Azerbaijan in the late 1980s (2)

2. Ensuring by border guards unimpeded crossing the Soviet-Iranian border by Azerbaijanis

- Continuing our previous conversation, I would like to hear - why just Azerbaijan was chosen, as you stressed, as a testing ground to confirm the viability of the slogan "Islamic threat" in the interpretation of the USSR?

- At that time, there was a powerful confrontation in the Azerbaijan SSR between the communist leadership of the republic and the Popular Front (PFA) - "a political organization widely supported in the republic" ("Moscow news"). In the upcoming elections to the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan in March 1990, the PFA could surely get a majority in parliament.

There is no doubt, that such a situation did not suit the local, and especially, the central authorities of the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not by chance that by the end of 1989, the power structures began to compromise the Popular Front in several directions.

- And one of the parts of PFA"s compromise was supposed the "Islamic threat", allegedly coming from this organization?

- In general, this picture is manifested. The interested structures could implement this task only through the initiation of certain mass actions of Azerbaijanis with the involvement of the Iranian side. What allowed the world community to present a "visual fact" not only of the "anti-state" essence of the front-line soldiers, but also of their movement towards the support of "international terrorism".

- Do you mean that the aspirations of the Azerbaijani people, formed after the division of the historical territory of Azerbaijan as a result of agreements between Russia and Iran in the 19th century, were skillfully played up by the authorities?

- You can say so.

- How much the PFA program touched on the theme of the "divided" people?

- In general, the fact of "division" of the Azerbaijani territory, which gradually led to the impossibility of seeing and communicating the relatives, who were on different sides of the Russian (Soviet) - Iranian border, was always discussed in Azerbaijan, but not quite loudly. Therefore, it is quite natural that in its programs the PFA could not ignore this question.

However, the organization"s program didn"t consider the issue of "uniting" Azerbaijani territories, and the theme of Azerbaijanis living in Iran and the Soviet Union was in the general context of the section "International relations."

But it was also noted that in light of the prevailing political conditions, including the inviolability of the "border between the USSR and Iran", the PFA wanted to "to restore the ethnic essence and integrity between Azerbaijanis as a single people living in their native land on the territory of two neighboring states; the expansion of mutual economic and cultural ties, the mode of entry and exit; strengthening the kindred and friendly ties between the two parts of a single people. " The document emphasized the importance of creating societies that "study the history, literature, and art of northern and southern Azerbaijan"; socio-economic and political life of Azerbaijanis. The PFA"s desire to "change the existing law regarding the borders between the Azerbaijan SSR and Iran" was also stated, in the light of which the structure actualized the issue of "establishing free ties and economic activities" before republican, all-union and international organizations.

That is, no strategic tasks in the PFA program were set in the plan of "restoring" united Azerbaijan. It was only about strengthening ties between divided Azerbaijanis. The same idea was voiced in various forms at "front-line" rallies.

- As far as I remember, certain actions were held to achieve a positive result in easing the border regime.

- To some extent, one of the detonators of this could be the agreement of the Kremlin to unite the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In the autumn of 1989, this process became quite active. In October, a rally was held in Julfa, the participants of which demanded the opening of free access "to the cemetery and Gulistan memorial site", where in 1813 a peace treaty was concluded, which included the Karabakh, Ganja, Baku and other khanates, which were part of Iranian empire. According to the head of the Nakhchivan border guard detachment, Viktor Zhukov, the members of the commission including "the representatives of local authorities and border guards" expressed their consent. The protesters demanded the construction of the route "for carrying the system" of engineering structures (ITS) by local authorities.

On December 4, 1989, the Nakhchivan NPF, notified the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and the head of the border detachment in advance, held the "Living Wall" campaign, along the border with Iran and Turkey. The participants demanded to hold weekly "free meetings" in the settlements of the frontier region in order to allow unhindered meetings of relatives living on both sides of the Soviet-Iranian border; establishing cultural and economic ties between the Azerbaijanis of both territories (Komsomolskaya Pravda).

