By Harut Sassounian

There are many justified complaints about Russia’s shameful role in the loss of Artsakh and inaction in coming to the defense of Armenia’s borders. However, there is also a lot to complain about regarding the indifference of the international community, including the United States, to Azerbaijan’s aggression against Artsakh and Armenia.

For 30 years, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, composed of the United States, France, and Russia, the mediators in the Artsakh conflict, issued repeated statements about the unacceptability of the use of force, urging the settlement of the dispute through peaceful negotiations.

However, contrary to such well-intentioned words, when Azerbaijan repeatedly attacked Artsakh and Armenia with frequent shootings at the border for three decades, the OSCE Minsk Group simply issued meaningless statements, urging both sides not to engage in violence. The OSCE, however, never bothered to point a finger at the guilty party — Azerbaijan — thus equating the victimizer with the victim.

Such unjust statements encouraged Azerbaijan to brazenly continue its attacks, culminating in the unleashing of a massive war against Artsakh in 2020, followed by incursions into the territory of Armenia. Last month, Azerbaijan violated the agreement it signed in 2020 to allow Russian peacekeepers to protect the remnants of Artsakh’s population until 2025. Pres. Ilham Aliyev, knowing full well that no foreign country would intervene to stop his attacks, ethnically cleansed the 120,000 inhabitants of Artsakh and drove them out of their historical homeland.

On Sept. 14, 2023, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State Yuri Kim testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We will not tolerate any military action. We will not tolerate any attack on the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.” Days later, Azerbaijan attacked and occupied Artsakh confident that the U.S. government was bluffing.

Naturally, no one expected the United States or another major power to send troops to defend Artsakh and Armenia, but merely urging Azerbaijan not to block the Lachin Corridor or refrain from the use of force is an exercise in futility. The international community did not even impose sanctions on Azerbaijan because its gas and oil were more valuable than Armenian blood.

To make matters worse, after ignoring Azerbaijan’s repeated attacks on Artsakh and Armenia since the 2020 war, Samantha Power, the Administrator of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), finally arrived in Armenia last week, bringing along a letter from Pres. Joe Biden which contained a lot of sweet words for Armenians, but once again, no action.

Even more shocking, Power offered the pitiful amount of $11.5 million in humanitarian aid to the 120,000 destitute Artsakh refugees. That’s almost $96 for each refugee, deprived of housing, food, medicines and other basic necessities. This is a shameful amount of money compared to the USAID’s annual budget of $50 billion. Her visit was too late and accomplished too little.

Several other countries and international agencies also pledged assistance to the Artsakh Armenians: France ($7.4 million), Germany ($5.3 million), the European Union ($5.3 million), Sweden ($1.3 million), Canada ($1.85 million), Denmark ($140,000), United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR (amount unspecified), Japan (amount unspecified), Spain (amount unspecified). Armenia committed $25 million, plus $125 for rent and utilities per month for six months for each refugee. The government of Cyprus invited the Artsakh refugees to resettle in Cyprus. However, it is not a good idea to take these displaced Armenians out of Armenia.

In addition, dozens of Armenian organizations throughout the Diaspora are raising funds to help the Artsakh refugees. There are also many charitable organizations and businesses in Armenia that are helping the Artsakh Armenians with funds, supplies or services. Armenia’s Ministry of Finance opened a bank account to receive donations from the public. There is also an office set up by the Armenian government to coordinate the distribution of the offered assistance.

Just in case someone thinks that the pledged assistance is a lot of money, it is in fact a negligible amount compared to the vast needs of the refugees for the months and years to come. Ukraine, on the other hand, has received so far $80 billion from the United States for its military, financial and humanitarian needs. In addition, 41 other countries have contributed tens of billions of dollars to Ukraine.

