Samir Shakhbaz: Good afternoon, our guest today is Afrand Dashdamirov, a professor at the Russian Academy of Public Administration and a member of the Azeri Academy of Sciences. Good afternoon, Mr Dashdamirov.
Afrand Dashdamirov: Good afternoon.
S.S.: Baku and Yerevan appear to have finally found a common ground and a position of compromise and understanding, which will make possible a dialogue in search of a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Do you share this viewpoint?
A.D.: Unfortunately, I don’t see any progress here. I think that that they are just going around in circles.
S.S.: But they’ve recently visited Moscow…
A.D.: They’ve been making visits to Moscow since 1996 or 1997. These visits have become regular, and every change in relations between Baku and Yerevan is usually accompanied by a big publicity campaign. It looks like new opportunities emerge, but in fact this impression is made for the sake of the public, and does not mean that any headway is actually being made...
S.S.: Do you agree with the opinion, which could seem a bit rough and provocative, that it’s easier to fish in troubled waters, and that some western governments – I am not going to name any names – are taking advantage of this unresolved issue to exert influence on Armenia and Azerbaijan? Do you believe this holds true?
A.D.: It does hold true, of course. Moreover, observers and analysts have no doubt that this is true regarding each participant of the negotiation process, including the countries and international organizations that took the trouble to set up the Minsk Group… Several respected public figures and professional diplomats have been members for a few years already. But this is the exterior of this process. Inherently, it’s a purely geopolitical issue. Unfortunately… I’m now speaking as an Azerbaijani person.
S.S.: Oil?
A.D.: And not only oil. Azerbaijan has a very advantageous geopolitical location and quite a lot of mineral resources. Armenia’s position is also of interest to Russia and the United States. But I wouldn’t reduce it to these factors only; there are certain aspects that appear to have little significance on the surface of it but in fact play a very important role. I’m referring to the attitude of the international community toward the participants of the conflict, the nature of the conflict and its causes. Unfortunately, my native country falls short here. We’ve taken to the international stage only recently, whereas Armenia has been promoting itself for almost 200 years. It’s been striving for territorial integrity very persistently and consistently, and it deserves all due respect for this. But before this could happen, they first had to obtain this territory.
Yesterday I leafed through a few books on the history of the development of Armenian statehood in the early 20th century and the role of territorial issues in this process. The books mentioned the lands that Armenia absorbed and the intense negotiations conducted by peaceful powers. There was the rivalry and the cooperation needed to create a starting ground for the nation-state of Armenia.
Azerbaijan never faced this sort of problem. It has always existed within the boundaries of areas inhabited by Azerbaijani people. Armenia laid its first claims to regions inhabited by Azerbaijani people without even obtaining status as an independent state…
Armenian and Azerbaijani people have lived side by side in some regions. This was the basis for making territorial claims. This position is not new in history. The principle “Germany is where Germans live” was widely used before WWII. The same approach is used today.
S.S.: You’ve touched on the issue of propaganda. As the former head of the Azerbaijani Communist Party’s Department of Propaganda and Ideology…
A.D.: …and Agitation.
S.S.: So what mistakes were made in propaganda and agitation? How was it possible that a conflict broke out, one of the bloodiest conflicts in former Soviet republics?
A.D.: Yes, it’s been the longest, toughest and bloodiest conflict to date. The conflict has been dragging on for years. It was sparked by the notorious riots and looting in the territories inhabited by Armenian and Azerbaijani people in 1905. These tragic events recurred after the October Revolution, in 1918-1920, and were always ignited by land and territorial disputes.
The Azerbaijani government and its people have never laid any claims to the areas inhabited by Armenian people. However, Armenia has been constantly making such claims. You’ve brought up a very sensitive matter. I’d like to remind you that in the Soviet Union nobody dared to bring up issues of conflict between nations or undertake anything serious in this sphere. Outwardly, all nations coexisted in friendship. Maybe Armenia was just more skilled at finding effective methods of mass propaganda throughout the Soviet Union, successfully promoting its position and territorial claims against Azerbaijan and Azeri people. Yes, it was really so.
