Various ways have been proposed to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict over the years. Lately, on the 5th of June, 2012, a discussion was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington with the participation of four experts entitled, “Nagorno-Karabagh: Will the Frozen Conflict Turn Hot?” It is worth noting, by the way, the coincidence of the event’s date and content with the attacks carried out by Azerbaijan on the Republic of Armenia on the night of the 4th-5th of June. However, let us turn to the actual matter at hand.
Unfortunately, I was not present at that discussion and am not familiar with its details. Regardless, one point in particular among the issues raised drew my attention, and I would like to turn to it. Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, spoke of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through “forceful arbitration”. According to news sources, he said, “Mediators don’t negotiate: both sides – Azerbaijan and Armenia don’t let their job work. Now, in this case, it’s time to move from mediation to forceful arbitration”.[1]
This idea differs in essence from other ones that have been expressed with regards to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict until now. Whereas the basic principle till today was that the parties to the conflict must themselves arrive at a mutually-acceptable conclusion, and the mediator states – in this case, the Minks Group and its three co-chairs – would assist in that process and serve as the guarantors of the implementation of any agreement, now for the first time the idea has been expressed of a resolution without the agreement of the parties, and perhaps even one that could go against their will.
Considering the fact that American foreign policy is customarily developed first at the level of experts who express the ideas and get them into circulation, after which, given some circumstances, they get carried out as real policy, this idea is worth analysing in some detail, even more so given that the organisation Wayne Merry represents, the American Foreign Policy Council, has great influence on new approaches being developed in US policy. Wayne Merry himself is a seasoned diplomat, with a decades-long career spanning the State Department and the Department of Defense. It is important to emphasise that any enforcement – and, in this case, that applies to the implementation of a forceful arbitration in a war zone – will require the presence of a large number of “peacekeepers”. It is also clear that many states would have interest in placing a large number of “peacekeepers” in Nagorno-Karabakh, that is, on the northern border of Iran.
Now let us take a look at just how new this innovative-sounding idea by Wayne Merry is. When it comes down to it, this idea is not new at all. In principle, the arbitration as a resolution to this conflict was first adopted by the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), and then by the League of Nations that arose from it and followed it (1920-1946), and, naturally, it was passed on to the legal successor of the latter, the United Nations.
Diplomats, politicians and other public figures, and experts often refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as a “frozen conflict”. This is an absolutely accurate characterisation, but the main mistake is that many of them measure the “freezing” from the 1990s. That is not the case at all in reality. The conflict arose from that time when, in 1918, the Azerbaijani Republic, such an entity being established for the first time in history, claimed the entirety of the Baku and Elizavetpol administrative units of the former Russian Empire without any legal or other basis and without considering the demographics of either of those territories. Of course, this approach was unacceptable for the Great Powers at the Paris Peace Conference – the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, as the creation of new states and their frontiers were not to be based on the administrative divisions of former states, but on the principle of self-determination of peoples as brought forth by US President Woodrow Wilson.
And so, when during the first London conference of the Paris Peace Conference (12 February to 10 April, 1920), the issue of the borders of the Republic of Armenia was once again taken up in detail on the 16th of February,[2] it was decided to create a commission “on the boundaries of a new independent State of Armenia” comprised of one member each of the Great Powers.[3] Accordingly, the commission was established on the 21st of February, 1920, with representatives of the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan,[4] which prepared the “Report and Proposals of the Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundaries of Armenia” [5] dated the 24th of February, 1920, put on the agenda for discussion on the 27th of February.[6]
The president of that session, the Foreign Secretary of the British Empire, Lord Curzon, in speaking of the territorial issues between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, said that, “the regions of Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhitchevan were in dispute. The population there was chiefly Armenian, except for a part which was almost wholly Tartar”.[7] I find it necessary to stress that this part does not refer to Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh), nor even to that territory created out of a part of it later, known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, but to Karabakh itself, which includes the Karabakh Plains.
This document that expressed the joint view of Britain, France, Italy, and Japan on the borders in the southern Caucasus, called for a period of waiting so that the parties would themselves come to an agreement, only arbitrating on the bondaries in case of a failure of the parties to do so:
As regards the boundary between the State of Armenia and Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Commission considers that, it is advisable for the present to await the results of the agreement, provided for in the treaties existing between the three Republics, in regard to the delimitation of their respective frontiers by the States themselves. In the event of these Republics not arriving at an agreement respecting their frontiers, resort must be had to arbitration by the League of Nations, which would appoint an interallied Commission to settle on the spot the frontiers referred to above, taking into account, in principle, ethnographical data.
