Failed Policy, Ridiculous Propaganda. Or the Reason for My Latest Arrest

Tofiq Yaqublu

Tofiq Yaqublu, a member of the National Council and the Equality Party who is currently imprisoned, writes:

Ilham Aliyev, like all dictators in the world, dislikes opposition members, critical journalism, public activists, etc., hates them and subjects them to repression. As they say, like all dictators. There is also the fact that there is a specific factor that irritates the dictator to order a specific act of repression. In this sense, the reason for my latest arrest is the thoughts I present to you below. I expressed these thoughts on various platforms while I was free. I asked friends to collect them and put them in the form of an article. Of course, I also gave my final recommendations. I don't know how they will manage this task, but I trust them.

Armenia must abolish the provision in its Constitution that contains threats and claims against Azerbaijan's territory. Azerbaijan's demands in this direction are completely legal and fair. However, setting this as a main condition for concluding a peace treaty is very wrong and is more part of the populism that delays the conclusion of a peace treaty. Official propaganda says that, let's say, we believed that during Pashinyan's time Armenia would not attack Azerbaijan using that infamous provision in the Constitution, but if revanchist forces come to power later, they could start a war based on this provision. One thing must be known for certain: the reactionary forces in power do not pay attention to what is written in domestic and international legislation; when they feel they are strong and capable of occupying somewhere, they do this without looking at any document, law, or treaty. Did Iraq's Constitution contain territorial claims against Kuwait, Germany's Constitution against European countries and the USSR, Russia's Constitution against Ukraine, etc., and then did this provision become the basis for military aggression?

I am completely certain that even if today that provision in Armenia's Constitution were abolished and replaced with ideas like "let's take Azerbaijan's land, it is the crown of our head," if Russia wins the Ukraine war and Kocharyan-type revanchists loyal to Moscow come to power in Armenia, they will definitely attack Azerbaijan. For such regimes, nothing is easier than making up excuses. Then what will we do? Will we tell the world that Armenia has violated its Constitution and therefore you must defend us and punish aggressive Armenia? There is also the fact that with the participation and support of international centers and powers, a peace treaty is signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, international decisions are given to this treaty as much as possible, and after that, a reactionary government that will someday come to power in Armenia breaks this treaty and attacks Azerbaijan. In your opinion, in which scenario will we gain more international support and protection?

It should not be forgotten that one of the factors encouraging revanchist forces in Armenia is precisely the fact that a peace treaty has still not been signed. They think that not everything is lost yet. I am sure that if a peace treaty is signed, the majority of revanchists will move away from this meaningless claim by falling into the mood of "it's over, there are no more chances of return."

There is an even more seriously harmful aspect to this issue. A referendum must be held in Armenia to make changes to the Constitution. It is an open and undeniable fact that Russia seriously interferes in elections in a number of Western countries, even in the US itself. Even for this reason, the results of the presidential elections held in Romania were canceled. Now imagine yourself, Russia, which interferes in elections held in Western countries where established democracy and civil society exist, will it not interfere in a referendum held in Armenia, which has not yet been able to completely separate from its orbit, continues to have serious dependence on it, and is still at the very beginning of the path of democratic development? If a referendum is held in Armenia these days, the probability that its results will be in line with Russia's wishes is very high. So, by insisting on this demand, are we not creating a problem for ourselves? I am completely certain that our government has put forward this demand on Putin's instructions and continues its insistence.

In general, when talking about the post-war period of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, we should note that something that has nothing to do with the truth that Ilham Aliyev says in approaching these relations causes very serious damage to the peace process. Of course, in the 44-day war, the brave and honorable Azerbaijani army completely defeated the occupying Armenian army. Ilham Aliyev has still not explained to society why the process of restoring the country's territorial integrity was stopped after Shusha was liberated from occupation. After all, at that time, except for one or two insignificant protests, the whole world accepted that the war waged by Azerbaijan was just and legal.

