Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to be here. Thank you for the invitation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh that we are discussing now is primarily a problem of the 20th century. It is specifically a result of boundary delineation in the Soviet Union by its early leaders, including Stalin.
In these introductory remarks, I will make three major points.
Number one, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis consider the Karabakh region to be historic patrimony and, therefore, each rejects the claims of the other. The region has had a mixed population for centuries, and cultural monuments and cemeteries of both peoples exist there.
Number two, the initial settlement in the early 1920s concerning conflicting claims to the area known now as Nagorno—or mountainous—Karabakh took place in the early twenties as part of a larger territorial dispute over three regions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, dating from their period of independence from 1918 to 1920. Under Soviet rule, the three regions were distributed between the two republics.
Going from west to east, these were, first, Nakhchivan, in the far west, bordering Turkey. That went to Azerbaijan. Next, the area of Zangezur, now part of Armenia, was awarded to Armenia, thus separating Nakhchivan from the rest of Azerbaijan. Finally, the mountainous region in Karabakh was the subject of the creation of a Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast—or region—known as the NKAO. It was created inside Azerbaijan, but it provided cultural autonomy for the local Armenians living there.
All parties were unhappy with this arrangement, but it was created, like other autonomous regions, in particular, I believe, to ensure that local parties would contend against each other rather than fighting against Moscow.
Number three is that the first Karabakh war, which took place from 1988 until 1994, was preceded by a Karabakh movement in Armenia. The leaders of that movement took the opportunity that they perceived under Gorbachev to attempt to get the NKAO transferred from Azerbaijan to Armenia. Demonstrations in Yerevan were followed by local fighting in the Karabakh region, and then targeted killings and evictions of populations occurred in both republics. With the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in December 1991, fighting escalated and became officially a war between two sovereign states rather than an internal Soviet conflict.
By the ceasefire of 1994, Armenian forces had successfully taken control of the Soviet creation of the NKAO, as well as the area between it and the Armenian border to the west, a swath of territory from the NKAO south to the Iranian border and some territory to the east. The total amount held by Armenian forces was 14% of Azerbaijan's territory. Azerbaijani forces were defeated, obviously, and humiliated. Sources agree that Azerbaijan lost the larger number of the 30,000 fatalities of this long conflict and about three-quarters of the one million displaced civilians.
Despite these catastrophic losses, Azerbaijanis said privately, if not publicly, that western governments and human rights groups did not raise a cry at that time about displaced Azerbaijanis or about ethnic cleansing, nor did they provide aid to Azerbaijan for the IDPs at that time, when Azerbaijan was still a poor country.
Thereafter, every party on Azerbaijan's political spectrum—and certainly every individual I encountered—wanted to take back that land, get citizens back to their homes and restore some of the national dignity lost in that war. Azerbaijan was going to try to take that back. It was predictable. It was only a matter of time.
With post-Soviet independence, the Azerbaijani government forged alliances with Turkey and Israel, both of which sold it weapons systems. Turkey also provided extensive military training over years, and Azerbaijan had the oil revenues to pay for it all.
Today, governments and international agencies raise human rights considerations about Azerbaijan retaking Nagorno-Karabakh, as they should and must. At the same time, western governments and agencies know the Azerbaijani government has an appalling human rights record toward its Azerbaijani citizens. However, western entities continue to do business with Baku and put human rights and democracy on the back burner.
Azerbaijanis in opposition to the government of Ilham Aliyev will say that the west has a double standard. It cares more about the repression of Armenians than of Azerbaijanis under the same government. Even human rights activists inside Azerbaijan don't see hope coming from the west.
I would like to raise the possibility of highlighting all the human rights abuses taking place in the region, thereby giving hope to human rights defenders of all nationalities.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