As is clear from the above, the principle of resolving by arbitration the issue of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, as well as the Armenia-Georgia on, was proposed and adopted as early as the 24th of February, 1920, by this joint document of the Great Powers. Moreover and most importantly, the principle of delimitation was made clear: “taking into account, in principle, ethnographical data”. Accordingly, then, the report had a map annexed to it.[8] According to that document, taking the demographic make-up of the South Caucasus of 1920 into account, not only was Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh) considered part of the Republic of Armenia, but so was also a large part of the Karabakh Plains.
It is also of great importance that this document was included as well in the Full Report of the Arbitral Award of US President Woodrow Wilson of the 22nd of November, 1920, as document No. 2 in Annex I, indicating that the US accepted the arbitration, the arbitral nature and legality of this document. Those clauses were also included in the Treaty of Sèvres (10th of August, 1920), as Article 92:
The frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively will be determined by direct agreement between the states concerned. In the either case the States concerned have failed to determine the frontier by agreement at the date of the decision referred to in Article 89, the frontier line in question will be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, who will also provide for its being traced on the spot.
In sum, one can draw the following conclusion. The proposal by Wayne Merry to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by arbitration is completely acceptable and realistic, as it not only expresses the decision already codified by Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, but also, more importantly, is based on “ethnographical data” as democratic a principle. Naturally, a basis for the arbitration can only be found on the ethnographic data of 1920, because whatever happened since 1920 – the forcible occupation of the independent republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia by the armed forces of a foreign state, the 11th Red Army, followed by their annexation to Soviet Russia in its new veneer of the Soviet Union – was in utter violation of international law, and, as goes the maxim in international law, ex injuria jus non oritur – law does not arise from injustice.
Consequently, I believe that the international community and, first and foremost, the United States, must follow up on the proposal by the American expert Wayne Merry and implement the decision of the international document that already exists based on the principle of arbitration; that is, they must compel the Republic of Azerbaijan to withdraw its forces from the territory that belongs to the Republic of Armenia – the Karabakh Plains and Nakhichevan (by my rough estimation, 14.000 sq.km and 5.400 sq.km, respectively).
As long as the Republic of Azerbaijan maintains its occupation of not just 19.400 sq.km of territory of the Republic of Armenia, but also continues to demonstrate claims towards territory of the Republic of Armenia currently liberated from Azerbaijani occupation, there will not be stability in the region.
Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, as well as the United States of America, must not spare any efforts in implementing their very decision as soon as possible.
Notes
- http://www.arminfo.info/index.cfm?objectid=4486a610-afd7-11e1-b1d8f6327207157c
- Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, (ed. by R. Butler and J. Bury) First Series, v. VII, London, 1958, pp. 81-86. Document # 10: Consideration of the future boundaries of Armenia: decision to appoint an Allied commission to report thereupon, Feb. 16, 1920. [hereafter, DBFP]
- Ibid, p. 86.
- Ibid, Document #20: Decisions of parts III and IV of the draft synopsis of the Turkish treaty (political clauses), p. 178.
- The entire document is available in Arbitral Award of the President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson: Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, Washington, November 22, 1920, (prepared by Ara Papian). Yerevan, 2011, pp. 98-112.
- DBFP, Document # 34, p. 280.
- Ibid, p. 281.
- The map is kept in the National Archives and Records Administration and is published in Arbitral Award of the President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson: Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, Washington, November 22, 1920, (prepared by Ara Papian). Yerevan, 2011, p. 328.
Excellent article! This should be a good lesson to blind pro Azeri folks. Karabagh was, is and will remain Armenian.
Yes! IT IS TIME!!!
Given that my name is used extensively in this article, I am forced to point out that the characterization of my presentation is tendentious and often simply wrong. In no way do I support or associate myself with the 1920 arbitration award (noting that the United States was not a member of the arbitration commission nor a signatory of the implementing treaty) nor can my name be honestly used to advocate this approach.
Could you please be more specific? If there are errors or misrepresentations, I would be happy to post a correction.
Dear Mr. Hammond,
Thank you for your objectivity!