Since you reminded me of my previous position, I’d like to mention that I regularly received letters and documents from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that asserted the right of Armenian people to certain territories, Nagorno-Karabakh and even the entire Karabakh. We even had to write letters of explanation.
You know, I read archival documents to find out that Baku received such letters before the war, after it, and even immediately after the end of World War II, in 1945-1946. At that time the country was ruled by Joseph Stalin, and Armenian leaders wrote letters with their claims to him directly. Such issues were addressed in a very plain manner at that time: Moscow simply asked Azerbaijan’s opinion. It was then governed by the famous politician and party activist Mir Dzhafar Bagirov. He wrote a reply to Malenkov, who was to report to Stalin. In his letter, Bagirov wrote something along the lines that if Armenia wanted the part of Karabakh settled by Armenians, Azerbaijan didn’t mind it. At the same time, he reminded him that several thousand and even several thousand hundred Azerbaijani people lived in Armenia, Georgia and Daghestan. Why not use this principle for these cases? I’m now just giving my own interpretation of Bagirov’s idea… The question was closed.
Unfortunately, we’re living in a difficult time. I don’t have anything against perestroika, and I believe that democratic changes are essential factors in the successful development of society, nations and the world in general, but we’ve been unable to understand what democracy is and how to handle it. This is why our neighbors felt free to act at their own discretion and carried out a propaganda campaign. And the entire Soviet Union sided with Armenian people, who were portrayed as victims, unable to reunite with their motherland. Historically, it had nothing to do with reunification; there was no ground for it.
S.S.: You’ve just mentioned letters from Moscow. Do Armenian and Azeri leaders follow Moscow’s influence now? What role does Russia play in conflict resolution? Has it changed over the past years?
A.D.: Russia plays a very important role, and not only because it is a major power. Russia has been historically involved in these areas: the Russian Empire established its presence in the Caucasus, especially the southern Caucasus. Since the so-called divorce of Soviet republics and the formation of a series of independent states in post-Soviet territories, Russia has retained its leading role. Russia is an absolute leader not only because of its size and power but also because it’s been so involved in our shared history. It did significantly influence political and economic matters in these areas.
Also, it’s no secret that soon we’ll mark the 16th anniversary of the truce between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This agreement was signed at a time when Armenia occupied seven regions inhabited by Azerbaijani people and Azerbaijan was a sovereign state. But it was a matter of the liberation of those people. Armenia suggests recognizing the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh as a sovereign state, or what it believes to be a sovereign state, to solve the problems of the occupied territories. Russia shares this position, and so do other powers, including the U.S., France and other European countries. They all say, “You reach agreements on your own, and we will support your decision whatever it is.” This is a misleading position. Everyone is aware of Armenia’s attitude. And it feels free to have it since it feels no pressure. It’s virtually blackmail. Let them recognize it first, and then we’ll return them their territories. So, Azerbaijan’s current stance is the only one that it can have in such a situation. The Azeri president says he can give Nagorno-Karabakh the status of autonomy, ensure direct links between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, and resolve other issues, but Armenia craves more than this. Judging by articles in the Armenian press and the programs of its political parties, both the ruling and opposition parties, it has quite different plans and attitudes to Azerbaijan and its territories.
S.S.: As far as I can understand from what you’ve just said, Azerbaijan will never agree to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. And on its part, Armenia will never abandon its ambitions. Do you really think that compromise or dialogue is possible in such a situation?
A.D.: A compromise is always possible if states that waged war yesterday manage to reach a certain level of trust today. We should consider different methods to create a candid atmosphere between the participants of the negotiation process. The gestures of trust in the past few years have been reserved and sporadic. It is easy to forget about cultural exchanges that have happened between Yerevan and Baku because they seemed somewhat artificial. Maybe that’s because there were artists participating in this? The question is about who defines public opinion. In a broad sense, it’s well-educated, intelligent and concerned people. But before holding any meetings, these issues must be discussed at home. How far can we go? The Nagorno-Karabakh dispute concerns all Azerbaijani people, and Azeri politicians understand it fairly well.
S.S.: Mr Dashdamirov, thank you for sharing your opinions and for finding time to visit us.
