Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia: Erdogan Cannot Be Allowed to Act as Turkish Premier Anymore. Part II

In two previous articles entitled "Turkey – Azerbaijan – Armenia: Documents Incriminating Erdogan, Still Hidden in Turkey"

(http://www.pennsylvaniachronicle.com/articles/view/94901) and "Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia: Erdogan Cannot Be Allowed to Act as Turkish Premier Anymore. Part I" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/95492), I illustrated some of the reasons for which the theologically extremist, politically Islamist, historically ignorant, intellectually gullible, and diplomatically inexperienced prime minister of Turkey has to be removed by any means and at all costs.

In support of my approach to the (well hidden by the Western mass media and the Erdogan administration) subject of the forthcoming dissolution of Turkey, I brought to surface a critical document that remains widely – and catastrophically – unknown in Turkey, namely the Report presented to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with respect to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Submitted in November 2004, the Report "The Conflict Over the Nagorno-Karabakh Region Dealt With by the OSCE Minsk Conference" demonstrates clearly that the countries with which Turkey has been allied, and the major powers involved in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, drastically prevent Turkey from implementing policies pertaining to the interests of Ankara and Baku that are identical; even worse the Erdogan – Gul administration is fully compliant with these powers.

Erdogan´s and Gul´s compliance with Anti-Turkish policies is revealed throughout this document that demonstrates very clearly that international organizations and world instances whereby Turkey participates, like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), happen to give credence to racist, anti-Turkish and anti-Turkic propaganda prepared and diffused by both the Armenian state and the Armenian Diaspora. This Anti-Turkish and Anti-Turkic bias reflects a reality that automatically cancels any plans for possible Turkish cooperation with the racist state or even any type of normalization of the bilateral relations.

The document, particularly in parts included in the present and forthcoming articles, demonstrates that there are international organizations ready to accept to consider, discuss and ponder about incredibly biased approaches, as is in the case of the Armenian –Azerbaijani conflict about Nagorno – Karabakh the inclusion of any reference to events occurred in the Ottoman Empire that are fallaciously described by the Armenian racists as ´Genocide´. Nagorno – Karabakh was not part of the Ottoman Empire when the events that are fallaciously called by the Armenians as "genocide" took place.

The insertion of any element pertaining to any purely Ottoman – Armenian issue in a document purportedly produced in order to help solve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict merely testifies to the following:

the intentional and fallacious depiction of the Armenian side as weaker, discriminated and persecuted

the subsequent creation of a false impression depicting Armenians and Azerbaijanis as equally victimized

the malicious conduction of the negotiations in a way that viciously alters the real data and the overall outlook of the issue under the false impression created by the previously mentioned points

the imposition of an unfair and unjust pseudo-solution that makes the evil "equation" between

a. "injustices" made to Armenians in the 1910s (non by the Azeris) and

b. "injustices" made to Azeris in the 1990s.

Through effective swinging, the Armenians take more, the Azeris are forced to accept the policy of faits accomplis, the easily maneuvered Russians are used in order to prevent Azerbaijan from getting back today what the Armenians took back in the 1990s through lawless means and tricks, and of course OSCE´s fairness and justice cannot reach Dagestan whereby tyrannized Dagestanis are shamelessly portrayed by the Freemasonry-controlled mass media of the West as terrorists because this is offered to the Russians in exchange for their besotted support to Armenia, a support that gravely jeopardizes Russia´s real interests in the Caucasus and the Middle East region.

The Islamist Turkish administration is guilty; either they studied the document and failed to reach the correct conclusion or they did not bother to take it into account because they are mere puppets of the Anglo-French Freemasonic establishments that dictate to them their demarches step by step.

Either Erdogan and Gul are ignorant or they function as puppets; under either circumstances, the Turkish people and the Turkish army must resort to concerted action and eliminate them before they open the Armenian border.

I will complete the republication of the document in forthcoming articles. I will also expand establishing parallels between today´s policy of faits accomplis toward Azerbaijan and tomorrow´s policy of faits accomplis against Turkey, after the calamitous Islamist administration opens the Armenian border.