The lack of concrete action by the Biden Administration, aside from pledging $11.5 million to the Artsakh refugees, has highly disappointed many Armenian-Americans. It is surprising that Pres. Biden, an experienced politician and candidate for reelection next year, who has one of the lowest ratings in the history of the United States for an incumbent president, has not made more of an effort to win over Armenian-American voters. Even if Pres. Biden does not care about Armenia and Artsakh, he should have at least cared about his own self-interest, which is getting votes for his own re-election.

it’s high time to contemplate the situation. Pashinyan, in order to maintain his position, borrowed a significant $5 billion, which was injected into law enforcement and the bureaucracy. Now, the consequences are starting to surface, and it’s time for the nation to bear the cost. The Armenian dram has experienced a rapid depreciation against major foreign currencies, plummeting by 50 drams in less than a week. Previously, the exchange rate stood at $1=385, but currently, it has weakened to $1=435.

BEFORE: $1=385
NOW: $1=435

See less

Azerbaijan’s takeover of the Nagorno-Karabakh region by military force on September 19, triggering an exodus of Armenians from the disputed region, is a major setback for European Union and United States diplomacy.

The victory by force has enormous regional and international implications. It will incite a new spiral of hate between Armenians and Azerbaijanis and erode peacemaking efforts in the region. What is more, it creates a dangerous precedent of authoritarian “conflict resolution,” undermining the credibility of liberal democracies in settling disputes peacefully. Despite its relative weakness, Russia is setting the (authoritarian) norms in this conflict, not the EU or the US.

The most recent dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh goes back more than 30 years to the fall of the Soviet Union. After Armenia won the first war in 1994, Azerbaijan in 2020 regained seven surrounding regions and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, but not the region itself – until now. In just one day, on September 19, Azerbaijan took control over the self-proclaimed republic with its large Armenian population of nearly 120,000 people. Under international law as regards the territorial integrity of states, Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. Therefore, it is not a question of whether Azerbaijan should control its territory, but how it regains this control, peacefully or by force. Despite ongoing internationally facilitated negotiations and compromises from the Armenian government, leaders in the Azerbaijan capital Baku have systematically planned the military takeover since the second Karabakh War in autumn of 2020, when

Azerbaijan had to accept a ceasefire agreement negotiated by Russia. 

Azerbaijan’s military dominance, built with Israeli military technology and comprehensive support from NATO member Turkey, helped it easily take the region, putting Russian “peace forces” deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh to the test. But one thing is clear – without Russia’s blessing, this military operation would not have been possible. It reflects the new geopolitical reality in the region since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, where different powers are competing for their interests and a new regional security order is being negotiated. Although Russia seems to have lost influence, it will remain a key actor in the region, making the rules in bargaining with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Iran. Human rights and peaceful conflict resolution are not in the mindset of this authoritarian norm-setting. 

A Change in Interests since Russia’s War Against Ukraine 

Russia’s war against Ukraine has shifted its interests in the South Caucasus, increasing its demand for a North-South route to Iran via Azerbaijan and for more transit routes to Turkey. These alternative connections for trade and transit should also help circumvent Western sanctions. Furthermore, as a close ally of Baku, Turkey is a key partner in this endeavor. Contrary to its projected image, Russia has never been an altruistic protective power for Armenia. It has kept the balance between Armenia and Azerbaijan in recent decades by supplying both sides with weapons and has tried to keep the West out of the region. Now it needs all the weapons it can get for its war against Ukraine.

Russia has deployed nearly 2000 not internationally recognized peace forces to Nagorno-Karabakh since the 2020 ceasefire agreement. It also agreed to guarantee the land route to Armenia via the Lachin corridor. But Russia is no longer willing or able to fulfill those guarantees. Indeed, the authoritarian regime in Baku is much closer in terms of governance to the Kremlin than the government of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Pashinyan was democratically elected twice, first in 2018 after the Armenian “velvet revolution” and again in 2021 after the second Nagorno-Karabakh war. He has come under fire from the Russian leadership for distancing his country from Moscow, which increasingly tries to undermine his legitimacy with personal attacks and disinformation campaigns. He has even started to question Armenia’s 

participation in the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization. 

The Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement in 2020 circumvented the multilateral OSCE Minsk group as the main negotiation format, and Russia has since tried to regionalize the conflict in a trilateral format which it controls. Turkey also wanted to join this format but was only allowed to join a joint monitoring center on Nagorno Karabakh with Russia. In reaction, the EU and the US have created their own complementary facilitation formats to internationalize the conflict and create an alternative to the Russian deal-making approach. But they failed to achieve a breakthrough, since neither the EU nor the US was able or willing to exert pressure on both conflicting parties – particularly on Baku – for a functioning mechanism to implement an agreement On the part of the EU, the lack of support from larger member states weakened the negotiating power of the European Council President Charles Michel. One exception was French President Emmanuel Macron, but he is seen as biased due to France’s large Armenian minority, and he has not been consistent in his approach. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took part in a June 1 meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders at the European Political Community (EPC) Summit in Chisinau, Moldova, but this had no effect on resolving the conflict and merely laid bare Germany’s halfhearted engagement in the region as we can also see in Georgia.

The Next Stage of Escalation is Coming

Azerbaijan’s takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in no way ended or deescalated the conflict but instead is likely to usher in a new stage of humiliation and revenge. In addition to the humanitarian catastrophe taking place in that region, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev now wants to undermine the territorial integrity of the Armenian state. Both countries still have not agreed on the delimitation of their borders since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Azerbaijan last year took small but strategically important parts of Armenian border regions. Baku’s next aim is to carve out an extraterritorial corridor to its exclave Nakhichevan via the Southern Syunik region of Armenia, and it threatens to do so by force if Armenia does not comply. A meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Nakhichevan on September 25 demonstrated Turkish support for this idea. Russia also has an interest in this additional route to Turkey, and the 2020 ceasefire agreement includes a clause that border forces of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) will guarantee its safety. Since Yerevan trusts neither Moscow nor Baku, Armenia sees this as an additional threat.

Furthermore, President Aliyev has initiated a discussion about a constructed “Western Azerbaijan” that questions the very existence of the Armenian state. This aggressive rhetoric combined with a language of hate, the military dominance of Azerbaijan, and limited action by the international community to deter this policy of force has invited Baku to maximize its demands. The weak reaction from the EU and US to the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, and now the military takeover of the disputed region, have encouraged the Azerbaijani government. EU member states were not even able to agree on a common statement condemning Baku’s military aggression with hundreds of victims because Hungary refused to support it.

According to international law, Azerbaijan has the right to regain control of its territory. But systematically starving the people of Nagorno-Karabakh over months, killing civilians, bombing civil infrastructure and driving people out by threat and force contravenes international law and human rights. Rather than liberal peacemaking, this authoritarian “conflict settlement” by force has become the successful model for the time being. It is not the EU and the US who are defining the rules of the game with negotiated compromise, mediation, and trust-building through people-to-people contacts, but Baku with military power and the support of Russia and Turkey.

Russia as a Norm-Setter 

Despite public debate about Russia losing influence in the South Caucasus due to its military overstretch in Ukraine, the opposite is true. Russia is the successful norm-setter in this conflict with use of force, power of strength, and zero-sum logic. Moscow is making deals with Azerbaijan at the cost of the Karabakh Armenians and the sovereignty of the Armenian state. Yes, Armenian elites missed their chance for a peace agreement under better conditions years ago when Armenia still controlled Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding regions. But the West has failed to react adequately to Azerbaijan’s 2020 war and did not deter Baku from further aggression. Now, once again, its subdued 

reaction to this one-day war and failure to deter more military violence could encourage Baku to take the “Zangezur corridor” to Nakhichevan or the entire Syunik region. The lack of action and clear messaging by the West was a precondition for Putin’s war against Ukraine. A repeat of this mistake is an invitation for President Aliyev, with the support of Turkish President Erdogan, to further undermine the territorial integrity of the Armenian state and take revenge on Armenia for the first Nagorno-Karabakh war. 

