NAGORNO-KARABAKH: THE LONG SHADOW OF JOSEPH STALIN
Written by Rene Wadlow
Toward Freedom, VT
March 21 2006
The president of Azerbaijan, Ilhan Aliyev, son of the long-time
president Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharian, president of Armenia,
met outside Paris, in Rambouillet February 10-11, 2006 to discuss the
stalemated conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Rambouillet had also been
the scene for the last-chance negotiations on Kosovo just before the
NATO bombing of Serbia began in 1999.
During the two years of fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh, 1992-1994,
at least 20,000 people were killed and more than a million persons
displaced from Armenia, Azerbaijan and the 12,000 square miles
of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Armenian forces now control the
Nagorno-Karabakh area – an Armenian-populated enclave within
Azerbaijan. Since 1994, there has been a relatively stable
ceasefire. Nagorno-Karabakh has declared its independence as a
separate state. No other state -including Armenia – has recognized
this independent status, but, in practice, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de
facto state with control over its population and its own military
forces. Half of the government’s revenue is raised locally; the other
half comes from the government of Armenia and especially the Armenian
diaspora, strong in the United States, Canada, Lebanon, and Russia.
In addition to Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian forces hold seven small
districts around Nagorno-Karabakh, some 5,500 square kilometres that
had been populated by Azeris and that are considered as “occupied
territory”. One of the ideas being floated during these negotiations
is an Armenian withdrawal from these occupied territories accompanied
by international security guarantees and an international peacekeeping
force, probably under the control of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which has been the major forum for
negotiation on the Nagorno-Karabkh conflict.
The USA, France, and Russia are the co-chairmen of a mediating effort
called the “Minsk Group” after an OSCE conference on Nagorno-Karabakh
which was to have been held in Minsk, but then indefinitely postponed
as there was no clear basis for a compromise solution. Part of the
negotiating guidelines of the Minsk Group meetings is that no official
report is made on the negotiations, so that analysis is always an
effort at putting pieces together from partial statements, leaks,
and ‘off-the-record’ interviews with the press. This blackout on
direct statements opens the door to highly partisan analysis in both
countries where the press has always been hard line. There are those
who believe that both presidents are ‘ahead of their people’ in their
willingness to compromise and to move beyond the current “no war,
no peace” situation which is a drain on economic and social resources.
However, in both countries, the media is under tight control of the
respective governments so that the militaristic tone of the press
is not against government policy. The blackout on press statements
is also due to the monopoly on both sides of a small, tight group of
people responsible for the negotiations. Informal, Track Two, meetings
are very difficult and the few held were met by general suspicion or
hostility. There is a need for a broader-based peacemaking public to
counter the current narrow militant rhetoric.
The Nagorno-Karabakh issue arises from the Post-Revolution-Post-Civil
War period of Soviet history when Joseph Stalin was Commissioner for
Nationalities. Stalin came from neighboring Georgia and knew the
Caucasus well. His policy was a classic ‘divide and rule’ carried
out with method so that national/ethnic groups would need to depend
on the central government in Moscow for protection. Thus in 1922,
the frontiers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were hammered out
in what was then the Transcaucasian Federative Republic.
Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian majority area, was given a certain
autonomy within Azerbaijan but was geographically cut off from
Armenia. Likewise, an Azeri majority are, Nakkickevan, was created
as an autonomous republic within Armenia but cut off geographically
from Azerbaijan. Thus both enclaves had to look to Moscow for
protection. This was especially true for the Armenians. Many Armenians
living in what had been historic Armenia but which became Turkey had
been killed during the First World War; Armenians living in “Soviet
Armenia” had relatives and friends among those killed by the Turks,
creating a permanent sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Russia
was considered a historic ally of Armenia.
These mixed administrative units worked well enough or, one should
say, there were few criticisms allowed until 1988 when the whole
Soviet model of nationalities and republics started to come apart.
In both Armenia and Azerbeijan, natioanlistic voices were raised, and
a strong “Karabakh Committee” began demanding that Nagorno-Karabakh be
attached to Armenia. In Azerbaijan, anti-Armenian sentiment was set
aflame. Many Armenians who were working in the oil-related economy
of Baku were under tension and started leaving. This was followed
somewhat later by real anti-Armenian pogroms. Some 160,000 Armenians
left Azerbaijan for Armenia and other went to live in Russia.
With the break up of the Soviet Union and the independence of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, tensions focused on Nagorno-Karabakh. By 1992, full
scale conflict broke out in and around Nagorno-Karabkh and went on
for two years causing large-scale damage. The Armenian forces of
Nagorno-Karabakh helped by volunteers from Armenia kept control of
the area, while Azerbaijan faced repeated political crises.
The condition of “no peace, no war” followed the ceasefire largely
negotiated by Russia in 1994. This status quo poses few problems to
the major regional states who are preoccupied by other geo-political
issues. Informal and illicit trade within the area has grown.
However, interest in a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has grown as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline opened in May 2005.
The pipeline is sheduled to carry one million barrels of oil a day
from the Caspian to the Mediterranean by 2009. The pipeline passes
within 10 miles of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The crucial question for a settlement is the acceptance by all
parties and by the wider OSCE of an independent ‘mini-state’. An
independent Nagorno-Karabakh might become the ‘Liechtenstein of the
Caucases’. After 15 years of independence, Karabakh Armenians do not
want to be at the mercy of decisions made in distant centers of power
but to decide their own course of action. However, the recognition
of Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent states raises the issue of the
status of other de facto mini-states of the area such as Abkhazia
and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova and Kosovo in
Serbia. Close attention must continue to be paid to the potential
restructuring of the area. Can mini-states be more than a policy of
divide and rule? The long shadow of Joseph Stalin still hovers over
the land.
