Iran’s economic growth has significantly decreased compared to the previous year, according to a recent report by the Central Bank of the country, Report informs, citing Radiofarda.
Month: September 2024
Armenians exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh
A year ago, on September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched military actions in Nagorno-Karabakh, which it termed a “counter-terrorism operation.” Over 200 Armenian soldiers and civilians were killed in the conflict. Within a few days, virtually all Armenians—more than 100,000 people—left their homeland. The de facto president of Nagorno-Karabakh, Samvel Shahramanyan, signed a decree stating that the republic would cease to exist from January 1, 2024.
In the aftermath, Armenian authorities have focused solely on humanitarian issues. Social support programs are being implemented in the country. Discussions about the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the return of Karabakh Armenians under international guarantees are mainly conducted by local human rights defenders.
Occasionally, international organizations and some Western politicians also address these issues. However, they primarily refer to the return of Armenians to their homes under Azerbaijan’s conditions, rather than discussing the autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh, according to Robert Gevondyan, a political analyst at the Security Policy Research Center.
The analyst believes that Baku chose a military solution due to the situation being favorable:
“This happened primarily because of the coup in Artsakh and the shift away from democracy, which allowed the West to wash its hands of the issue [referring to the resignation of president Araik Arutyunyan, elected by the people of the unrecognized republic, and his replacement by Samvel Shahramanyan, chosen by the parliament]. This situation also resulted from Russia’s changed position and Armenia’s insufficient capacity. Consequently, Baku was left with no choice but to act swiftly given the extremely low level of resistance.”
The following analysis explores the situation one year after the military actions and the Armenian exodus.
- “Sign a peace treaty on already agreed terms”: Pashinyan’s proposal to Baku
- “Baku promised Moscow to delay signing the agreement with Armenia” – Opinion from Yerevan
- “Each side waits for a deus ex machina to solve their conflict on their terms.” Interview with EU Special Representative Toivo Klaar
Commentary by political analyst Robert Gevondyan
Armenians demands remain unanswered
“We are living in an era of geopolitical contradictions. Politically and militarily, we see conflicts between the West and Russia, and economically, with China.
In such times, the issue of the rights of the 100,000 compatriots who lived in Nagorno-Karabakh could only be addressed within frameworks that did not stem from the logic of their independence. However, those who had the authority to represent the rights of the Nagorno-Karabakh residents insisted on discussing the issue solely within this context. As a result, both their direct appeals and those made through Armenia were ignored.
This approach did not resonate with Russia, the West, or anyone else on the planet. Armenia suggested that the Karabakh leadership slightly adjust their tactics and attempt direct negotiations with Azerbaijan.
Meetings between representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan were initiated, but the Karabakh leadership chose a different path.”
Armenians exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh
The coup in Nagorno-Karabakh
“There is credible information that at least one meeting in Sofia did not take place because the Karabakh leadership refused to participate. The West pressured the Azerbaijani leadership to agree to this meeting. However, Azerbaijan was able, through Russia, to convince the Karabakh leadership to withdraw from it.
The Karabakh leaders hoped that Russia was creating a new, somewhat mythical allied state, within which they could remain outside of Azerbaijan’s control.
However, just a month after the refusal to attend the meeting, a coup occurred in Nagorno-Karabakh. Certain political forces replaced the president, who had a mandate from the people, with a figure favorable to them. His participation in negotiations was not recognized as legitimate by the international community. This effectively left Azerbaijan unrestrained, and Baku’s actions were met with only calls for restraint from the West, rather than concrete measures.”
What could negotiations between Karabakh Armenians and Baku have led to?
“Before the coup and the replacement of the legitimately elected government, there were certainly problems, but the situation had not escalated to a military invasion. There were warning statements directed at Azerbaijan, which may have deterred Baku’s desire to forcibly capture the remaining territory under its control.
If those meetings and negotiations had taken place, the situation might be different now. It’s possible that Armenians would still resist integration, and Azerbaijan might not have offered any alternatives, but the situation would have remained the same. That is, Armenians would still be living in their homes, and the negotiation process would have continued.
Conditions might have remained tense, the blockade might have continued, or there might have been a breakthrough in the blockade. I don’t know. However, it is clear that the path chosen by the Karabakh leadership led to catastrophe.”
Armenians exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh
They clung to Russia until the end
“The West had no binding commitments. The legal aspect of its role can only be linked to the OSCE Minsk Group. However, this group was so diverse and ineffective that it couldn’t exert any serious influence, especially since Azerbaijan had rejected the Minsk Group in recent years.