The Conflict Over the Nagorno-Karabakh Region Dealt With by the OSCE Minsk Conference

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Doc. 10364

29 November 2004

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm

Appendix I

Maps of the conflict area used by the United Nations

Appendix II

Programmes of visits in preparation of the report

Warsaw, 22 February 2003

Meeting with the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group:

Ambassador Nikolai Gribkov (Russian Federation),

Ambassador Henry Jacolin (France),

Ambassador Rudolf V. Perina (USA),

And

Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office

Baku, 14 April 2003

Meeting with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Personal Representative of the President of the Republic, Mr. Araz Azimov

Meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Vilayat Guliyev

Meeting with the Head of the Azerbaijani delegation to the PACE, Mr. Ilham Aliyev, and members of the delegation

Meeting with the Chairman of the Parliament (Milli Mejlis), Mr. Murtuz Aleskerov

Meeting with the Minister of Defence, Mr. Safar Abiyev

Meeting with the Minister for National Security, Mr. Namig Abbasov

Meeting with representatives of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh

Meeting with representatives of opposition parties represented in the Parliament

Baku, 15 April 2003

Meeting with the Chairman of the State Committee on Refugees and IDPs, Mr. Ali Hasanov

Departure to the refugee and IDP camp in Bilasuvar

Meeting with the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Mr. Heydar Aliyev

Meeting with Members of the National Academia of Sciences

Press conference

Meeting with Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on the conflict dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference

Tbilisi, 16 April 2003

Meeting with the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Tbilisi, Mr. Plamen Nikolov

Meeting with the Dutch Ambassador to Georgia and Armenia and the Representative of the European Commission in Tbilisi

Yerevan, 17 April 2003

Meeting with the UK Ambassador in Yerevan, Ms Thorda Abbott-Watt

Meeting with the Head of the Armenian delegation to the PACE, Mr. Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

Meeting with the heads of parliamentary factions and groups

Meeting with the Chairman of the National Assembly, Mr. Armen Khachatryan

Meeting with the Minister of Defence, Mr. Serzh Sargsyan

Meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Vardan Oskanyan

Yerevan, 18 April 2003

Visit to areas settled by refugees and meeting with refugees

Meeting with a representative from Nagorno-Karabakh

Meeting with the Personal Representative of the President of the Republic, Mr. Tatul Margaryan

Meeting with the President of the Republic of Armenia, Mr. Robert Kocharyan

Press conference

Amsterdam, 11 June 2003

Meeting with the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group:

Ambassador Nikolai Gribkov (Russian Federation),

Ambassador Henry Jacolin (France),

Ambassador Rudolf V. Perina (USA),

And

Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office

Nagorno-Karabakh region, 23 February 2004

Visit to Shushi / Shusha and meeting with refugees

Visit to Stepanakert / Khankendi

Meeting with Mr. Oleg Yesayan and political parties

Meeting with Mr. Arkady Ghoukassyan

Yerevan, 24 February 2004

Meeting with Mr. Tatoul Margaryan, the Personal Representative of the President of the Republic

Meeting with Head of the State Department for Migration and Refugees and refugees in the former dormitory of Yerevan University

Meeting with the Armenian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly and the political parties represented in the National Assembly of Armenia

Meeting with Mr. Robert Kocharyan, President of the Republic of Armenia, and Mr. Vardan Oskanyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Baku, 25 February 2004

Meeting with displaced persons in Baku

Baku, 26 February 2004

Meeting with Mr. Namig Abbasov, Minister for National Security

Meeting with Mr. Ilham Aliyev, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan

Meeting with the Azerbaijan Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

Meeting with political parties represented in the National Assembly of Azerbaijan

Meeting with Mr. Murtuz Aleskerov, Chairman of the National Assembly

Meeting with Mr. Safar Abiyev, Minister of Defence

Meeting with Mr. Vilayat Guliyev, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Strasbourg, 13 May 2004

Meeting with Mr. Vardan Oskanyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia

