Mexico presidential administration representative about why
Azerbaijani propaganda shouldn’t be supported for sake of caviar
13:24 07/03/2015 >> ANALYSIS
Mexican local authorities and Azerbaijani government signed an
agreement in June 2011 about constructing a Mexico-Azerbaijan
Friendship Park where a monument to Heydar Aliyev and events in
Khojalu was supposed to be erected, and the government of Azerbaijan
was to fund those works of ‘city beautification.’
In October and December 2011 Mexican Parliament called on the
government to urge Armenia and Azerbaijan to put an end to their
dispute over Nagorno Karabakh and punish those guilty for the events
in Khojalu, Office of President of Mexico Representative Francisco
Sonà Solchaga writes in his article published on the website of the
journal Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica. In this way Mexico was pulled
into that conflict, and what is worse, supported Azerbaijan without
the Mexicans even being aware of where that republic, Khojalu or
Nagorno Karabakh are situated, the author writes.
In the historical background of the region, Solchaga notes that at the
beginning of the 20th century the Armenians lived in that region on
the territories of both the Russian and Ottoman empires. In Ottoman
Empire they suffered Genocide in 1915-1920. Consequently, the
Armenians are mainly concentrated on the territory of the Republic of
Armenia today, though they also maintain an influential Diaspora in
the US, France and Russia. The author also highlights that Turkey
denies responsibility for the Armenian Genocide which resulted in
diplomatic tension between the two countries, as well as between
Turkey and European states.
The author writes that the current conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan comes as a continuation of their confrontation over
Nakhijevan and Nagorno Karabakh since 1918-1920. After the region was
annexed by the USSR, the conflict temporarily calmed down; however the
circumstances that had provoked it remained. The Soviet authorities
recognized Nakhijevan and Nagorno Karabakh as Azerbaijani territories.
Decades later predominantly Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh
started to demand more autonomy, yet Azerbaijan did not accept that.
During 1987 various cases of ethnic violence took place, and when in
February 1988 the Parliament of Nagorno Karabakh voted for joining to
the Armenian SSR, a forced expulsion of the Armenian population from
Azerbaijan began. In March the Supreme Council sent the troops of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs to the region, yet the violence did not
stop, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union Nagorno Karabakh
declared its independence. The conflict outgrew into an open war
between the unrecognized republic of Nagorno Karabakh (with the
unofficial support of Armenia) and Azerbaijan.
In order to promote the negotiation process over the settlement of the
conflict OSCE Minsk Group was formed under co-presidency of the US,
France and Russia. In May 1994 Bishkek Protocol was signed putting an
end to the war. De facto, it passes the control over the main part of
Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding areas to NKR, the author writes
drawing parallels with the situation in Kosovo.
The author also notes that the war had serious humanitarian
consequences. Among the atrocities committed against the Armenians,
the massacres in Sumgait and Baku, as well the Operation Ring – with
the help of which the Azerbaijani forces besieged Nagorno Karabakh in
1991 – stand out with their particular cruelty.
“The tragedy in Khojalu is important because Azerbaijan accuses the
Armenians of committing genocide. According to Helsinki Watch (present
Human Rights Watch: editor’s note), the Azerbaijanis maintained
artillery and rocket launchers in Khojalu using them to bomb
Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno Karabakh. Khojalu, like
Stepanakert, was a civilian area; however, the Azerbaijanis themselves
turned it into a military object making it their firing point.
According to the position of Nagorno Karabakh Republic, they had
warned the population in Azerbaijan about the operation being prepared
in advance and had asked the civilians to leave their homes, though,
according to the testimonies gathered by Helsinki Watch, the
Azerbaijani population did not think that the Armenians would take a
civilian area and remained in their homes. Nonetheless, in the dawn of
26 February, 1992, the Armenians almost completely surrounded Khojalu
leaving a free corridor in the direction of a mountain pass, so that
the population was able to leave. After that the attack began. The
population leaving the village came under fire beyond its boundaries.
The lists of the casualties differ from source to source: from 160
people (several human rights NGOs estimates) to more than 600 (the
number suggested by the Azerbaijani government),” the author notes.
The Armenian side also cites then President of Azerbaijan Ayaz
Mutalibov’s statement who claims that those events could be provoked
by the militarized forces of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan (Heydar
Aliyev’s political party), who prevented the civilians from leaving
Khojalu pursuing the aim to provoke a massacre and bring about
Mutalibov’s overthrow, which happened in the following days.
Azerbaijan considers the incident as ‘genocide.’ However, Helsinki
Watch established that there were armed uniformed soldiers among the
Azerbaijanis leaving Khojalu. “Put in other words, the Azerbaijanis
could have been at least co-participants of the tragedy, using the
civilians as shield,” Solchaga writes pointing out also to the opinion
of Thomas de Waal, an expert on Caucasus, who thinks that the incident
was a result of the disorder that emerged during the withdrawal of the
troops, rather than a plan to eliminate the population (genocide).
Besides, according to the testimony of the Czech journalist Dana
Mazalova, they might have manipulated with the incident to make it
seem graver.
Citing the example of the situation in the Balkans, the author says
that the UN International Court established that the incidents between
the Serbs and the Croatians did not constitute genocide as long as
their aim was not their elimination, but expulsion. Despite that, the
foreign policy of Azerbaijan is pursuing the aim to achieve the
recognition of the events in Khojalu during the war in Karabakh as
‘genocide’, forgetting that they have also committed atrocities
against the Armenians.
For that reason, the government of Mexico, unlike the Parliament, is
maintaining a neutral position regarding the conflict in Karabakh and
supports the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group. It is noted that
supporting the Azerbaijani position, Mexico also spoiled relations
with Armenia, which became clear when the Foreign Minister of Armenia
Edward Nalbandian during his 2012 visit declared that the actions of
the Mexican parliament and the City Hall of Mexico were not in accord
with the position of the international community, expressed by the
Minsk Group, and have negative impact on the relations between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. On the other hand, Mexico spoiled relations with
Azerbaijan when under justified protests was forced to remove the
monument to Heydar Aliyev from the Friendship Park and the word
‘genocide’ from the monument to the victims of Khojalu. Though the
threats of Azerbaijan to break up the relations did not become
reality, the conflict with that state may have certain consequences.
The author accuses the Parliament and City Hall of Mexico of political
short-sightedness as before making that kind of decisions it was
necessary to consult the Foreign Ministry of the country and not spoil
the image of the state.
“They let themselves to be deceived, and were ready to risk the
international prestige of Mexico for trips to Baku, some caviar and 7
million dollars for the beautification of the city without realizing
the consequences,” the author concludes.
See also: Azerbaijan putting on hold investment projects in Mexico
because of demolition of Heydar Aliyev’s monument