Yerevan accuses of ethnic cleansing: what is behind this?

Baku/12.04.22/Turan: On March 28, the Azerbaijani army improved its positions in Karabakh without entering the Armenian settlements. However, the Armenian inhabitants of the village of Farrukh left it, as well as part of the inhabitants of the village of Pirlyar. At the same time, not a single Armenian civilian was injured.

On April 10, the Armenian Foreign Ministry issued a statement accusing Azerbaijan of ethnic cleansing. In response, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry stated: "On what basis did the Armenian side, which subjected to ethnic cleansing about 1 million Azerbaijanis, grossly violated the fundamental rights of these people for almost 30 years, committed numerous war crimes during military aggression, including brutally killing overnight 613 civilians in Khojaly, still bearing responsibility for the fate of 4,000 Azerbaijanis who went missing in the early 90s, and the remains of some of them were found in mass graves, still evading responsibility for numerous crimes, says about massacres and ethnic cleansing?!"

Turan Agency asked Farhad Mammadov, the former director of the Center for Strategic Studies under Azerbaijan, why, about a year and a half after the 2020 war, Yerevan accuses Azerbaijan of ethnic cleansing? Farhad Mammadov believes that the lie about "ethnic cleansing" is the last hope of Armenia to retain the territory of Karabakh.

- What is the reason for such an accusation in a peaceful period, when the war ended long ago?

- The new geopolitical realities formed after the 44-day war are narrowing for Armenia the possibilities for diplomatic maneuvers limited over the past 26 years. The agendas of the formed mediation formats between Azerbaijan and Armenia do not imply a discussion of the topic of Karabakh and the fate of the Armenians of Karabakh. For the leadership of Azerbaijan, this is an internal matter. The only format where Armenia could somehow get an opportunity to discuss this topic was the OSCE Minsk Group, whose activities are paralyzed.

Against this background, the leadership of Armenia went on a maneuver: to discuss not the territory, but the rights of the Armenians of Karabakh. In this context, the thesis that the Armenians are threatened by "ethnic cleansing" is being formed and promoted. All statements made from Irevan and Khankendi are linked to this thesis: from “if the RMK leaves, there will be no Armenians in Karabakh”, “if Azerbaijan puts up a checkpoint in the Lachin corridor, there will be no Armenians in Karabakh”, “if Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, there will be no Armenians there will remain ... ”, etc.

All this is overgrown with legends about the once “numerical superiority of Armenians in Nakhchivan, Baku”, etc. They also remember the absence of Armenians in the entire territory of Azerbaijan.

- What facts and events does Yerevan use to substantiate this accusation?

- Let's formulate the theses of the Armenian propaganda:

- Karabakh Armenians have lived within Azerbaijan for the last 30 years; this, at least, was recognized by the international community so beloved by the Armenians. Pashinyan spoke about this more than once.

- Historical parallels also do not stand up to scrutiny. We can agree with one thing - the resettlement of Azerbaijanis and Armenians took place. In Soviet times, Azerbaijanis and Armenians were resettled, there was internal labor migration - the State Planning Commission was there and it decided where to live and work.

By the end of the 80s of the last century, the war. There are no Azerbaijanis left in Armenia, the number of Armenians in Azerbaijan has decreased, but they remained in Baku and other settlements and in Karabakh.

- The term "ethnic cleansing" has yet to be proven. What kind of purge is this, if, according to the Armenians, “100 thousand Armenians live in Karabakh”? How does it work? On the one hand  they speak about the "cleansing", and on the other hand about a hundred thousand people. Define it, at last!

Azerbaijan spoke about ethnic cleansing and proved it: there was a territory where Azerbaijanis lived and from which they were forcibly expelled by Armenians, they were counted by the UN (more than 600,000 people in 1996), and by 2020 not a single one has returned! And here they live on you, they also listen to high-quality Azerbaijani music for free.

Plus, Armenia itself did not allow the OSCE fact-finding mission all these years to count the Armenians of Karabakh. There is nothing to compare with, this is a question until the fall of 2020 and after ...

- Yerevan may attract the attention of allies by announcing the coming ethnic cleansing in Karabakh.

- On the topic of "ethnic cleansing" no one can turn to Baku with claims! What and who did at least something to return the Azerbaijanis for all these 26 years of negotiations?!

The main demand of Azerbaijan before and during the war was the withdrawal of the Armenian Armed Forces from the territory of Azerbaijan. The war stopped when Armenia recognized and undertook to withdraw its armed forces from the occupied territories. The conversation with the civilian population will begin after the complete withdrawal of the Armenian Armed Forces, otherwise the actions against illegal armed Armenians will be appropriate.

So, there has not been and will not be an ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh, but a choice will be presented: to remain and live as citizens of Azerbaijan or live on the territory of the state of which they are citizens, that is, in Armenia.

As far as this topic will be pushed by Armenia, along with inventing the “Russian Community of Nagorno-Karabakh”, stuffing about joining the Russian Federation, using non-existent geographical names, it will be so much worse for Armenians in Karabakh. This, in turn, will stimulate a peaceful outcome, which in the end may lead to the absence of a reason for the presence of RMK in Azerbaijan. It seems that in the West they understand this and have so far stopped using expressions of irritants, and then it may be forgotten. That is why EU mediation has stimulated momentum. Russia should also follow this trend in order not to lose its role in post-conflict processes.