#####
Rene Wadlow is editor of the online journal of world politics
and an NGO representative to the
UN, Geneva. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of
the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.
For a good analysis of Stalin’s nationality policies see Helene
Carrere d’Encausse “The Great Challenge: Nationalities and the
Bolshevik State 1917-1930” (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1992, 262pp.)
For the need to have a wider peace constituency for negotiations
see Laurence Broers (Ed). “The limits of leadership: Elites and
societies in the Nagorny Karabakh peace process.” (London: Conciliation
Resources, 2006, 104pp.)
Comments READING FEW BOOKS!
Written by Guest on 2006-03-21 07:37:21
—————————————– —————————————
Rene deserves thanks for attempting to raise awareness about the
Karabakh issue. Yet, a lack of knowledge about the details of the
conflict is apparent.
During the Soviet Union, Nakhichevan remained an autonomous region
within Azerbaijan, not Armenia! It is still an Azerbaijani exclave
located between Armenia, Turkey and Iran – thus separated from
Azerbaijan proper.
Moreover, Azerbaijan was an independent state between 1918-1920,
and its territories included not only Karabakh and Nakhichevan but
also Zengezur, which was later transfered to Armenia by the Soviet
Central Government.
Yes, Soviet did carved out the Armenian populated regions within
Azerbaijan and granted that region an autonomy. But th phrase “was
cut off Armenia” misleads the reader as if Karabakh was a part of
Armenia and was cut off by the Soviet – which is not the case.
Karabakh has always been an integral part of Azerbaijan and was a
part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918-1920.
Stalin was nobody when the decision was made about Karabakh autonomous
status. A little closer examination will reveal that it is not really
Stalin’s fault.
Myths about Karabakh Written by Guest on 2006-03-21 12:28:40
—————————————– —————————————
Myth #2: Stalin gave Karabakh (Qarabagh) to Azerbaijan.
This is a gross falsification; the truth is quite the opposite. After
the Soviets took over Azerbaijan in 1920, right from the beginning,
Azerbaijan began losing territory to Armenia [see the map of the
Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), e.g., one prepared in 1920
by Russian MFA or the one presented in Versailles Peace Conference
(France) in 1919]. Azerbaijan’s territory was reduced from 114,000
sq. km. during ADR (1918-1920) — which was, along with Armenia, de
facto recognized by the League of Nations in those borders in 1920 —
to its present size of 86,600 sq. km., which is actually less now
because of the Armenian military occupation.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), inside Azerbaijan, was
created in July 1923, after years of intense debates and opposition
from the Azerbaijani people to its transfer. An oblast, the Russian
term for “province,” was purely a Soviet administrative division,
which meant that in all aspects it was subordinated to the union
republic, Azerbaijan SSR.
Unlike an “oblast”, such as Karabakh (NKAO), Naxcivan, for example, was
an “autonomous republic” (ASSR within Azerbaijan SSR), which had much
broader rights, its own parliament, constitution and other privileges.
Carving out enclaves in the various Soviet republics exacerbated ethnic
tensions and was deliberately practiced. It served the Soviet Union
well by distracting the republics from seeking their own independence
because they were always occupied with ethnic tensions brewing inside
their own borders.
Myth #3. Stalin gave Naxcivan (Nakhchivan) to Azerbaijan.
The truth is that Nakhchivan, just as Karabakh, is historically part
of Azerbaijan. After Soviets gained power (1920), the foundation
stone for the autonomy of Naxcivan was laid by the Moscow and Kars
international treaties of March 16, 1921 and October 13, 1921,
respectively. These treaties are still in force. They stipulated
that Naxcivan remain within Azerbaijan, a legal fact that prevented
the Soviets from giving Naxcivan to Armenia. This did not, however,
prevent from giving small bits of territory to Armenia in the 1920s
and 1930, as well as occupation of the Kerki village in the north of
Naxcivan by Armenia in 1990. The status of Naxcivan Autonomous Republic
(ASSR) within Azerbaijan SSR was established in 1924.
Naxcivan used to be “connected” to the rest of Azerbaijan by the
Zangezur district, which was given to Armenia in December 1920.
Effectively, assigning this strip (46 km) to Armenia separated
Azerbaijan in two sections cutting off Turkey from the other
Turkic-speaking peoples in Central Asia.
Zangezur was continuously emptied of its indigenous residents.
According to the official Russian censuses, in 1897 its population
was 51.7% Azerbaijani but by 1926, the population had declined to
6.4%. During the same period, the ratio of Armenians increased from
46.1% to 87%! Tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis had to flee for their
lives in much the same way as they have had to do in the 1990s.
By the way, as more documents see light and archives get open, the
researchers have discovered shocking USSR Council of Ministers decrees,
dated 23 December 1947 (No. 4083) and 10 March 1948 (No.
754), signed by Stalin himself, with advise from top officials L.
Beria and A. Mikoyan, ordering a forced “resettlement” of more than
100,000 Azerbaijani nationals from Armenian SSR to Azerbaijan SSR in
the period of 1948-1951 (half of them died in the process). Settling
in their homes were to be incoming Armenian expatriates from abroad….
view/773/