Azeri paper criticizes opposition’s calls for revolution in Iran
Zerkalo, Baku
24 May 06
The Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo has criticized the country’s
opposition for calling for a revolution in Iran. Commenting on the
latest protests by Iran’s ethnic Azeri community following the
publication of an insulting cartoon in the Iranian press, the
newspaper described the cartoon as a provocation that does not meet
the interests of Iran’s ruling elite and linked it to a recent
statement by the Iranian prince that he is ready to return to Iran and
head the country. The paper warned Azeris against supporting the
Iranian prince because, it said, he will “follow in his father’s
footsteps” and suppress the national movement. Zerkalo also said that
there is no guarantee that the United States will support Iranian
Azeris. The following is an excerpt from A. Rasidoglu’s report by the
Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 24 May headlined “Ayatollah or shah –
which is more beneficial to Azeris?” and subheaded “Rebellious Tabriz
is running the risk of falling victim to the political games of super
powers again”. Subheadings in the text have been inserted editorially:
Protest rallies against Persian chauvinism in Tabriz have ended in
bloody clashes. Teymur Eminbayli, secretary-general of the World
Azerbaijani Congress, has told the Mediaforum website that [the
police] opened fire at protesters in Tabriz.
Azeri protests and casualties
According to preliminary reports, 20 people were wounded and 250
arrested. There have been quite contradictory reports about the
killed protesters. One report says eight people were killed while
another one says that not a single person was killed.
Eminbayli said hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in
Tabriz in support of the student movement yesterday. The whole area
between the place called Saatqabagi and Bazar Meydani was full of
people.
According to Eminbayli, some members of the Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps and some officials of Azeri origin sided with the people
and refused to follow the order to open fire at their own people. But
this was not enough to prevent the bloodshed: the Tehran regime opened
fire at ethnic Azeris living in Iran.
The Iranian law-enforcement agencies used various sabotage methods
during the protest. For instance, several specially trained people
broke windows of shops and banks in order to put the blame on
demonstrators. Several police cars and bikes were set ablaze. An
Iranian flag was set ablaze during the protest. Towards the end of the
rally, the authorities used helicopters.
Eminbayli said the police fired at demonstrators from helicopters and
used tear gas. Reports say that the protests have not subsided in the
city of Zanjan yet and that rallies are continuing in other cities of
southern Azerbaijan.
[Passage omitted: reported details; a group of people attempted to
stage a protest outside the Iranian embassy in Baku; the Iranian
authorities have arrested the editor and cartoonist of Iran newspaper;
the Iranian culture minister has apologized to Azeris]
Provocation by state-run newspaper
A strange situation has emerged: a state-run newspaper resorts to such
a dirty provocation at the moment when it is necessary to mobilize the
whole society and enlist the support of Azeris – residents of
Tabriz. Tabriz is known as the inspirer of all revolutions in Iran,
including the so-called Islamic revolution of 1979.
Is it a coincidence? Unlikely. Does this kind of provocation meet the
interests of Iran’s ruling elite? Also unlikely.
Is it a coincidence that this article appeared after the son of
[Mohammad] Reza Shah said that he was ready to head Iran? The answer
is the same.
It is no secret to anyone that it was under the shah when Azeris were
publicly humiliated. At that time, no-one could even dream of speaking
in Azeri openly in Tehran. Apart from that, there was a very small
number of high-ranking officials of Azeri origin in the shah’s circle.
Today there are enough Azeris in the ruling elite. You do not have to
go too far for examples – it is enough to mention only one and the
most important one: the spiritual leader of the Islamic revolution,
Khamene’i, who is of Azeri origin.
So is a state-run newspaper calling its spiritual leader a cockroach?
This is either utter stupidity, which is hard to believe, or an open
provocation.
The second theory is more convincing and in fact, almost indisputable.
It is another matter that Azeris living in the Islamic Republic of
Iran are deprived of their right to education in Azeri. Azeris have
considered Iran to be their homeland since time immemorial, and Azeri
dynasties ruled Iran until the 1920s. After Reza Shah came to power,
Iran became a “Persian country”, and they started calling Azeris
“donkeys”. Such an attitude by Persian chauvinism brought about the
overthrow of the shah.
Everybody understands very well that in the current circumstances, the
Tehran regime can lose everything only after losing Azeri
support. Then who needed to publish such an article in a state-run
newspaper? We will come on to this later.
