moscow and Stalingrad, the Turks might invade the
Soviet Caucasus. “In mid-1942, no one could guarantee that [Turkey]
would not side with Germany,” wrote General Semyon Shtemenko in his
memoirs. To repel a possible attack required forces that were urgently
needed elsewhere.
Moreover, the USSR was convinced that Ankara had repeatedly violated
the 1936 Montreux Convention regarding the status of the Bosphorus and
Dardanelles, turning a blind eye to Kriegsmarine ​auxiliary warships
entering the straits under the guise of merchant vessels. The question
of Turkish sovereignty over the straits had vexed Stalin even before
the war; now in 1945 he had the opportunity to address it.
Soviet onslaught
Moscow was readying itself for a diplomatic conflict with Turkey,
which the latter’s joining the anti-Hitler coalition on Feb. 23, 1945,
did nothing to avert. In March of that same year, the USSR denounced
the Soviet-Turkish Treaty of Friendship and Neutrality of 1925, and on
June 7 the Turkish ambassador to the USSR, Selim Sarper, was summoned
to a meeting with People’s Commissar (Minister) of Foreign Affairs
Vyacheslav Molotov.The Turkish side was notified that, since Ankara
was unable to exercise proper control over the straits, henceforth
they would be overseen jointly with the Soviet Union, whose navy would
be provided with several bases in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.
In addition, the USSR insisted on revising the Treaty of Moscow of
1921, by which the Bolsheviks had transferred to Turkey the cities of
Kars, Ardahan and Artvin, plus the extensive surrounding territories,
which had previously belonged to the Russian Empire. Since the
governments of Lenin and Kemal Ataturk had been on friendly terms and
jointly opposed the Entente, this concession was then regarded in
Moscow as an important and timely step toward building a strong,
long-term alliance.
In the late 1940s, however, the USSR viewed the situation through a
very different lens. The Soviet press wrote about the “treachery of
the Turks,” who had taken advantage of the weakness of Soviet Russia
and the Soviet Caucasian republics, about the “forced removal” of
small indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands, and about the
need to reunite Soviet Armenians and Georgians with their brothers on
the other side of the border. “There are no reasonable arguments
against the return of these territories to their rightful owners, the
Armenian and Georgian peoples,” stated the People’s Commissariat of
Foreign Affairs in a report for the country’s leadership in August
1945.
Counteraction
Moscow’s pressure provoked a sharp rise in anti-Soviet sentiment in
Turkish society. Stalin was branded the “heir of the Russian tsars,”
who for centuries had sought to seize the Black Sea straits. “The
leaders of the Red order are the continuation of the Romanovs,”
declared the Mejlis, the Turkish legislature.
The question of the return of “territories legally belonging to the
Soviet Union” and the revision of the status of the Bosphorus and the
Dardanelles was raised by the USSR in negotiations with the Western
powers, too. “The Montreux Convention is directed squarely against
Russia... Turkey has been granted the right to close the straits to
our shipping, not only in the case of war, but also when Turkey
considers there to be a threat of war, which Turkey itself
defines...,” Stalin stated at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945: “It
turns out that a small state supported by Britain can hold a large
state by the throat and not let it pass... The issue concerns the free
passage of our ships through the Black Sea and back. But since Turkey
is weak [...] we must have some kind of guarantee that this freedom of
passage will be ensured.”
Whilst verbally agreeing on the need to review the agreement on the
straits, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President
Harry Truman diplomatically rejected all of the USSR’s demands for
bases and claims to Turkish territories. Nor, as it turned out, was
the Montreux Convention revised.
After the defeat of the Japanese and the end of WWII, relations
between the former allies deteriorated rapidly, with the Turkish
question acting as one of the catalysts of the incipient Cold War.
Churchill made a point of raising the issue in his famous Iron Curtain
speech in Fulton on March 5, 1946, which effectively marked the
beginning of the great standoff.
Its diplomatic pressure on Ankara brought no dividends to the Soviet
Union. On the contrary, it expedited Turkey’s rapprochement with the
U.S. and Britain. As early as 1952, it joined the North Atlantic
Alliance.
After Stalin’s death in 1953, “in the name of preserving good
neighborly relations and strengthening peace and security,” Moscow
finally withdrew its claims on Turkey. Years later, one of the main
players in those events, Molotov himself, described it as an
“untimely, impracticable undertaking.”
“Stalin I consider to be a wonderful politician, but he made
mistakes,” noted the former People’s Commissar.
In 1957, the new Soviet head of state, Nikita Khrushchev, gave an
emotional assessment of the Stalinist policy: “We had defeated the
Germans. It was head-spinning. Turks, comrades, friends. Let’s write a
note, and they’ll immediately hand over the Dardanelles. No one is
that foolish. The Dardanelles are not Turkey, it’s a nexus of states.
We terminated the friendship treaty and spat in their faces... It was
stupid. We ended up losing friendly Turkey and now have U.S. bases in
the south, with our southern flank in the crosshairs...”

