Mexico presidential administration representative about why Azerbaijani propaganda shouldn’t be supported for sake of caviar
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 Soní 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.
Newsfeed
Videos
Artur Vanetsyan: I think you'll see me more often at various events in future