There is no doubt that Azeris living in Iran have problems that need
to be solved. Even the current Iranian constitution, specifically
Article 15, clearly says that every nation has the right to education
in its own language. But this is only on paper, in fact this
constitutional right has nothing to do with Azeris.
Evolution preferred to revolution
Some analysts suppose that such a development of the situation can
prompt Iranian Azeris to establish their own autonomy or federation,
or to proclaim their independence.
But southern Azerbaijan is actually divided into eastern and western
provinces. If a federation is proclaimed, Azeris might lose their
territories as a nation in the end. Therefore, as Lenin said, one
should take a different path. In this case, the evolutionary path is
more acceptable. Suffice it to remember that after WWII, southern
Azeris attempted to establish an independent state with the support of
the Soviet Union. This idea failed pretty soon. Then Azeri public
leaders reviewed their claims and started talking about autonomy
within Iran regardless of the fact that the official state authorities
took quite a tough approach to the settlement of the national issue.
What did this bring about? Tehran started controlling all its
territories.
After that, Persian chauvinism took the reins of power in the country,
and Azeri newspapers and radio stations were closed down and education
in Azeri was banned. This is what the political romanticism of
politicians from southern Azerbaijan brought about.
Moreover, according to various reports, there are about 12m Azeris
living in southern Azerbaijan at the moment, while the rest have moved
to other places. A total of 12m people are living in Tehran now and 8m
of them are Azeris.
Calls for war against Iran unrealistic
As for opposition politicians in Baku who call for a revolution in
Iran, they had better “keep their mouth shut”. Apparently, our
politicians are so excited about rainbow colours that they have
forgotten about their own bitter experience. Having failed to carry
out an “orange” revolution in Azerbaijan, our “political brains” have
decided to overthrow the “green” authorities – not in their own
country, but in Iran. Indeed, they are trying to enforce their own
illiterate rules in someone else’s monastery.
Moreover, it is foolish to call for war against Iran without retaking
the Armenian-occupied territories. We witnessed this in 1993 when
Azerbaijan was sandwiched between Turkey, Iran and Russia and fought a
war with Armenia in that situation.
There is another question – why did the Tehran regime and radical
Shi’is prefer to support not Shi’i Azerbaijan, but Christian Armenia?
This question, as it were, is completely clear. The point is that
Christian Armenia has never laid territorial claims to Iran.
Let us also remember that we destroyed the fences on the 700 km
Azerbaijani-Iranian border in the early 1990s, after which groups of
several thousand Azerbaijanis started crossing the border allegedly to
meet their relatives living in Iran. Iran’s response was very quick –
some local Azeris were executed for alleged “disturbances” and others
were put in prison, while the Soviet leadership issued an order to
kill hundreds of Azerbaijanis in Baku, saying that there was a threat
of an Islamic revolution.
Within the circle of his supporters, Iran’s hereditary prince started
supporting the idea of autonomy for Azeris in order to gain their
support and restore the monarchy. Let’s imagine for a second that the
monarchy has been restored and a revolution has taken place – the
bearded are replaced by those without beards – and the prince is on
the Iranian throne. This is a fairly attractive ideology for a single
Iran, but only for the time being. The prince will soon follow in his
father’s footsteps and remember “Turkic donkeys”.
Is it worth taking a risk for a Persian chauvinist who calls us
“donkeys” and lose absolutely everything – absolutely everything, not
only the regime of religious officials most of whom are Azeris.
Ethnic Azeri leader due in Baku soon
Incidentally, [the leader of the National Revival Movement of Southern
Azerbaijan] Mahmudali Cohraqanli will arrive in Baku soon to call on
Iranian Azeris to become a force that will make the situation of the
Tehran government at least a bit shakier. The NRMSA leader’s visit to
Baku causes a great interest especially against the background of
aggravating Iranian-US ties. He has spent almost a year in the USA
discussing the future status of southern Azerbaijan with various
officials. However, “Uncle Sam” has not promised him anything for the
time being. There is no guarantee that Washington will support
southern Azeris to the very end.
As for southern Azerbaijan, it is clear to everybody that the time is
not ripe yet for mass protests by Azeris.
Tehran has already made it clear that any attempt on Iran’s
territorial integrity will first of all affect the fate of Azeris.
Even if the USA decides to occupy Iran, not a single well-known leader
of southern Azeris will be left by that time in order to head the
people’s movement.
Do Baku politicians who are not capable of protecting their own basic
rights understand this? The question, as they say, is rhetoric.