The Foreign Policy Journal will keep its high rating only if it continues publishing the point of views of all the sides of the conflct.
You are welcome!
Don’t worry Mr Merry, that’s how nationalists like Papyan blackmail entire International Community. If Azerbaijan is illegally created country, then Armenia is twice illegal. Because it was created by the good will of Georgia and Azerbaijan in 1918.
Do not worry, Mamed, Mr. Merry is a professional, as Mr. Papian is.
And as every Professional, Mr. Merry will be acquainted with the existing documentation and will come to the right and unprejudiced conclusions.
Azerbaijan is a fake illegal state. Artsakh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan and will never ever be. Azeries, deal with it.
Then how did Mr Robik Kocharyan had graduated from Baku Party School in Soviet times, if Artsakh has never been part of Azerbaijan?
I really wonder how any serious publication can publish such nonsense. The author basically proposes to discard more than 90 years of history, ignore the internationally accepted borders, and expand Armenia further on the basis of the fictitious maps. The author is completely out of touch with reality, and lives in the world of imagination. Just read what he writes:
As long as the Republic of Azerbaijan maintains its occupation of not just 19.400 sq.km of territory of the Republic of Armenia, but also continues to demonstrate claims towards territory of the Republic of Armenia currently liberated from Azerbaijani occupation, there will not be stability in the region.
So he claims that it is not Armenia that occupies the territory of Azerbaijan, but on the contrary, Azerbaijan occupies Armenian territory?! One can wonder how come then that Azerbaijan has 800,000 refugees and IDPs on its own land. In general, I think Foreign Policy Journal is becoming a joke, publishing totally insane articles that make you wonder if the editors actually read what they publish.
The wrongs happened during the history must be corrected, even if they were there a century ago. Civilization corrected the 1000 years’ history of the Jewish people, 70 years’ history of USSR, Yugoslavia etc… IT IS TIME for Armenia and Armenians!
Why do you think that Stalin’s wrongs may or must be kept in South Caucasus?
Yes, “Observer”, I read this carefully before publishing it. Foreign Policy Journal, you see, publishes articles from all perspectives. If you wish only to read articles from a single point of view, by all means, turn elsewhere for your information. I, for one, found Mr. Papian’s point of view to be interesting and thought it worth sharing. I think it’s too bad people like you would prefer only one perspective, the “mainstream” one, to be allowed to be published on important international issues.
Dear Mr Hammond,
What exactly do you find so interesting about this piece of fiction? The fact that the author claims that it is Azerbaijan that is occupying Armenian territory despite UNO, EU, PACE and most of world governments saying otherwise and Azerbaijan having 800,000 refugees and IDPs from those territories? I don’t prefer only one perspective, in that case I would not be reading international media. It is just the total absurdity and unscholarly nature of this article that made me wonder about your editorial policy.
You will note I published this as an opinion piece, and I feel the author is entitled to his view. As for the facts he uses to support his opinion, if you think any are “fiction”, please let me know.
Dear Mr. Wayne Merry,
1. You have called for “forceful arbitration” thus I could not avoid mentioning your name because it is very serious suggestion. I did not say that you are for the decision of February 24, 1920. I said that “The proposal by Wayne Merry to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by arbitration is completely acceptable and realistic…” and went on saying if there is already one there why to go for a new one?
2. I did not say that “the United Stated was member of arbitration commission or signatory to implementing treaty.” I said that the document: ” expressed the joint view of Britain, France, Italy, and Japan on the borders in the southern Caucasus, …” Nevertheless the United States is part of that decision and is under legal obligation because it is Document # 2 of Appendix # 1 of the Arbitral award done by the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson on the boundary between Armenia and Turkey on November 22, 1922. In that document you can find not only the signatures of the President and State Secretly of the United Stats but also the Great Seal of the United States. Appendices of any given international instrument are integral part of that instrument. Take for example the infamous appendices of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
3. If anyone has any doubt what I have cited here or regarding the attached map please go to the National Archives and Records Administration of the USA file # 760J.6715/60 – 760J.90C/7 and you will be proved that everything was done correctly by me and there is no misuse of any document or map.
Ara Papian
Sorry there is an error in the text. The Arbitral Award’s date is November 22 of 1920 not 1922.
A crucial error, Mr Papian. In November 1920 Azerbaijan was under Red Army, whether Armenia was not. In 1922 no one cared about independent Caucasus states, including the USA.