Is Armenia-Turkey Détente Ahead? – OpEd

Christine Harutyunian
Oct 11 2021
   IWPR 

By IWPR

By Tigran Zakaryan

Armenian analysts have responded with caution to apparent overtures between Yerevan and Ankara over a possible détente between the two countries.

Both Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have repeatedly hinted in recent weeks that they were prepared to begin talks on repairing bilateral relations.

The two countries have never established diplomatic ties and their shared border has been closed since the early 1990s. Relations further deteriorated last year over the 44-day Nagorony Karabakh war, in which Turkish military support for Azerbaijan may have played a decisive role in its victory.

However, last month Erdogan said that Turkey was willing to open talks towards normalising ties if Armenia also “declares its readiness to move in this direction”. He has also raised the prospect of creating a regional platform that would help establish links from Turkey’s Igdir to Azerbaijan, possibly via a rail route through Armenia.

In turn, Pashinyan told a September 8 cabinet meeting said that Erdogan’s remarks presented “an opportunity to discuss normalisation of Armenia-Turkey relations and de-blockade the Armenia-Turkey railroad and [other] communications. We are ready for such discussions”.

Pashinyan added that global players including Russia, US, EU, China and India would welcome such a move.

Oppositions figures have expressed scepticism about Pashinyan’s approach. Lawmaker Hayk Mamijanyan, of the Pativ Unem (I Have Honour) faction, said that Ankara’s lack of extensive preconditions made him question whether Turkey might have already have received some kind of assurances. Critics have previously accused Pashinyan of covert negotiations to end the Karabakh war, in which Azerbaijan took control of extensive territory previously controlled by Armenia.

Mamijanyan said that Pashinyan should “seek to dispel such doubts, or else [it means] he once again has decided to strike some sort of a backdoor deal”.  

However CCA lawmaker Eduard Aghajanyan, who heads parliament’s foreign relations committee, dismissed suggestions of any back door negotiations.

He said that progress could not be made without separating Armenia’ relations with Turkey from those with Azerbaijan.  

“We want Turkey to realise – and we ourselves need to do it too – that Azerbaijan and Turkey are totally different entities and individual players in the region, whose interests are not necessarily identical,” Aghajanyan said.

Eric Hacopian, a contributor to Civilnet media, noted that successive governments in Armenia had supported the idea of normalising relations with Turkey without achieving any kind of breakthrough. He said that Baku’s opposition may play a part in this stalemate.

“Azerbaijan thinks they can impose their will or get the worst for us-best possible for them deal and any kind of a Turkish rapprochement with Armenia actually would weaken the case,” Hacopian said.

He added, however, that domestic Turkish considerations might derail any fresh efforts to start talks, given that the National Movement Party (MHP) – part of Turkey’s ruling coalition – would likely oppose better relations with Armenia.

As a result, Erdogan would be reluctant to press forward with any dialogue as he will need MHP support in the upcoming 2023 elections.

“His [Erdogan’s] words are meaningless, only his actions matter,” Hacopian continued. “I do not see anything changing on the primary relationship between those two countries until the fall of the Erdogan regime.”

However, historian Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan said that the very fact of holding talks with Turkey was in itself significant, even though it was important to have realistic expectations about what could be achieved.

“There is a lot to talk about with Turkey and it is expected that Armenian society cannot have a positive attitude towards that state – that is quite natural for understandable reasons – but we need to be pragmatic,” he said. “If Armenia and Turkey have something to give and receive, if they expect something from us – and it is through a dialogue that such a thing can be revealed – then we should follow that path. We needed to have it done earlier.”

Ara Sahakyan of the opposition Hayrenik (Homeland) party, said that although Armenian-Turkish relations needed to be slowly normalised, the internal politics of both countries did not currently support this.

“It needs to be done slowly, stage by stage,” he said. “The authorities need to understand that succeeding in laying the foundations of Armenian-Turkish relations would be an achievement by itself. But it will take more than one generation to achieve that. Such matters are not resolved by an [Armenian] government which has 53 per cent of votes, but rather by large coalitions.”  