After the liberation of Shusha, the occupying Armenian army was completely demoralized and had no possibility of resistance. At that time, the only concern of Armenian soldiers in Karabakh was to be able to flee to Armenia without being captured. At such a time, what did stopping our army's successful advance serve? Of course, this was done on Putin's orders. The November 10 document is a joint statement about a ceasefire, which Pashinyan signed last. Ilham Aliyev says that Pashinyan signed a capitulation document. Leaving aside capitulation, nowhere in that document, not even that Armenia is the losing side, is noted. If Armenia had capitulated, then why would Azerbaijan undertake to ensure the Lachin corridor with a width of 5 km and a length of approximately 40 km and to build a road from Goris to Khankendi bypassing Lachin at its own expense?

Such a condition should have been imposed not on us but on capitulated Armenia, and its obligations regarding the Zangezur corridor should have been noted. What was said about capitulation had no connection with reality. To understand what capitulation is, it would be good if they read the capitulation acts signed by Germany and Japan in World War II. Not a single person from the government's propaganda army consisting of so many journalists, experts, political scientists, deputies, etc., has the courage to tell the truth and they are busy repeating this false version. None of them said in the face of the statements "if they don't open the Zangezur corridor willingly, we'll take it by force": "Hey victorious one, you should have written this Zangezur corridor issue into that 'capitulation act'!"

Armenia has long been ready to open the corridor. It is simply necessary to formalize this by sticking to its statements. How many years have passed in vain, whereas by accelerating this issue, at least Nakhchivan could have been saved from oppression and suffering. People could have been freed from exhausting journeys through Iranian territory and expensive flights with one suitcase of luggage by comfortably traveling back and forth with personal cars and buses. This would also make the much-talked-about "Middle Corridor" project more realistic, and the connection of Central Asian Turkic states with Turkey and Europe through transport infrastructure would become a significant reality. Even indirectly, Erdogan has repeatedly stated that it is important to accelerate the signing of the peace treaty and the opening of the Zangezur corridor. Of course, he has to announce this quite skillfully and indirectly, as I mentioned, so as not to harm Turkey-Azerbaijan relations.

One of the slaps in the face of truth is the statement "I know what to do and when." As if Ilham Aliyev knew that in 2020 a real opportunity would arise for the liberation of Azerbaijan's occupied territories. That's why in 2003 he seized power by having the police annul the results of the elections he lost to Isa Gambar by a large margin and began to comfortably plunder the country by destroying freedoms. By the way, quite a lot was stolen from the Azerbaijani army in this plundering process. With "kickback" operations, they bought a large number of obsolete military equipment from Russia at very high prices, and as a result of this, our live force losses in the Second Karabakh War were more than they should have been. He also falsified subsequent elections in the name of waiting for the right moment. By holding fake referendums, he ensured that he would stay in power as long as he wanted and officially established family rule, supposedly in the name of waiting for the right moment to liberate our lands from occupation. Of course, this is a lie.

As early as 2009, by signing the updated Madrid Principles, he had actually paved the way for the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to that document, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was to be determined by the vote of the population living there. After this, in Sochi, he offered 5 billion dollars to Armenia's former president Serzh Sargsyan to withdraw from only 5 of our occupied regions and sign peace. It just so happened that in 2018, the Armenian people overthrew the corrupt and fraudulent Karabakh clan government and established legitimate, democratic rule in its place. As soon as Pashinyan came to power, he declared war on corruption and in this process arrested Putin's personal friend, former president Robert Kocharyan. Putin tried very hard to get him released from prison. He sent emissaries to Yerevan, but nothing was achieved. Finally, within the framework of the CIS event, he himself came to Yerevan on a business trip, went to Kocharyan's house, met with his mother, and personally asked Pashinyan to release him from prison. However, Pashinyan did not back down from his position and kept him in prison.

Moreover, from the first day, Pashinyan's government began to take its first steps toward moving away from Russia, albeit gradually, and turning toward the West. Of course, someone like Putin could not digest this, so he began to think about overthrowing Pashinyan. The forces he defended had completely lost influence in Armenia; on the contrary, there was great love and trust for the new government. This meant that nothing could be achieved with the power of the opposition alone. He thought that to organize popular hatred and protest against Pashinyan, it would be enough for Azerbaijan to take back the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh that Kocharyan and his comrades had once occupied with Russia's help. That's why he advised Ilham Aliyev to start a war with Turkey's help and assured him that he would leave Armenia alone on the battlefield. Here, briefly, is the essence of the "truth" called "I know what to do and when."