Mamed,
The United States cared about Armenia in 1922 and later on. US continued the official recognition of the Republic of Armenia (granted on April 23 1920) until 1933. (By the way Azerbaijan (and Georgia) never were recognized by the USA)
Wilson’s Arbitral Award was hot topic for years. See the Platforms of the Democratic Party of 1924 and 1928 or the discussions in US Congress in January 1927. The United States always insisted on the implementation of Wilson’s Arbitral Award.
I don’t understand where do turks take from such a history. Seems Mamed is talking about the creation of Azerbaijan. I hope someday your generations will forgive you for making theme live in a lie.
At least Mamed hasn’t come from Mesopotamia with the faked Ethiopian alphabet. Turks are Turks, Azerbaijanis are Azerbaijanis, just like Armenians are Armenians and Karabakh Armenians are Karabakh Armenians.
Forceful arbitration sounds as a good idea. But does it necessarily mean granting half of Turkey, entire Azerbaijan and 70 percent of Georgia to Armenia? It may also mean implementation of 4 UN resolutions on the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
Forceful arbitration sounds as a good idea. Especially when the two very closely related peoples, who share everything from music to cuisine are not able to make peace.
Otherwise Baku government will wait until its military budget reaches the volumes of the military budget of the USA and nationalist heads in Yerevan and Stepanakert will be ready to fight to the last drop of blood of the Russian soldier.
Mamed, the often parroted juvenile threats ( of taking Karabakh back militarily) are not going to solve any problems. Suffice it to say that Azeris will never be able to “take” Karabakh back. Without any bravado one should come to grips with two fundamental realities, 1) Armenians cannot leave Karabakh, it is their Fatherland. Artsakh has been the Armenians’ home for three millennia and will not heed to the calls of a two-bit despotic dictator, which brings us to the second point; 2) Azerbaijan’s military budget does not determine its abilities to take on Karabakh, especially when one realizes that the Aliyev-clan uses the army to stay in power and to protect himself (and his wife) from any ” criminal wrong doings” while in office.
The Azeri parliament, just a few days ago, passed a resolution granting immunity to the president (and his wife, interestingly). The resolution says : “Lifetime immunity for the President and his wife from criminal prosecution for any acts committed while in office”
This is the beginning of the end for this despot. The Azris are well aware that the only peaceful outcome of the conflict is to finally admit that they cannot hold on to the lies and anti-Armenian racism disseminated by Aliyev.
Azerbaijan will sign a treaty with an independent Artsakh. This is a viable and a peaceful solution to the problem.
Yagub, bravado is not for Azerbaijanis, it is (at the moment) for those who has stationed 30 000 Russian troops in their territory. I don’t care about the corrupt and Kurdish Aliyev family. But I believe that one day we will make peace with our Artsakh brothers, whom by the way, some nationalists used to call “shurtvats” or “turkajur”. And once more – Karabakh Armenians are our brothers.
Mamed,
I think you are as a mixture of different ethnic groups are trying to find out a national identity. But where from, if even the name of that country was created at the beginning of the last century for further territorial annexation political plans from Iran. Developing your national Azeri identity is a good thing to do for your young nation, but do it from your own Central Asian past, and do not mix with Armenians, Daghestanis, Georgians, etc.
Davud you must investigate your Mesopotamian roots. Armenians have nothing to do with the Caucasus. And Karabakh Armenians are our brothers.
Dear Mr. Merry,
I hope I am not the first who will ask you one more time to remember or revise historical facts, and later write down your honest and apparently professional statements.
Don’t pay attention, Mr Merry. He is an ordinary Dashnak nag.
Mammed,
Why don’t you pronounce your real name as Mohammed!! it is more Islamic and more respectable name among our readers!! I wonder why your name turn to red as spelling error!!
Dear GB, I am not asking why you are GB. I don’t know if it stands for GaraBagh or GaraBed. There is a big difference between Mohammed and Mamed. Mamed is native to Caucasus, Mohammed is not. So, please, consider Mamed as respectable as Mohammed among your readers. Best regards.