The proposals, which were an act of goodwill from the West, were rejected by the Karabakh leadership. Expecting them to come forward with new proposals or other tools afterward, I believe, is neither morally nor logically justified.
Russia, on the other hand, could have been held to some expectations. Given that until the very end, the same military-political leaders of Artsakh, some of whom are now imprisoned in Baku, had pinned all their hopes on Russia, it’s fair to assume that they should have been making demands. However, they did not, and still do not, raise any questions, including about the return of leaders detained in Baku.”
The NKR Parliament could declare Shahramanyan’s decree invalid
“According to the constitution of Artsakh, Samvel Shahramanyan’s decree on the dissolution of Nagorno-Karabakh does not have legal force. But when Azerbaijan presents to the world that this separatist government and the separatist leader signed this document, the world may accept it.
The only representative body in Artsakh that still has the authority to make decisions on behalf of Karabakh Armenians is the National Assembly, the people elected by the citizens of the NKR.
The parliament could make a decision, declare Shahramanyan a usurper, and legally formulate the reasons for their decision. As a result, all decrees and documents signed by Shahramanyan could be declared invalid. And perhaps, one day, it might be possible to talk about the existence of the NKR as an institution again.”
The international community doesn’t link the return of Karabakh Armenians with autonomy
“The doors for return are always open under the conditions proposed by Azerbaijan. In other words, anyone willing to go back, become a citizen of Azerbaijan, and live there can return. Moreover, even before the withdrawal of Russian troops, Russia also tried to convince some circles that returning was the right decision and that living under Azerbaijan’s terms was possible.
Naturally, Baku will never agree to allow the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to return and live with any autonomous status.
As long as the current power imbalance and geopolitical situation persist, Armenia cannot compel Azerbaijan to agree to such terms, and the Karabakh Armenians certainly cannot either.
Additionally, I haven’t seen any stance from the international community that links the return of Armenians with any level of autonomy. All the appeals and statements I’ve encountered suggest returning on Azerbaijan’s terms.
The international community talks about security guarantees from Baku, but that doesn’t mean that Armenians will have any different rights than, say, other ethnic minorities living in Azerbaijan.”
The November 9 agreement may still play a role without a new document
“The November 9 [2020] agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Karabakh remains in effect as long as the signatures of the leaders of Armenia, Russia, and Azerbaijan are on it, and none of the parties has withdrawn their signature.
The fact that Armenia isn’t demanding, for example, that Russia ensures the functioning of the Lachin Corridor, as was its obligation, doesn’t mean that Russia or Azerbaijan aren’t required to fulfill the ninth clause [on unblocking communications].
This agreement can still play a role until a new document is agreed upon between the parties, and currently, there is no such document. There are regulations on the delimitation of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and possibly there will be a peace treaty. However, these do not contradict the logic of the November 9 statement, because according to that document, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh do not share a border. And during delimitation, the problem of Artsakh will remain.
On the other hand, the November 9, 2020, statement pertains to Armenians living in Karabakh, not in Armenia. The issue is that Armenia is no longer effectively a party to this process. So, who is the party? This is the problem: the legitimate authority of Artsakh no longer exists.
The illegitimate government signed ambiguous documents. The only legitimate structure that could be recognized by the world is the parliament, which is essentially non-functional and not fulfilling its duties.
As a result, the Karabakh Armenians currently have no legal way to resolve any issue.
It’s also important to note that one of the main reasons why Armenia’s Prime Minister Pashinyan hasn’t withdrawn his signature from the November 9 agreement is that it is the only document that guarantees the cessation of hostilities. Armenian authorities likely believe that revoking the signature could provoke new provocations from Azerbaijan.
On the other hand, it’s possible that the Armenian authorities are keeping this document as a means of leverage over Azerbaijan and Russia, as there are clearly clauses that both Baku and Moscow have yet to fulfill.”
Armenians exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh
Dissolving the OSCE Minsk group could yield concessions from Baku
“In my view, the initial decision to agree to resolving the conflict within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group was a mistake. The group lacked the necessary tools and, as a result, contributed to the situation we have today. It was a stillborn structure.
The Minsk Group has been effectively dissolved for four years. It’s not functioning and cannot function. For Azerbaijan, the formal dissolution of the group solidifies its achievements. Since this is important for Baku, something could be gained from Azerbaijan in exchange for the formal dissolution of the Minsk Group.
The existence or non-existence of this group holds no real significance for Armenia, even with regard to the future. I disagree with the idea that the Minsk Group could be used to address any issues in the future. No, if something didn’t work once, it’s clear it won’t work again.”