The reason for the start of the anti-terror operation that ended in 2023 with the bravery and magnificent victory of the Azerbaijani army is the same. When Putin saw that the territories liberated in the 44-day war did not lead to Pashinyan's overthrow, he thought that if the remaining territories were also liberated, this time the people would definitely overthrow him. That's why he deemed the next military operations necessary. Of course, Azerbaijan was right in both the 44-day war and the anti-terror operation. Because it was liberating its territories from occupation. The courage of the Azerbaijani army is also another world. But what Ilham Aliyev says has nothing to do with this issue.

We all know that if Armenia had not had Russia's direct military assistance, it could not have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan's territories. At the same time, without Russia's support, Armenia could not have kept these territories under occupation for almost 30 years. That is, Russia not only helped Armenia occupy our lands but also provided all kinds of military and political support so that it could keep these territories under occupation. For example, Russian general Lev Rokhlin admitted that years after the ceasefire agreement reached in 1994, Russia had gifted Armenia military equipment worth 1 billion dollars. Shortly after this statement, his body was found in his country house near Moscow, but nevertheless, the factual admission of the truths everyone already knew had taken place.

Of course, I don't think we should cut relations with Russia, be hostile, or fight because of the treachery it has done to us. But ignoring all this and creating another fictional foreign enemy image for Azerbaijan is very absurd and ridiculous. It is no secret to anyone that France has good relations with Armenia and feels sympathy for it, and there is nothing wrong with this. All countries in the world, including us, have such cases in their relations with other countries. It is also a fact that after the 44-day war, a number of resolutions and statements defending Armenia and condemning Azerbaijan were adopted in France. However, all these were not seriously significant either legally or politically. Even the French government did not take any decisive steps. All these are nothing more than emotional reactions arising from sympathy for Armenia, as I mentioned earlier. Unlike Russia, France did not give Armenia even an empty shell or a hunting rifle until our lands were completely liberated. Moreover, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it voted for all the well-known 4 resolutions condemning Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijani territories, demanding the withdrawal of troops, and supporting our territorial integrity. As soon as Azerbaijan and Armenia announced that they had agreed on the text of the peace agreement, France was one of the first countries to applaud and support this. In your opinion, would a country that does not want the restoration of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and is against the signing of a peace treaty in Armenia act like this?

By the way, Russia also voted for those resolutions as a member of the Security Council, but it did this during Yeltsin's time. I am sure that if Putin had been in power at that time, this would not have happened. After the 44-day war, "capitulated" Armenia did not recognize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and did not give up its claims regarding Karabakh. It did this for the first time on October 6, 2022, at the summit of the European Political Community held in Prague. This event happened precisely as a result of pressure on Pashinyan by Macron and EU Council President Charles Michel. So why is Macron and France presented as enemies for us? Now let's pay attention to what Putin and his team members said after this event. To discredit both Pashinyan and Europe, they repeatedly said that Pashinyan was to blame for what happened, it was precisely he who, under European pressure, recognized Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and gave up claims regarding Karabakh's status. Putin said on live broadcast that Pashinyan gave up Karabakh, but we thought that Armenians should live there and have special status. In another live broadcast, he said that Pashinyan abolished Armenia's claim to Karabakh, but we thought that even the Lachin and Kalbajar regions should belong to Armenia. At another meeting, Putin said:

"I hope Ilham Aliyev won't be offended with me for opening this issue. We had agreed with him that Shusha would remain with Armenia. I called Pashinyan and asked if he would accept my conditions. He gave me a negative answer. After that, I suggested to Aliyev to take Shusha too."