The West must be unequivocal: Any aggression against Armenia will come with high costs and a tough response. This should be clearly communicated to President Aliyev with both offers of support and the threat of sanctions. If Azerbaijan agrees on a sustainable peace and border agreement with Armenia, the EU could offer more investment in transit corridors and in rebuilding the liberated territories. If there is more aggression, the EU should sanction the purchase of Azerbaijani gas, which comprises for around 3 percent of EU gas imports. The reliance on Azerbaijani gas is overrated and seems to be rather an excuse for non-action than reality. Furthermore, it should sanction those stakeholders who are responsible for violence. This could be via personal sanctions like freezing assets and bank accounts, or travel bans up to the highest level of the Azerbaijani state – closely coordinated with the US. The EU should make a robust offer of sending observers or a peacekeeping mission to ensure the security of the Armenian state. The recent decision to increase personnel for the EU Monitoring Mission in Armenia is a positive step, but not sufficient.

In the framework of the next EPC summit in Granada on October 5, Germany and France should better coordinate their approach and increase their engagement to deescalate, resolve the conflict and agree on possible sanctions. This should be followed by greater ownership and leadership in the conflict by a coalition of EU member states. If the EU fails to set liberal norms for peacemaking in post-Soviet conflict zones, meditated by impartial multilateral actors, it will not only fail as an actor in its own neighborhood but also beyond. 

Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine should be a wake-up call for the EU to become a security and peace actor in its different neighborhoods and build a robust toolbox with negotiation platforms, sanction regimes, peacekeeping, and monitoring missions. The second Nagorno-Karabakh

Read more: https://dgap.org/de/forschung/publikationen/nagorno-karabakh-rise-authoritarian-conflict-resolution

 

The South African Anglican Church’s declaration follows years of campaigning by Palestinian activists and human rights groups.

The Anglican Church in South Africa has declared Israel an “apartheid state“, following a campaign by Palestinian activists.

The Christian church’s Provincial Standing Committee approved a resolution on Wednesday defining Israel as an apartheid state and reviewing pilgrimages to the Holy Land.

Amnesty International, along with other NGOs, refers to the conditions Palestinians live under in Israeli occupation as being “apartheid”, referring to the oppressive system of racial segregation in South Africa which was in place until 1994.

“As people of faith who are distressed by the pain of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza – and who long for security and a just peace for both Palestine and Israel – we can no longer ignore the realities on the ground,” the head of the South African Anglican Church, Archbishop Thabo Makgoba, said on his blog.

For some reason, the term ‘normalisation’ has been translated into Arabic using the word “Tatbi’”, derived from the Arabic word Tabi’i or natural, when in English, the term derives from normal, which means usual or ordinary rather than natural.

Regardless, the Israeli governments have wholeheartedly embraced the usage of this term, in no less enthusiasm than their emphasis on the peace agreements with the Arab states which they fear would remain superficial and ceremonial if relations are not also fully normalised. Indeed, the quest here is to entrench settler-colonialism in the Arab region and recast it by normalising a system of violent power and domination that contradicts all that is natural and normal. This way, the people of the region should be tamed to accept normal relations with Israel without a just solution of the issue of Palestine and to get used to occupation and apartheid.

The African nations that had boycotted South Africa, refusing to normalise relations with the apartheid regime, were much more impoverished than the Arab nations and more in need of economic ties with the abnormal entity in their neighborhood. These African states were neither more democratic nor less authoritarian than the Arab states of today, yet the Africans, both peoples and regimes, unanimously agreed on opposition to racism and colonialism.

Undoubtedly, apartheid South Africa – and Israel, which remained its staunch ally until the very end – had been a holdover of the era of colonialism. In our region, the unanimity regarding the stance on Israeli occupation, the last remaining unresolved instance of colonialism, at least inasmuch as it was once expressed publicly, has faded.

If we put aside here the moral stance – which should never be put aside except for the sake of argument – and consider instead normalization as a purportedly practical and pragmatic move, we find that in reality, even then, it is not a justification. This applies to both the countries bordering Palestine and those who were never officially part of any wars related to Palestine.