Meeting with Mr. Elmar Mammadyarov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan

Meeting with the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group:

Ambassador Henry Jacolin (France),

Ambassador Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia)

Ambassador Stephen Mann (USA),

And

Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office

Appendix III

Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council

In photocopies

Appendix IV

Restricted

AS/POL (2004) 24 Appendix IV

8 September 2004

Apdoc04_24 app. IV

English Only

The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference

Note:

This appendix reproduces the background paper prepared by the Directorate General of Political Affairs for the seminar "Youth and Conflict Resolution" (Strasbourg, 31 March - 2 April 2003). It also contains a letter by the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe as a response to parts of it which were equally reproduced in an information document for the Committee of Ministers.

The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the Rapporteur or the Assembly.

Cette annexe reprend le document d´information préparé par la Direction générale des Affaires politiques pour le séminaire "Jeunesse et Résolution des conflits (Strasbourg, 31 mars – 2 avril 2003). Elle comprend également une lettre du Représentant permanent de l´Azerbaïdjan auprès du Conseil de l´Europe répondant à des parties de ce texte qui étaient intégrées dans un document d´information du Comité des Ministres.

Les opinions exprimées dans ce document ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles du Rapporteur ou de l´Assemblée.

January 2003

The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

This background paper is prepared for the seminar "Youth and conflict resolution", where participants with personal conflict experience are expected to discuss other, lesser known to them conflicts. To serve its purpose, the paper seeks to present fairly the official positions, but also the historic and psychological burdens, the fears and aspirations of the sides in the conflict. In describing the position of one side, the paper contains textual and graphic information, which is not necessarily acceptable and may be offending to the other side. The views are clearly attributed throughout the text. Presenting them does not imply endorsement by the Council of Europe Secretariat. Where Secretariat views are given, they are clearly marked as "Comment".

Contents

Basic facts . . . . . 25

Ancient history. . . . . 26

Recent history. . . . . 27

The demise of the USSR and the slide into war 31

The Nagorno-Karabakh war . . . 33

Perceptions of the military conflict . . 36

The legal side of the dispute . . . 36

The broader geopolitical context . . 37

Mediation efforts in the N-K conflict . . 40

Negotiating mechanisms . . . 40

Positions of the sides . . . . 41

Settlement options . . . . 42

Problems of Conflict Settlement . . 43

The Council of Europe position . . 44

Map of Nagorno-Karabakh . . . 46

Appendix . . . . . 47

Basic facts

The name Nagorno-Karabakh is a relatively recent combination of the Russian word Nagorno, meaning mountainous, and the Turkic-Persian word Karabakh, meaning black garden. The de-facto authorities of Nagorno Karabakh (hereinafter: N-K) as well as most Armenian sources use the historical name of the region: Artsakh, meaning strong forest. The origin of both names seems to be linked to geographical features: elevation, cooler climate and, in ancient times, forests rich in game and fruit.

Map

Armenian historiographers indicate that present-day N-K comprises one-third of the historic Artsakh territory, just as present-day Armenia covers about one-tenth of traditionally Armenian lands.

Map

For this paper and for conflict-resolution purposes N-K means the territory of the former N-K Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) of the USSR.

N-K has an area of 4.400 square kilometres - for comparison, about twice the size of Luxembourg or half that of Cyprus. There are lowlands, hills and peaks as high as 3724 m. Vineyards, orchards, silkworm and grains are the major agricultural activities. According to the 1989 USSR census, N-K had 186.100 inhabitants of whom 138.600 (73.5%) were Armenians and 47.500 (25.3%) Azerbaijanis. Estimates about today´s population vary from less than 100.000 to 130.000. There are no Azerbaijanis left.

The N-K conflict left estimated 30.000 dead and twice as many wounded combatants and civilians. Over one million people, some 800.000 from them Azerbaijanis, have fled their homes to live refugee lives in tents, railway carriages and mud brick homes.

The "line of contact" between the ethnic Armenian and Azerbaijani forces is heavily mined; much of the infrastructure is destroyed or dismantled. Nine years after the 1994 cease-fire, the yearly death toll along the line of contact has diminished, but young persons continue to die in mine blasts or occasional skirmishes.