Ilham Aliyev had said the lie "Returning Shusha was my father's will." On the other hand, this lie was very illogical. Leaving aside the issue of legitimacy, Ilham Aliyev was actually performing the duties of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the issue of the country's territorial integrity was his official duty. Such things cannot be resolved by paternal will. Besides, why should the will concern only Shusha? What about our other regions? Wasn't it that important to return them? Although the November 10 trilateral ceasefire statement is not a legal document, it led to actual results. This statement was prepared by Putin and was a document directly in favor of Armenia. This ceasefire agreement stopped the process of complete liberation of all of Azerbaijan's territories from occupation. Putin thought that Armenia's loss of a significant part of the territories it kept under occupation would raise the people according to his plan and Pashinyan would be overthrown. That's why he envisaged creating favorable conditions for Kocharyan (or someone else of this type) who would come to power in that document. According to the plan, Russians would guard the 5 km wide corridor from Goris to Khankendi, and Russian troops stationed in Karabakh under the name of "peacekeepers" were supposed to actually protect the fictitious Artsakh republic, and then Azerbaijan should be forced to recognize this entity by being satisfied with what was achieved. Thus, by returning troops to Azerbaijan again, Russia was supposed to strengthen even more in the South Caucasus.

During the occupation period, PACE, the EU Parliament, the German Bundestag, etc. repeatedly adopted resolutions about Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijan's territories and supporting our country's territorial integrity, but Russia never adopted a document condemning the occupation even once. Despite all this, the Aliyev regime considers Russia a friendly country, signs a strategic partnership agreement with it, but declares Europe, mainly France, as an enemy and conducts ugly propaganda against it. Because regardless of what evil it does against Azerbaijan, Putin is the patron and guarantor of Aliyev's rule.

Do you remember, when giving an interview to Russian journalist Solovyov, Aliyev said that he trusts Putin very much and he will never sell him out. This is exactly what lies at the essence of all relations. Putin and Aliyev, as well as all authoritarian regimes in the post-Soviet space, hate the West, including Europe. Apart from purely economic relations, they are against this geopolitical space's approach to and influence on their kingdoms. The hysteria of the Azerbaijani government regarding Armenia's relations with EU countries and the civilian observation mission that this union sent to the Azerbaijan-Armenia border is also related to this. Peace in the Caucasus, including Azerbaijan's interests, requires Russia's complete exit from Armenia. The presence of the US and EU in Armenia poses no threat to us; on the contrary, it is a guarantee that Russia will no longer be able to incite Armenia to hostile actions against us. Therefore, demanding that the security of transport communications be entrusted to Russia's FSB based on the November 10 agreement when they are opened is a very serious mistake.

The 3+3 format for signing the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty and calls that "states outside the region should not be allowed to interfere in this process" were also put forward by Moscow, which the Azerbaijani government enthusiastically supports. Look at this: Russia, which has heated up ethnic and interstate conflicts in a number of post-Soviet countries, leading to bloody wars and consequently terrible tragedies, is an angel, but the West, which wants these countries to be peaceful, democratic, and free societies, is supposedly a troublemaker. Let me explain why Azerbaijan objects to the EU's civilian observation mission. The matter is that Azerbaijan has put itself in a "guilty and fearful" situation. Moreover, statements at various levels like "if they don't open the Zangezur corridor willingly, we'll open it by force," "we will definitely return to our ancestral lands in Western Azerbaijan," etc., make this situation even more complicated.

After losing the war, Armenia, which had kept Azerbaijani territories under occupation for 30 years, began to gain the sympathy of the progressive world by unambiguously taking a course of Euroatlantic integration and further expanding domestic democracy. Azerbaijan, which was subjected to this occupation and emerged victorious from the just war it waged, gained the antipathy of that world with its anti-Western and threatening rhetoric, and moreover, by completely putting all freedoms out of order within the country and transitioning to dictatorial rule.

Why should European observers be objected to? They would come at their own expense and be stationed on both sides of the border to monitor the ceasefire regime. Whenever the ceasefire was violated, they would note which side did it. Azerbaijan not only did not allow those observers to be stationed on its side of the border but also demanded that they leave Armenia. Why? This means that if the ceasefire is violated, all accusations will be directed toward us from the very beginning. It's as if someone's money has been stolen and they demand that the pockets of people in the room be searched. Everyone agrees, but one person says they won't allow their pockets to be searched. In such a case, even if that person didn't steal the money, there's no doubt that all suspicions will be directed at them.