On December 17, near the river of Araks dozens of tents were installed, and the leaders of the Nakhchivan NPF demanded from the authorities and the command of the border troops to eliminate the barbed wire on the Soviet-Iranian border until December 31, 1989, in order to avoid any unauthorized actions in this vector.

- It comes out that ignoring these demands by the higher authorities was conscious in order to radicalize the situation in the border areas.

- In general, the situation developed in this direction. In his report on the events, the correspondent of Komsomolskaya Pravda, Andrei Krainy, wrote the following: "I can"t get rid of the thought that again those who must follow these events, fail to catch up with them, though they are paid for it". Was it because of the slowness or slowness of authorities? Their indifference to the opinion of the people simply contributed to making the "uncontrollable" situation on the Soviet-Iranian border.

And all this happened in unison with the movement to unite Germany, which was widely covered in the Soviet media. On November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was destroyed, and on December 22, the famous Brandenburg Gate opened up for easy access to both sides of the Germans of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.

- As far as I remember, there were no calls for the violent destruction of the barriers on the Soviet-Iranian border at the rallies held by the Popular Front of Azerbaijan in Baku. Only Nemat Panahov at the rally on December 30, referring to the fact that the people"s demands had not been solved for 20 days by Moscow or Tehran, and he declared the intention to take part in the burning of barrier systems between the countries the next day. He even somehow opposed himself to the leadership of the PFA, which, according to him, does not react to what was happening in the border areas, but only talked about parliamentary elections.

- It turns out very interesting. From the article by A. Krainy, referring also to the report of the head of the checkpoint "Julfa", it comes out that there was no definite answer to the question of Nakhchivan "front-line soldiers" about the possible opening of fire by border guards in case of possible demolition of barriers on the border. It means that the higher authorities of the Soviet Union deliberately create the possibility for the illegal crossing the international border by the Azerbaijani population.

The border guards were assigned to liquidate the ITS in the area of ​​the Nakhchivan reservoir, in order to simplify the exit of residents "in the rest area" (the reservoir was located behind the ITS).

Therefore, it is not surprising that on December 31, 1989, the people, without any problems, cut the wire at the border, and at about 10:30 am they moved into Iranian territory.

- Well, how did the official Soviet structures react to this?

-"According to the TASS report, on December 31, under the leadership of the "extremists", "unprecedented barbaric actions to destabilize the situation" were held on the 137th km of the Nakhchivan section of the Soviet-Iranian border. As a result of the "atrocities," a part of the participants in the action "intoxicated by alcohol and drugs", "were burning and destroying engineering structures, signaling and communication lines, towers, border signs."

The consciously non-objective presentation of events by the central structures is evidenced by the fact that the interview of V. Zhukov recorded by the Azerbaijani television for the "Vremya" program, reflecting a truthful look at the place, was transmitted by the central channel "not completely", in "somewhat distorted character." In particular, the unit commander recorded the absence of "drunk among the locals" during the destruction of the ITS. They told about drinking alcohol "with access to the bank" of Araks ("Komsomolskaya Pravda").

The then deputy head of the Transcaucasian border district, Dmitry Pasechnik, who said that he met "in those days" with hundreds of people disagreed with the coverage of the events on December 31. He said: "None of them was drunk or under the influence of drugs" (Azerinform). Although at the same time the same "Komsomolskaya Pravda" recorded that all along the border "the system was destroyed, many border towers were burned, the frontier marks were destroyed", "the supports of engineering structures" were dumped.

But here a quite reasonable question arises - when did these atrocities occur, if nothing was said about this in the reports of the border guards?

- Indeed, it is important question.

- The subtlety here is that, the violent actions that took place were carried out at the period of the return of the population from Iranian territory to Azerbaijani. This is confirmed by the evidence of the onset of arson of pillars with barbed wire at 12:00 on December 31 (newspaper "Azadlig").