The biggest problem with this issue is that people take serious academic conversations down to a street level argument. Mr. Papian, thank you for your article. Reading a little bit of history (neither written by Armenians, Azeris, nor Soviet communists) may help us all get enlightened about the history of our people and our two nations, not to mention that we would also be greatly enlightened when we do some reading about archeological evidence dating pre-mongolian invasions. Who are the Azeris, and why do they say they are the cousins of Turks? Where were the Turks 1000 years ago? Is there any doubt that Armenians were there at least 1000 years before them? And should this be taken into consideration when we talk about this topic or not?
Ancient history is of no consequence to the modern politics. 1000 years ago Native Americans were grazing cattle at Manhattan. Why not returning it to them, for the sake of historical justice? 1000 years ago most of European nations did not exist, and that includes modern Germans, Italians, French, English, etc. Would you propose eliminating all those people? Armenian politicians need to stop living in the world of historical illusions. There will never be the “Great Armenia”of Tigran. Armenians (same as Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Moldovans, etc) are lucky to have their own state, because there are bigger stateless people out there, who may never have their own state. This is something people need to appreciate, and stop dreaming about great empires, when you cannot properly sustain your limited population. Get real, the modern world is ruled by the international law, created after the WW2, and it provides for the inviolability of the internationally recognized borders. That means there will be no return to any border drafts, whether real or not, made before 1945.
Dear Jack
The problem of Armenian and Azeri nationalists is that they are mixing up the history (ancient history) with modern day politics. I am not even saying that according to very serious historians Armenians are not aborigine to Caucasus. No one is aborigine in this world. Indians were in America 5000 years before Irish, Anglo-Sax, French and Germans. Does it matter today. Of course not. Today’s reality is that there is abnormal enmity between Azeris and Karabakh Armenians. It is the enmity between two brothers. When I say brothers I take into consideration genetic findings too. There is such an ethnic group called Dungans. They live in far east. According to the genetic data they are the most Turkic people (96 per), but their mother tongue is Chinese!!! So let’s let historylay where it lays. And let’s think about peace. Because neither Azeris nor Armenians need too much territory which historians are claiming for them. Regards and Mamed is leaving. It is very difficult to talk to people who are convinced in their rightness based on something has been written 2000 years ago. Even at the street level.
Dear Mamed,
I do not care too much about the history in politics. But historical facts are good knowledge and very useful always. Although, my article is not about the history but about a legal document which has no statutory limitation. So it is part of today’s politics.
I agree that we have to move from history away. Sometime it is really overloaded with problems. So that’s forget that during Soviet time in 1921-1991 Karabagh was under Baku administration (not part of Azerbaijan, because Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Karabagh, etc. all were parts of one county – USSR. From legal point there was no Armenia or Azerbaijan. They were not subjects of international law), sign a peace treaty and live in peace. Why do you want to reverse the history? We have new realities on the ground at least since 1994, for 18 years. If you consider what was 92 years ago a history why not consider what was 21 years ago just history. There is no Soviet Union for 21 years. What’s the principle deference? Numbers?
Dear Ara
Very easy, isn’t it? First you occupy territory of another country, by the help of another country, by the way and then you announce that it is today’s history. There was already one Austrian guy who was writing his time’s history. And you know what happened next. Karabakh problem will find its solution when American, Moscow or Yerevan Armenian politician will let us alone. As I said Karabakh Armenians are our brothers and believe me one day we will find solution.
Best regards
Dear Mamed or Mamikon,
If there is a lot of differences (genetical, ethnological, linguistic etc.) between Turks and Azeris, it does not mean that Armenians from Eastern Armenia (including Karabakh or Artsakh) or Western Armenia (which is currently occupied by Turkey) are different. Armenian means Armenian, nothing else.
And if you declare that so called “Karabakh Armenians” are your brother, I do not understand why and how did you kill your brothers?
And why don’t you accept the good will of your “brothers”, i.e. their right for self-determination and reconnection with their motherland Armenia? Artsakh and its native Armenian population will feel safer in Armenia…
It is better if you think about your other “brothers” – Talishs, Daghs etc., who also feel your “warm brotherwood” in Azerbaijan…
Dear Davud
At last you understood, that Mamikon is someone more Azeri than Hay. And if Armenian means Armenian, why Frangs when asked say: We are Armenians, but not Hays.
Unfortunately it happens when brothers are killing each other. It is well documented in the Bible.
Serbs, Bosnians and Croatians are speaking the same language, still they needed NATO to refresh their minds.
