No replies to this topic

[gamavor]

Well, the logic is very straightforward. It is well documented fact (tons of material evidence, instruction pamphlets written in Afghani dialects Urdu and Pashtu, military equipment, captured American made enemy arsenal), that during the Artsakh (Karabagh) war, Azerbaijani government employed mujahidins from Afghanistan, Chechnya and other places to wage a holy jihad against the native Armenian population of Karabagh. Yet, the F..... State Department of the UNITED SNAKES of AMERICA in their so called "annual human rights report" has the guts to call Armenian defense units "separatists". Separatists from what? From their native homeland?

Stupid, Stupidest, American! What about Kosovo?


RHETORICAL QUESTIONS TO CLINTON'S VISIT
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN

Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
Wednesday, 30 May 2012 09:54

As it is known, a visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to
the South Caucasus region is expected. There is no doubt that the
agenda of the visit also includes the issue of Karabakh settlement,
which Mrs. Clinton as a representative of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chair-state will certainly discuss with the Presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan with the aim of "finding a mutually acceptable solution
to the problem". All is seemingly understandable and logical, if not a
"but" just running counter to the common logic.

The matter is that the official website of the U.S. State Department
has recently placed the annual report on human rights for 2011, where
the section devoted to the Karabakh conflict reads: "Ethnic Armenian
separatists, supported by Armenia, continue to control most of the
Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and seven adjoining Azerbaijani
territories". Agree, in this case the vocabulary and the conceptual
formulations of the State Department do not differ at all from the
Azerbaijani vocabulary, which official Baku put into propaganda
circulation long ago. This fact is confirmed by the report itself,
which contains a reference to the "government sources". Surely,
the Azerbaijani government is meant.

Frankly speaking, it seems that such a serious structure as the
State Department is not serious about its own reputation, allowing
Azerbaijan to include in the report pleasing-to-it formulations
hat completely distort the essence of the conflict and the existing
realities. I must say that the Azerbaijani authorities previously too
managed to feed the State Department with obvious lie and to squeeze
in its annual reports open anti-Armenian theses having nothing to
do with the reality and relating, in particular, to the alleged use
of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh for drug trafficking. Later,
such misinformation was, surely, denied by all means, including by
representatives of corresponding international structures who had
visited the NKR. But in this particular case, the authors of the
above mentioned report do not even have to visit the conflict region
to have a real idea of the situation. After all, the United States as
a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group have dealt with the Karabakh issue
for many years, and the foreign ministry of this country should not
make up an obviously biased report.

In this context, a quite natural question arises: how does such a
biased report relate to the position of the U.S. as an impartial
mediator? Calling, even if with the filing of official Baku,
Nagorno-Karabakh "Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan", the State
Department, actually, predetermines its status and, therefore,
prejudges the outcome of the ongoing negotiations and thus makes
them simply senseless. As you know, one of the basic principles, on
which the OSCE mediators offer to resolve the Karabakh issue, is the
people's right to self-determination. And another question to the State
Department occurs here: how reasonable is to call "separatists" the
people of Nagorno-Karabakh, which gained independence in the territory
of its historical residence? Another question smoothly follows from
this: is the concept of "separatism" applicable to Kosovo, which gained
its independence in a foreign, i.e. the Serbian territory, but which
was widely supported by Washington? And, finally, doesn't official
Washington contradict itself, signing with one hand the notorious
report and with the other hand - a document on financial assistance to
the NKR? After all, these funds are allocated not only for humanitarian
programs, but also for "projects and activities in Nagorno-Karabakh".

The sounded questions are, surely, rhetorical, but they automatically
lead to the idea of double standards. To specify, the double standards
of the Obama administration, which poses itself as an apologist
of democracy, but in practice supports the totalitarian regime
of Azerbaijan, which unleashed a war for the extermination of the
indigenous Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, which proclaimed
its independence just on the basis of democratic principles and in
strict accordance with international law.

And what is the reason for such a benevolent attitude towards
Azerbaijan, which, despite numerous appeals of reputable institutions,
including European and American, to stop the gross violations of
human rights in the country, remains deaf to them? Is it not that
the same U.S. and Europe have their own political and economic, in
particular, energy interests in Azerbaijan, which outweigh the scale,
on which are the human rights and democratic values? In addition,
today Azerbaijan is a transit territory for the transfer of military
equipment and troops of the U.S. and NATO to Afghanistan. Consequently,
in response to these services, the civilized West shuts its eyes to
the anti-democratic actions of Azerbaijan within the country and its
militaristic licentiousness in the process of Karabakh settlement. Is
it worth saying that such tolerance of Europe and the USA towards
Azerbaijan is, without any doubt, dangerous not only for the region?

And that will the pay for the deliberate unscrupulousness and
ignorance of human and peoples' rights be? It would be good to ask
these questions to Mrs. Clinton in Yerevan, since she will be asked
entirely different questions in Baku.


http://groong.com/news/msg423966.html