- Why should the Azerbaijanis, who received practically unconditional support from the border guards in the unhindered crossing to the Iranian side, to destroy ITS upon their return from the adjacent territory? One can understand the destruction of the state border by local residents as a "protest sign" in case if the border guards did not let them to cross the border. But in this case, everything happened "in favor" of the Azerbaijani population, which, most likely, was already hoping for the same calm transition and return across the border in the future.

- I agree with you. If the border guards created all the conditions for free border crossing, for what purpose did the residents have to carry out criminal actions, and even on their return? Certain reflections are suggested by the phrase in the TASS report about the drug and alcohol craze on the crowd. Moreover, since the "Vremya" program cut off the information of the commander of the military unit stationed on the Nakhchivan border section, and was presented in a different interpretation, and the TASS message appeared in the version quoted above, therefore, then it comes out that the Kremlin needed to present to the public just such a background: drinking alcohol and forcibly breaking the border.

However, in this situation, the version of the presence of people in the crowd, instructed in advance by the employees of the interested structures about their behavior, becomes real. Because the border guards did not receive an order to intervene in what was happening when the excesses became a reality.

- It is clear that in this way the authors of the "borderline" scenario demonstrated the anti-statehood of the Popular Front to the world.

"Therefore, as Ivan Vertelko, then the First Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of the Border Guards of the KGB of the USSR, admits, despite the information coming to Moscow from border intelligence, "there was no reaction at the top to these signals." Sergey Semenchuk, who served in the border troops at that time, referring to the information of Sergey Rydko, chief of the engineering service of the Nakhchivan division, wrote that after a report to the USSR Minister of Defense about the "demolition of border engineering structures," he replied to everything that had happened: "It is impossible", and hung up.

Thus, it is obvious that the highest authorities of the USSR inspired the criminal actions on the interstate border on December 31, the responsibility for which was entrusted to the PFA. As a result, for the public, the Popular Front could be represented by an organization adhering to the line of "Islamic fundamentalism", since, according to the same I. Vertelko, the border was wrecked by frantic crowds of "fanatically inclined Muslims" who, burning towers and demolishing frontier posts, "went to Iran."

It is very symptomatic that the perception of the result of the actions of the "fundamentalists" that took place was also characteristic of the Soviet "democratic intelligentsia". Thus, the "Panorama" edition, which was popular at that time, stated that "the proportion of Islamic-oriented elements in the Popular Front is about 20%". The same source, with reference to some anonymous observers, claimed that it was impossible to "take into account the version born in informal circles that this is a provocation carried out" with the aim of "discrediting" the PFA.

- The apotheosis of these accusations against the Popular Front was the justification by M. Gorbachev of the bloody deployment of troops in Baku on the night of January 20, to suppress the attempt to create an "Islamic state" in Azerbaijan

- "We will act responsibly, decisively," he summed up in those days. In response to this, Allahshukur Pashazade, the head of the then Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Transcaucasia, resolutely rejected the "provocative accusations" about the existence of the notorious Islamic fundamentalism in Azerbaijan, which were presented as a threat to the existence of the Soviet state. "There is not and cannot be any justification for this bloody massacre, this monstrous crime, sanctioned by you as the head of state," the statement said.

The absence of a religious factor in the Baku events of that period was also noted by the USSR people's deputy Nikolai Petrushenko, who visited Azerbaijan after the January tragedy. "It"s wrong to talk about some kind of Islamic fundamentalism, at least in relation to Baku," he said. The Russian researcher Alexei Zverev, said that the birth of the official Soviet versions regarding the incident, was addressed to Western politicians. A. Zverev concluded that "sympathy for Gorbachev" hampered the attempts to assess what happened in those days "in its true light." For example, US President George W. Bush supported the deployment of troops in Baku, due to the need to "maintain order" in the country. In addition, in the same bloody 1990, M. Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

- Thank you for such a thorough approach to the coverage of the issue.

- Thank you for your interest in the problem!

(To be continued)