BAGHDAD, Oct 1 (Reuters) – A fire that swept through a crowded wedding hall in a northern Iraqi town killing more than 100 people was blamed on “gross negligence” and lack of safety measures, the results of a government investigation into the disaster said.

The investigation results, announced at a news conference on Sunday by Interior Minister Abdul Amir al-Shammari, said the owner of the hall and three other staff members had allowed 900 people into the venue when it was designed for a maximum of 400.

Watch: https://www.facebook.com/wally.sarkeesian/videos/275480548697311

Yaroslav Hunka was a member of the 1st Galician division, a unit of Adolf Hitler’s war machine

John Paul Tasker,

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologized on behalf of Canada’s Parliament after a man who fought in Adolf Hitler’s Nazi forces was included in an event last week honoring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“This was a mistake that has deeply embarrassed Parliament and Canada. All of us who were in this House on Friday regret deeply having stood and clapped even though we did so unaware of the context,” Trudeau said in a brief statement to reporters.

“It was a horrendous violation of the memory of the millions of people who died in the Holocaust,” he said, adding the celebration of ex-soldier Yaroslav Hunka was “deeply, deeply painful” to Jewish people, Poles, Roma, the LGBT community and other racialized people in particular — some of the groups that were targeted by the Nazi regime in the Second World War.

Trudeau also said that “Canada is deeply sorry” for involving Zelenskyy, who was pictured applauding Hunka — an image that has been exploited by Russian propagandists.

Canada has sent an apology to Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian delegation through diplomatic channels, Trudeau added.

Liberal caucus sources have told CBC News that Trudeau told MPs Wednesday they should avoid speaking to the press about Hunka’s invitation and the subsequent fallout, and that the media frenzy would die down if they stayed tight-lipped.

Trudeau’s remarks come after Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said inviting Hunka to attend Zelenskyy’s historic address to Parliament is the “biggest single diplomatic embarrassment” in the country’s history.

Poilievre is blaming Trudeau for the mishap, despite outgoing Speaker Anthony Rota’s assertion that he alone was responsible for inviting Hunka.

Rota called the Ukrainian veteran a “Canadian hero” in the Commons and prompted a standing ovation.

Hunka was part of the First Ukrainian Division, also known as the Waffen-SS Galicia Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division — a voluntary unit that was part of Hitler’s forces.

Speaking to reporters before a Conservative caucus meeting on Parliament Hill, Poilievre said Trudeau was responsible for making Zelenskyy’s visit to Canada a success — and Hunka’s inclusion in the event has sullied Canada’s reputation on the global stage.

“Every single person ought to have been vetted for their diplomatic and security sensitivities if the prime minister and his massive apparatus were doing their jobs,” Poilievre said.

In question period, Poilievre again hammered Trudeau over the incident, saying it’s not enough for the prime minister to apologize on behalf of Canada or Parliament. He said Trudeau should wear this personally.

“This prime minister allowed for a monumental, unprecedented and global shame to unfold in this chamber,” Poilievre said. “Will he take personal responsibility for this shame and personally apologize on behalf of himself?”

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yaroslav-hunka-fallout-1.6979628?ref=readthemaple.com

Take a look at Erdogan, Aliyev, and Putin, who have held power for the past two decades without facing electoral defeat.

We inquired with Vazgen Manukyan, a member of the “National Committee,” about the possibility of Prime Minister Pashinyan announcing early elections tomorrow, similar to what occurred in 2021. Back then, during the movement to defend the Motherland, various institutions including the General Staff, alongside the church, called for Pashinyan’s resignation. However, the opposition eventually chose to participate in those elections.

Manukyan maintained his stance, asserting that he was opposed to such a move back then and remains so now. His reasoning lies in the fact that since 1995-96, the ruling authorities have consistently emerged victorious in elections, resulting in no change in government. While Manukyan did not rule out the potential for a change in government through effective organization, he emphasized that the fate of the people should not be staked on such a gamble.