And I don’t care if you like it or not, Karabakh Armenians are our brothers.
I would suggest you treat your false nationalism, otherwise it will end you.
Best Regards
Mamed Mamiklonyan
Dear Mamikon,
Mamikon is Armenian name, that’s why I used it.
FYI, I am “Karabakh Armenian” and all my brothers who live to in Artsakh or any other region of Armenia are Armenians.
Of course I admit that maybe your ancestors were Armenians who admitted Islam under the Tartars’ pressure… So come back to your Armenian roots and I’ll admit that you are my brother…
Otherwise, stay at your safe place, far from my motherland – Republic of Armenia.
With sincere wishes to my Armenian brother,
Davit Abrahamyan
not very dear MAMED, i specially mention u as MAMED, because even the word MUHAMMAD, u “modified” it turkic way as “MAMED” u modified ancestory of a Persian NEZAMI GANJAVI and he suddenly became a “turk” u modified ancestory of Lezgian Composer Uzeir HAJIBEKOV( u made him as HAJIBEYLI) and laimed him as a “turk” isn’t that assimilation and fashizm? u can go somewhere else and speak out ur legends about armenian “nationalists” but no here, who claimed a chachen Muslim Magomayev as a “turkic azeri” singer?
U-people living in ARRAN are not AZARI, u are mostly mix between azaris and ARRANI people, u do not have any clue with AZARBAJAN which is located in IRAN, the place where is located Azerbajan republic is ARRAN but not azerbajan
Antiviran! Ur not interesting, matakh.
To BARAN from ARAN
Listen to this three times a day and get cured from ur illness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFFMKlaQ-M
Baran is a Russian word by the way. Refer to dictionaries.
to “mehmet” from Iran, my “baran” will not fit in Your mouth, pic ipne
U “gara or ak KOYUN” by writing down MUSLIM MAGOMAYEV “azerbaijani” Muslim Magomayev is not becoming an AKKOYUN or KARAKOYUN, as much u say HALVA, it will not be sweetened your dirty Mouth
Let’s see how u politicized NEZAMI GANJAVI, who never said or wrote in turkic
this is for u ak KOYUN
http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/articles/pan-turanism/the-politicization-of-nezami-ganjavi/
Dear antituran,
I have noticed, since last 50 years Azerpeelani Turkic tribes all of sudden woke up, just like their big brothers of Turkey, and started stealing culture and alphabets from Persians, Arabs, Armenians, Georgians, latest Cyrillic alphabets and now Latin. Even their last names adopted from Russian OV and they are planning to change something that will fit as Turkic…I won’t be surprised they will claim that Mohammad name spelling is wrong, and “Mamed” and Ganjavi both were born in Altai mountain, and they read and write spoke their sweet ancestral Altai languages!!
totally agree with you, plus u forgot to mention that the rejime in Baku(ALIEVBAJAN republic) is not only stealing from Armenians, Persians, Russians, they are also stealing the Heritage of the aborigene nations of ARRAN(so called Az. republic), they Represent Lezgian Rugs as “azerbajani carpets, meanwhile all world knows that AZARBAJANI carpets are made in Real AZARBAJAN, which is located in Iran
Yes Antituran, I bought one Iranian “Tabrizi” (made in Azerbaijan-Iran) carpet from a Persian store over 30 years ago, never worn out, it looks like I bought yesterday!!Even if I leave in “baran” nothing will happen to it!!
Aug. 10, 2013 Sevres – France and Yerevan – Armenia
“The World Peace Forum” Open to the WORLD ; UN and
Hosted By Initial “Leg of Nations” Countries Who have signed the World’s First Peace Treaty after WWI [ On Aug.10 , 1920 Sevres – France
Mr. Observer, International law was created after WWI with the League of Nations and the father of the League of Nations determined and awarded to the Republic of Armenia the Wilsonian Arbitral Award in no small part due to the Genocide of said Armenians by the donmeh Young Turks and Ataturk. The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe said Genocide in 1945 coinciding with your understanding of when international law “began”. Obviously your observations are completely incorrect regarding peoples dreaming of historical versions of themselves because as we speak Eretz Israel is in the process of destroying the middle east to recreate their ancient lands of Greater Israel. Of course being Khazars and Donmeh crypto jews they really should be recreating their ancient lands centered in Dagestan. Perhaps you need some new glasses for your observations……….