Source: This article was published by IWPR and was prepared under the “Amplify, Verify, Engage (AVE) Project” implemented with the financial support of the Foreign Ministry of Norway.

Analysis | What is behind the growing Iran-Azerbaijan tension?

Khoyetsian Rose
Oct 11 2021
 

ByRovshan Mammadli
Ilhan Aliyev and Ali Khamenei. Illustration: Robin Fabbro/OC Media.

The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War has led to a qualitative shift in regional power dynamics that Iran is deeply unhappy with — especially when it comes to Azerbaijan’s relationship with Israel.  

In recent days, the focus of the world has sharply turned towards the Caucasus and the spike in apparent animosity between Iran and Azerbaijan. 

The proximate cause of the recent tension appears to have been the entry of Iranian fuel lorries into Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh — an act that Baku considers illegal. After this incident, Baku closed the part of Armenia’s key Goris-Kapan highway that passes through Azerbaijan, handed a diplomatic note to the Iranian ambassador, and detained the Iranian drivers whose fate, for now, remains unknown. 

That has been accompanied by other irritants for Iran, including a series of military exercises involving Azerbaijan, Turkey and Pakistan, and a spike in anti-Iranian rhetoric from Azerbaijani officials. 

And now, for the first time in decades, the Islamic Republic has conducted large-scale military exercises at its northern border with Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Baku has launched joint military exercises with Ankara. 

Parallel to the drills, the war of words between the two countries has accelerated. While there are many issues that Tehran cannot agree with Baku, it has two primary concerns right now: Israel’s potential use of Azerbaijani territory for intelligence and military purposes against Iran and the possibility that Azerbaijan could seize Armenia’s southern Syunik Province and cut off Iran’s ties with Armenia. 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian’s words that ‘we will never tolerate the existence of a false Zionist regime’ near the Iranian border, nor ‘any changes to the regional borders and geopolitics’ reflect these concerns.

From Tehran’s point of view, it is Tel Aviv that is trying to destabilise the region and create an atmosphere of distrust between the two neighbouring countries. The title of the ongoing drills drives this point home: ‘Conquerors of Khaybar’ is a reference to the battle of Khaybar in the year 628, in which the Prophet Muhammad defeated the Jews of the Khaybar region, who, according to Islamic sources, incited the Arab tribes against the Muslims of Medina. According to the Islamic Republic, Israel is using the areas retaken by Azerbaijan for intelligence operations against Iran. 

Tehran has long accused Baku of assisting Israeli intelligence in the 2010–2012 assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, with Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoning the Azerbaijani ambassador to Iran and giving him a note of protest in 2012. 

While Azerbaijan insists that the Tel-Aviv-Baku friendship is not directed at any third party, both in the present and now, Iran takes the opposite view. 

The use of Israeli-made drones by the State Border Service of Azerbaijan to control the border with Iran as well as the participation of Israeli companies in projects located in areas on the Iranian border that were reclaimed by Azerbaijan last year has only increased Tehran’s suspicions. 

That Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was accomplished with the help of Israeli-made drones has led to speculation that Tel Aviv’s support did not go unrequited. In return, the thinking goes, Israel wanted something from Azerbaijan, and that ‘something’ probably has to do with Iran.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared that ‘Iran’s nuclear programme has hit a watershed moment. And so has our tolerance. Words do not stop centrifuges from spinning […] We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.’

Bennet’s stark comments have come at the tail of escalating rhetoric from Israeli military leaders. Israeli Defence Force Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi publicly declared in January that the IDF was preparing fresh ‘operational plans’ for a potent military strike. In August he said that Iran’s nuclear progress has prompted the IDF ‘to speed up its operational plans’, with a fresh budget to do so. And in September Kohavi said that the IDF has “greatly accelerated” preparations for action against Iran’s nuclear programme.

Even after denying an Israeli presence in Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev was photographed smiling broadly and petting an Israeli-made Harop drone in Jabrayil, on the Iranian border. 

Meanwhile, the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Iran marked the anniversary of last year’s war by posting a picture of an Azerbaijani soldier carrying an Israeli Tavor assault rifle. Azerbaijan has consciously drawn attention to Israel’s influence over the country.

And, in this situation, Tehran has more reasons than ever to be sensitive to the Israeli threat.

To compound the issue, Iran also feels isolated by the regional players in the post-war South Caucasus. While Russian soldiers are serving as peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh and a joint Turkey-Russia monitoring centre is observing the Karabakh ceasefire truce, the Islamic Republic is stuck on the sidelines. Despite Iran bordering the territories, Azerbaijan reclaimed in the war, Baku has not invited a single Iranian company to take part in the post-conflict reconstruction process. 

