Can the Azeri government sell the national lands?
October 29th, 2007 by sanan
YES is the answer for Mr. Eldar Namazov – the candidate for the 2008 Presidential elections in Azerbaijan. “The government is pretty much involved in doing that [selling out the occupied lands]”, said Namazov, the former head of the Heydar Aliyev’s administration. In1998, Namazov together with three other high-ranking officials resigned from Aliyev’s administration for reasons still kept unknown. Despite his involvement in the government structures, Namazov maintained respectability in academic, political and public spheres.
In a small room, rented by the student activists for meetings and other occasions, Mr. Namazov gave a sincere speech on the issue to an audience of students.
To me the most interesting part of his speech was his backing of the Kocharian administration in Yerevan. In Azerbaijan, you can hardly hear of any kind of support expressed towards the Armenian government, but surprisingly for me, Mr. Namazov seemed quite confident about what he was saying. 
He put it into a simple logic: America is solely and mostly interested in resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in a speedy fashion –> whether it is Armenia or Azerbaijan who get more is the issue of second importance for the neo-conservatives in Washington.
The Minsk Group – a group of actors participating in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution – has recently expressed optimism regarding the state of affairs over Nagorno Karabakh.
In 2008, both Azerbaijan and Armenia will hold the Presidential elections.
The fact that Azerbaijan is oil rich and has the fastest growing economy in the world (expected growth 37% next year), is a strong hint of the Western interest in the country. It is expected that the potential benefits of partnership with Azerbaijan would push the Western democracies to close their eyes on issues such as human rights abuse, elections fraud, etc.
In Armenia, Mr. Petrossian is a candidate with democratic credentials, who is supported both by US and the EU. He also champions the “step by step” approach to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution, which benefits the Azeri side more than the Armenian. It could be argued that the reason why Petrossian was overthrown in 1998 is precisely his approach to the conflict resolution.
Now USA pressures the current President Kocharian through its open support to the candidate Petrossian and through messages that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict should be resolved as soon as possible.
In fact, Azerbaijan will win more if Petrossian succeeds in elections, simply because he is for the “step by step” peace talks. HOWEVER, notes Mr. Namazov quite correctly, due to certain reasons, the Azeri media backs the Kocharian administration and portrays the Petrossian as the initiator of the war over Nagorno Karabakh.
Out of blue, Kocharian became a national hero of Azerbaijan, who was educated in Baku, slept in one of the student dormitories, and who knows what else.
From my own research work I can surely state that Mr. Petrossian was completely against the war and was the main broker of all cease-fire agreements. The question arises: why does the Azeri government support Kocharian and not Petrossian?
Again Mr. Namazov uses a simple logic to explain this: assuming that Petrossian wins the elections and a more democratic rule is established in the neighboring Armenia, Azerbaijan will have to face a few blushes. Add to the “Beacon of Democracy in Caucasus” – Georgia – and you have an isolated authoritarian Azerbaijan.
After this, Azerbaijan will have to either a. prove itself an able Democracy (which is rather hard) or b. to portray Armenia as a non-democratic state and thus shift a share of blame over the non-resolution of the protracted conflict between the two states.
Mr. Namazov promised to address the question of “what should be done” in two weeks time with the documents backing his approach…
I think Mr. Namazov is right in his observation that Azeri media started to appraise Kocharian… We should also expect the Armenian media to back the Aliyev administration. It’s a Caucasian tradition to return the favors.
kronstadt Says
Hello,
(found this post through OneWorldMultimedia blog)
This is an interesting post, but I think Namazov’s analysis misses out the big picture of Global Capital and generally the logic of how neo-imperialist powers work.
The interest of the USA (or any of the imperialist powers for that matter) is not the speedy resolution of this conflict, but quite the opposite. Divide and Rule! Divide and Rule!
The moment that nationlist questions are answred that is also the time that people start focusing on social, cultural and most importantly - economical issues. And that is also the time when people start pointing fingures at the rulling elite, the economical Labrador Class and the Imperialists. The most simple formula that has been used historically time and time again is WAR - WAR - WAR and that is what the imperialists always wanted (so that they can get Azeri oil for cheapers, and also so that most that SOFAZ money is spent on buying weapons, rather then building a robust industrial platform and investing in country’s future development).
The Neo-Imperialist logic is slightly different and more subtle. The important factor for them is not War per se, but the illusion of constant threat of war as a means to social mediation of the populace as well as of the Labrador Class. The logic is simple: keep people from communicating directly with each other, keep them in fear and keep representing the other side as the “Booggey-man”, and they’sll keep voting for you.
We are no longer leaving in the age of Ideologies, Priciples and Ideals of a Just Society — 21st century is the century of Politics Of Fear.
Add to that a whole bunch of discourses about the neo-liberalist (mis)conceptions about (pseudo)democracy as preconditions for favouritism, and you get the total picture, which is albeit different from what Mr Namazov has outlined.
Mr Kocharian was favoured by the imperialists (both American and Russian) precisely because his one-package solution is totally unworkable and unacceptable to either of the sides — he was a good vehicle for buying time until the pipeline is built and the oil starts flowing under terms that favour the imperialists and the Aliev clan, but not the people of Azerbaijan and Caucasus. The other major achievement of Mr Kocharian (as far as the imperialists are concerned) is that he temporarily removed from the negotiating table the very parties who are and will always be the ultimate decision makers in this process — the People of Karabakh (both Armenian and Azeri). Both Alievs were also favoured by the imperialists for the very same reason — they play along, keep the spectacle running, keep feeding Azeri people with hatered and illusions that Nagorno Karabakh will eventually return to Azerbaijan *unconditionally*, and, in effect, keep the oil flowing under similar terms that once caused a revolution in Iran.
In effect, the whole achievement of imperialists and the local Labrador class is precisely the production of the idea that the conflict has been “frozen”. At the same time, for the last 10 years there have been no realistic proposals that could accomodate the IMMEDIATE needs of the very people who have been caught up in this conflict. For instance, there has been no serious talk about the return of the refugees (the Right to Return), and there has been no serious talk about Self-Governance or security of Artsakh (NKR) with the immediately concerned parties at the table.
The last 10 years have done more damage to both interested sides. There is more deadlock now then before.
At the same time, the renewal of military actions, through not out of question will seriously damage the initiator. Diplomatically speaking, the conflict has arrived to a paradoxical point whereby the one who initiates military action will be the ultimate looser.
By now Dr Ter-Petrossian’s step-by-step approach is literally impossible to renew. When asked what his thoughts are on this matter, he just couldn’t answer simply people both Armenia and Azerbaijan have led the issue so astray that it is not even possible to renew negotiations in the step-by-step manner that he proposed over a decade ago.
It will take a lot of brain-power and a major shift in values and priorities from both sides before any viable, constructive and just solutions to this ever-adravating deadlock can start to emerge. As for now neither Mr Kocharian, nor Dr Ter-Petrossian or Mr Aliev have answers — and maybe it is not them who should have the right to these kinds of answers.
Nov 1st, 2007 at 7:06 am