Armenians exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh
We need to turn the page on the conflict
“Armenia and Azerbaijan are on the path to resolving their relations and establishing peace. It’s time to turn the page on the conflict and attempt to build relations from a neutral starting point.
Of course, there may be problems and various conflicts at both the civil and state levels. In the future, numerous issues could arise where Armenia and Azerbaijan will have disagreements and may not see eye to eye. The key is ensuring these disagreements are not as antagonistic as the Karabakh conflict and do not lead to similarly catastrophic consequences.
In today’s world, there are no guarantees for peace. What we have is an opportunity to guide relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan in a constructive direction for a period of time and prevent conflicts from spiraling out of control.
Whether this will be successful, only time will tell. We currently need a period of relative peace so that Armenia can focus on its internal state affairs, grow stronger, and develop. The approach of Armenia’s authorities and its responsible political forces is aligned with this logic.”
Armenians exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh
In anticipation of the International Day of Peace on September 21, the Western Regional Centre of the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) of Azerbaijan, in collaboration with various regional organisations, held several events under the theme of “Tolerance is the Basis of Peace and Cooperation,” Azernews reports.
On September 18, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze spoke with journalists about recent U.S. sanctions, Georgian Dream’s approach to restoring territorial integrity, the presidentially-brokered coalition between opposition parties Lelo and Gakharia For Georgia, upcoming elections, and civil society organizations.
On U.S. Sanctions
The Prime Minister was asked to comment on the U.S. financial sanctions and visa restrictions imposed on 64 Georgian individuals, including two senior officials, for undermining Georgian democracy, as well as on the meeting with U.S. Ambassador Robin Dunnigan following the sanctions.
Prime Minister Kobakhidze stated that “such steps, such decisions do not help to reset relations” between the U.S. and Georgia. He noted that relations have been strained over the past four years, particularly because of the former U.S. Ambassador, and that therefore it is very important for Georgia to reset relations with the U.S. now, but “resetting relations requires a healthy and fair approach.”
“However, such sanctions, such steps don’t encourage a reset or relations, especially when they are imposed, for example, against high-ranking policemen, people who fought in the August war. This is certainly an extreme insult to our state. This is, naturally, unacceptable to us in principle, and I expressed my concern to the American Ambassador.” He went on: “And I also made one thing very clear – if one more step is taken in this direction, in that case we will have to discuss- in a principled way- the revision of certain positions. A non-partner attitude of such a state, which is called not only a partner, but also a strategic partner [of Georgia], is unacceptable for us in principle. Therefore, I call on everyone to act rationally, to act justly, this will benefit Georgian-American relations,” the Prime Minister said.
“As for the step taken the day before yesterday, it was aimed precisely at destroying Georgian-American relations, who benefits from it, you can decide for yourself,” – said Kobakhidze.
He also noted that he hoped this would be the “last decision in the direction of destruction of relations”, adding that he pointed this out during the meeting with the U.S. Ambassador. “I would like to personally thank Mme. Ambassador for her constructive attitude, but it seems that her constructive attitude is not enough to make overall sound decisions, which is very unfortunate.”
The prime minister also suggested that the decision to impose sanctions was made without the knowledge or approval of the US president: “Of course, we can all see that Biden does not make such decisions. Unfortunately, there are oligarchic problems [in the U.S.], and the result of these problems are the unjust decisions that are made. I will say again that I am sure that Biden is not even aware of this decision.”
He also elaborated on the Ambassador Dunnigan’s statement on the Georgian government spreading anti-Western disinformation, saying that these sanctions are “the real disinformation.” “If there is any disinformation, it is precisely this kind of decisions on sanctions, which are unfair statements that are spread all too often. I call on everyone to refrain from spreading disinformation about Georgia on such a large scale.”
Finally, the Prime Minister stated that “some hope” that these sanctions will increase the number of opposition voters and decrease the number of votes for GD is futile. He claimed this of being in the interest of “certain powers” who he alleged also wanted to start a war in Georgia in 2022. He added: “…the elections will end as in the interest of the Georgian society, the Georgian people. “Georgian Dream will win very decisively. We want to take more than 60% and today we have about 60%. Therefore, of course, such forces, the malefactors of our country, will not succeed in these elections.”
On the Intention to Apologize for the 2008 War
The Prime Minister was asked to comment on the statement by the founder and honorary chairman of the ruling Georgian Dream party, Bidzina Ivanishvili, that Georgia will apologize for the August 2008 war, and how the opposition representatives considered this statement as “treacherous”.
“The crime these people [the opposition] committed in August 2008 was treason. You know very well what these people have done, and they want to cover up their betrayal with such, so to speak, false statements, but they won’t succeed. The public knows everything about this war, how it started, what happened before, how [ex-President] Saakashvili’s regime consistently took steps towards starting this war, in the end, what they did on August 7, in fact. Everyone knows everything, this memory does not fade,” he stated.