Nor is distrust of Iran limited to Azerbaijan. In recent weeks, Georgia has been denying entry to some Iranian residents who hold residence permits in the country — the reasons for this remain unknown. 

With all this in mind, Azerbaijan’s recent irredentist claims to the lands connecting Armenia to Iran arouse fear not only in Yerevan but also in Tehran. The trilateral Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijan declaration of November 2020 granted Azerbaijan the right of transit to its exclave in Nakhichevan from southern Armenia (Syunik Province). This transit connection is widely referred to in Azerbaijan as the ‘Zangezur corridor’ which President Aliyev has threatened to take by force if it is not opened willingly. 

Then, on 7 July, Azerbaijan announced the reorganisation of its internal economic regions, which included a new region, bordering Syunik, called ‘Eastern Zangezur’ — with the implication is that there is a ‘Western Zangezur’,  that is, Syunik. This intent was confirmed by Ilham Aliyev in a speech a few days later.

‘Yes, Western Zangezur is our ancestral land’, he said. ‘We must return there and we will return.’

While such speeches are made for mostly populist purposes and intended for a domestic audience, they are also perceived very seriously in Tehran. Losing a connection with Armenia means losing easy access to the region while having to deal with a newly emboldened Azerbaijan heavily backed by Iran’s archenemy Israel.

Tehran is treading carefully while sending a pointed message to Baku. The Islamic Republic wants to reaffirm its national security red lines, establish a credible level of deterrence, and reassert its undeniable regional role, which has been tarnished amid recent security developments in the region. 

Ultimately, the destabilization of its northern borders is undesirable for Iran, which suffers from massive sanctions and is involved in multiple geopolitical and military ventures in the Middle East. But knowing the difficult position Tehran has found itself in, Azerbaijan is not afraid to respond defiantly. 

Despite the rising tension, there are serious diplomatic developments ahead. Tehran will soon host a trilateral meeting between the Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Iranian foreign ministries. Until then, the diplomatic corps in Iran and Azerbaijan remain in regular communication with each other. 

There really is no other way. If war between the two countries erupts, it is doubtless that Azerbaijan and Iran will both be losers and the only ones to profit will be third parties. 

 For ease of reading, we choose not to use qualifiers such as ‘de facto’, ‘unrecognised’, or ‘partially recognised’ when discussing institutions or political positions within Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia. This does not imply a position on their status.

 https://oc-media.org/features/analysis-what-is-behind-the-growing-iran-azerbaijan-tension/

By Rovshan Mammadli

Rovshan is a Baku-based columnist and fact-checker, meandering somewhere between real, unreal, and nonreal.

Nagorno-Karabakh “War Crime” Video Pains Armenians

Emma Nadirian

Oct 11 2021

10/11/2021 Nagorno-Karabakh (International Christian Concern) –  A video depicting the killing of two civilian Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenian: Artsakh) that surfaced nearly one year ago still brings heartache and pain to Armenians, particularly those who knew them in Hadrut. The video was posted to an anonymous Telegram channel on October 15 and removed not long after once the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry claimed it was fake and a “provocation”.

However, the videos had already been archived and have been authenticated by BBC and independent investigators. British analysts and Armenian human rights advocates dubbed the video “undeniable war crime evidence.” The helmet worn by one of the Azerbaijani troops suggests that at least one person involved was part of Azerbaijan’s special forces, not just normal armed forces. Independent investigators have not yet been allowed to enter Hadrut since the town has remained under Azerbaijani control.

One former Hadrut resident, now living in Yerevan, recounted her experience to RFE/RL of the first time she came across the videos. Margarita Karamian said she knew both men in the videos, 73-year-old Benik Hakobian, and 25-year-old Yuri Adamian. “Terrible. It was terrible,” she said. “But it was not unexpected. We have already seen so many terrible things that we seem to have become a type of zombie.”

Karamian had lived in Hadrut her whole life, even during the first Nagorno-Karabakh war of the 1990s. Yet, as her husband and son said, “this is a different war.” She sent her children off and she remained for some time until her husband and son forced her to flee just before midnight on October 9. It is suspected that the two men in the videos were killed just the next day when Azerbaijani forces took the city. The bodies of some Hadrut residents have been recovered, but Hakobian and Adamian’s have not. Many more Hadrut residents are still missing one year later.