Because of the conflict, Armenia has no diplomatic relations with two out of its four neighbours, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Prospects for regional co-operation are bleak.

The N-K conflict is the longest-running one in the former Soviet Union. It is a strong barrier to economic development and democratic reform in the whole region.

Hundreds of thousands of broken lives will take at least a generation to heal.

Ancient history

Two largely opposite versions of history shape present-day Armenian and Azerbaijani perceptions as regards the N-K conflict.

The Armenian view is that Artsakh is the cradle of Armenian identity. Back in the 5th century, the first Armenian school was open at the Amaras Church in present-day Martuni District of N-K. Earlier, in 301 Armenia had adopted Christianity and in 405 scholar, preacher and military leader Mesrop Mashtots had created – or according to other sources, revived the forgotten Armenian alphabet.

The Azerbaijani view is that from 4th century B.C. to 8th century A.D. present-day N-K belonged to Caucasian Albania, the most ancient state of Northern Azerbaijan, which adopted Christianity in 313 and had its unique alphabet composed of 52 letters.

In the centuries that followed, the region was subject to influence and conquest by Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks and Russians. Armenian historiographers consider this long period essentially as Christian or Armenian resistance against foreign, largely Muslim domination. The Azerbaijani view is fundamentally different: the region was populated by Caucasian Albanian and Turkic tribes ruled by Albanian Mikhranid princes and later by descendants of Hassan-Jalal - Jalalids. In the 15th century, after they lost political and secular power, the Jalalids became spiritual leaders – Patriarch-Catolicos of the Albanian autonomous Church. Under this interpretation, the Albanian Autocephalous Church was subordinated to the Armenian Church only in 1836, resulting in the Grigoriniasation (Armenisation) of the Albanian population.

Photocopies

For their part, Azerbaijani historiographers trace the beginning of Islamisation back to 705 when Arabic tribes conquered Albania lowlands. According to Azerbaijani sources, the Meliks were descendants of the clan of Jalalids, granted the title of Melik by the Jahanshah of Persia in the 15th century; none of them were of Armenian descent. The Albanian title of "Melik" differs from Armenian titles "Ishkhan", "Tar" etc. In their letters to the Russian czar, Karabakh Meliks call themselves "descendants of the Albanian Arshakids".

In the early 1800s, in the wake of Russian-Persian and Russian-Turkish wars, the Karabakh khanate and much of the South Caucasus were transferred to Russia. Azerbaijani historiography considers that migration of Armenians to the South Caucasus began after the Turkmanchay Treaty between Russia and Iran (1828) and Adrianopol treaty between Russia and Turkey (1829), both of which included special clauses allowing for migration of Armenians into the Caucasus. This is when first compact Armenian settlements appeared in Karabakh and Zangezur (the present-day area between Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan). Further to the Turkmanchay treaty, Russia created, for the first time in history, an Armenian Oblast (district). It comprised Erivan, Nakhichevan and Ordubad areas.

Comment: Depending on the viewpoint taken on ancient history, N-K can probably be seen as traditionally either Armenian of Azerbaijani land – or both.

Recent history

Comment: the recent history of the South Caucasus is replete with tragic events, which have become powerful myths dominating popular mindsets and political decisions. In this context, the term "myth" does not imply that historic events are questioned - it is used to identify the extent of the influence of these events on current thinking as well as the need to address related perceptions in the conflict resolution process.

For centuries, the Ottoman Empire ruled over numerous Christian minorities, which lived as second-class subjects ("infidels"), a mixed existence of conformism and resistance. In the 19th Century, Christians asserted their identity and struggled for independence - against severe punishment inflicted by the decaying Ottoman power and against the political turbulence resulting from the dispute amongst European Powers over how to divide the Empire.