The government also put Azerbaijan in such a situation and created very favorable conditions for Armenia's propaganda that "Azerbaijan is preparing for military aggression against Armenia." I am sure that if a proposal had come from the Kremlin to station civilian observers from CIS countries on both sides of the border, Azerbaijan would have agreed to this without hesitation. The attitude toward the EU's civilian observation did not end with just not agreeing to it; after that, they started even more ridiculous and hysterical propaganda. Apparently, observers who approach the border and look toward the Azerbaijani side with binoculars are conducting intelligence for military purposes. Many military and political experts repeat this non-serious version continuously on various platforms without any self-respect. What kind of intelligence officer is he who works with a car, with the flag of his country or the EU on it, right in front of the eyes of Azerbaijani border guards? After all, Armenian border guards are stationed along that border, and they also look at our territory with binoculars from morning to evening. Just as our border guards do the same.

Border guards of all countries in the world look at the opposite side with binoculars, and this is an ordinary thing. For example, don't the border guards of the sides on the Azerbaijan-Georgia border look at the opposite side, toward us, with binoculars? After all, this is their job. They are not ashamed to raise dust with absurd accusations that European observers looking toward us with binoculars pass the information they collect to Armenian border guards. They also raise such meaningless dust through the Western Azerbaijan Community (WAC). Everyone knows this is a puppet organization. They speak and make statements based on theses coming from the government. Remember the actions of the "eco-activists" on the Lachin road. At a time when the freedom of free assembly was completely abolished in Azerbaijan, suddenly hundreds of "eco-activists" appeared in this special regime area where Lachin residents and our heroic soldiers who liberated Lachin could not go, and they held actions that continued day and night for months. Tents were set up for them there, electricity was brought, televisions were installed, they were provided with hot meals every day, televisions gave reports from the action site with direct connections, etc. Of course, the whole world saw that this was organized by the government itself. So what was this performance for?

It is a fact that in the late 1980s, Armenians expelled hundreds of thousands of our compatriots living in Armenia from their historical homeland, from their ancestral homes. Most of their houses and property remained there; they could only save their lives and escape. Now the WAC makes statements that we will definitely return to those ancestral homes and appeals to international organizations including the UN regarding this. First, we must agree that the regions where our compatriots lived in Armenia were historically called "Goycha," "Daralayaz," "Vedibasar," etc., and were never called "Western Azerbaijan." Now, while the whole world knows that the WAC is a puppet created by the government, the statements it makes and the claims it puts forward are accepted as the unofficial position of the Azerbaijani government. Armenia also presents this to the whole world as Azerbaijan's territorial claim and threat against Armenia. At least this organization should have been named with a name that associates the defense of the rights of our compatriots expelled from Armenia, so that the problem would be clearly understood by the world and Armenia's responsibility would be actualized.

The point is that the slogans and statements "we will return to Western Azerbaijan, which is our ancestral homeland" are not only very unrealistic but also quite populist. For those who don't know the issue deeply, this demand may seem quite patriotic and correct, but reality is different. How will we return to those lands? It is impossible for Azerbaijan to resolve this issue militarily. It will never do this, and the world will not allow it. So the military option is excluded. The second option is that Armenia says we accept that injustice was done to you in the past, come to your ancestral homeland and live there. But for this, you must accept Armenian citizenship, because there is no other legal way.

In your opinion, who will give up Azerbaijani citizenship and leave their home, job, education, business, other property, career, etc., and go live in Armenia? Of course, no one. The third way is this: a peace treaty is signed, some time passes, an environment of mutual trust and tolerance is created, and after that, travel, business, and tourist trips begin between the two countries. Then Armenian citizens will be able to travel to Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijani citizens to Armenia. This will not be returning to ancestral lands as owners of those places, as the WAC declares. The government that has been tormenting the people by keeping Azerbaijan's land borders closed for no reason for 5 years approaches the issue of quickly opening the Zangezur corridor with the same mentality and responsibility.