As for reconciliation with the occupied territories, Kobakhidze noted: “As far as reconciliation is concerned, it should be clarified here once again – there are two ways to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia, one theoretical way is war and the other theoretical way is reconciliation. Those who are against reconciliation automatically choose war. They are the war party. We, of course, have a different agenda, and reconciliation, after we have had a fratricidal war in the country, can only happen on the basis of mutual forgiveness. This is such a simple axiomatic truth that it can only be challenged by forces based on lies, based on violence. This is unacceptable to us.”
The Prime Minister was also asked to recall that the head of the Russian Federation Council’s Committee on International Affairs, Grigory Karasin praised Georgia for Bidzina Ivanishvili’s promise to apologize. Kobakhidze said: “We are not interested in external statements. Our opponents speak sometimes through the statements of [MEP Andrius] Kubilius, sometimes through the statements of Russian politicians; our national interests are the most important for us, and the only way we evaluate our own decisions is the extent to which our steps are in line with our national interests.”
On Anti-LGBT+ Legislation
On the adoption of the anti-LGBTQ+ legislative package and the critical reactions from the West to it, PM stated that such “brazen” statements were also made earlier about the Foreign Agents law, which was adopted by the Georgian Parliament for the sake of “transparency”, which should be the “basic principle” of the EU.
“Now we have passed the second law, which regulates the simplest thing, that a man should be a man and a woman should be a woman, a man should be called a man and a woman should be called a woman, and this is also proclaimed as a Russian law… In the perception of Georgian society, Europe cannot be associated with opacity and LGBT propaganda. This is wrong, it will certainly not fit the image of the European Union in the Georgian society,” he stated.
He further noted that in the perception of the GD, “Europe means first of all transparency, it means traditional values, it means Christian values.” Kobakhidze added: “For centuries Georgians aspired to Europe because we were united by common Christian traditions and Christian culture. If, on the contrary, you are told that the European Union today seems to be the opposite of Christian traditions, this is unacceptable. We believe that what unites Europe is, first of all, Christian values, and this is what the adopted law is dedicated to – the protection of traditional Christian values, the protection of family interests, the protection of the interests of minors”.
On Presidentially-Brokered Opposition Coalition
The Prime Minister spoke about the coalition announced by President Salome Zurabishvili between the coalition “Strong Georgia” led by Lelo and the party “For Georgia” led by ex-Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia. First of all, he stated that the President’s involvement in this was “of course unconstitutional” and declared that the coalition, if formed, would have no chance.
He called her mediation a “violation of the Constitution saying: “According to the Constitution, the President must be non-partisan… When in such a system, in the system of parliamentary government, the President is directly involved in the electoral processes as a side, this is another gross violation of the Constitution, although we are not surprised by Salome Zurabishvili’s violation of the Constitution… The good thing is that Salome Zurabishvili will not have any influence on the results of the elections in the country,” he noted.
As for the coalition itself, he noted that the two leaders of the Lelo and Gakharia parties used to be in constant verbal conflict with each other, calling each other “horrible words”, and now, according to him, because of the “unprincipled people” they are, they have decided to unite. Kobakhidze noted that such cases can be found in all opposition parties, and boasted that only the GD members have never done such a thing – first cursing someone and then asking them to join their party.
He claimed that the fact that the opposition parties are trying to unite despite their past feuds proves that “they are working on orders from outside” and that “they are ordinary agents who do as they are told.
On CSOs “Discrediting” Elections
Finally, Prime Minister Kobakhidze was asked about the Central Election Commission’s claim that local observer NGOs were “discrediting” the upcoming elections. Agreeing with this claim, h stated that this was the only thing left for the “radical opposition” and the NGOs associated with it to do, since the Georgian Dream party, according to him, is “already winning the elections with 60% of the vote”. He said that the party is trying to increase this number to more than 60% by election day and the opposition is losing “terribly”.
He then repeated the old adage about the “rich NGOs” saying: “The third sector does not really exist in Georgia. There are some rich NGOs that are completely externally funded, their funding is completely transparent, and they have clearly defined political goals and objectives. Therefore, it is not at all in their interest to observe the elections. The only thing they are observing is that they somehow want the radical opposition, the collective [United] National Movement, to win these elections, even though this is an absolutely unattainable result for them.” He claimed that “there are no local impartial monitoring organizations in Georgia,” adding: “All the big, rich organizations that “observe” the elections are actually political associations directly linked to the radical opposition.”