Unlike other Christian Minorities, who lived mostly on the outskirts of the Empire, there were large groups of Armenians in the big cities of Turkey as well as a sizeable compact population in Asia Minor. Altogether, at the beginning of the 20th century there were some 2.5 million Armenians in Turkey. In the late 19th century, Armenian political movements emerged to claim reform and autonomy: the oldest Ramkavar (1885), the socialist-oriented "Hnchak" (1887) and the biggest party, the only one surviving to this day, "Dashnaksutyun" (1890), also known as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

Armenian historiographers indicate that in the 1890's, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909) encouraged the first massive anti-Armenian pogroms. The Armenian community welcomed the "Young Turks revolution", which introduced Constitutional rule in 1909. As the Young Turks saw their pro-liberal reforms stall, they turned to pan-Turkic nationalist ideas. Towards 1915, the Young Turk "Committee for Union and Progress", dominated by Mehmed Talat Pasha, Ismail Enver Pasha and Ahmed Djemal Pasha masterminded a plan to take advantage of the First World War events to deport the Armenian population from Asia Minor with a view to "consolidate" Turkey. In this context, historiographers point out, on 24 April 1915, hundreds of Armenian community leaders were rounded up and later murdered. As the Armenians were asked to turn in their weapons to assist the war effort, anti-Armenian xenophobia was fanned. The able-bodied Armenians were drafted and disappeared. The women, children and white-bearded men were told they would be "relocated". Most of the future victims co-operated with the Government programme.

The Armenian view is that, in effect, the "relocation" turned out to be an unpitying death march towards the Mesopotamian deserts amidst murder, rape and starvation. Under the scorching sun, deportees died by the thousands of dehydration and disease. Armenian sources put the death toll at 1.5 million. This tragedy remains burnt forever in the collective Armenian memory. The Armenians refer to it as The Genocide.

Pictures

Armenian deportees: women, children and elderly men. Three generations of deportees sharing a tent

Ottoman Empire, region Syria, 1915. Ottoman Empire, region Syria, 1915

Photos: A Wegner Source: Armenian National Institute

The Turkish view is that there was no Genocide. What happened was a bitter civil war started by Armenian nationalists, in which both Armenians and Muslims died. The figure of 1.5 million Armenian victims is exaggerated; the number of Muslims who died in the same period is close to 3 million.

Comment: the bitter debate about events in 1915 is one of the most difficult issues between Armenia and Turkey. Progress towards reconciliation with this period of their common past would undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on prospect for solving of the N-K conflict.

Picture

The post-war Turkish government held criminal trials and found the Young Turks triumvirate guilty in abstentia. Turkey agreed to let US President Wilson draw the border with the newly- born Republic of Armenia. The US-proposed solution, known as "Wilsonian Armenia" was to include most of the six western Ottoman provinces as well as a large coastline on the Black Sea. Cilicia, or "Little Armenia", a separate region on the Mediterranean (North of Cyprus) was to be a French mandate.

Turkey did not accept the US proposal. During the brief Turkish-Armenian War of 1920, the army of Mustafa Kemal-Ataturk drove the returning Armenians out of "Wilsonian Armenia". In agreement with Soviet Russia, the Kars and Ardahan provinces of Armenia went to Turkey. Thus the present-day borders of Armenia were drawn.

In the Armenian perception, the Genocide and the lost Wilsonian dream merged into a lasting feeling of injustice done to the Armenian people. The "restoration of historic justice" is enshrined in the acting Constitution of Armenia.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation turned radical. In 1919, its 9th World Congress in Yerevan adopted a sweeping platform, which has remained essentially unchanged - "integral Armenia repopulated by Armenians". The Dashnaks focused on pressuring Turkey into admitting and apologizing for crimes of the past. In this context, a radical´s view, will make little or no distinction between "Turkey" and "the Turks" – including the Azerbaijanis.

In this broad context, Azerbaijani sources trace the first Dashnak anti-Azeri pogroms back to 1905 – when nine Azeri villages in the Echmiadzin region, as well as the villages of Khalaj, Saldashy, Injevan and Gatar were pillaged and burnt. Azerbaijani and Turkish sources maintain that the Dashnaks are responsible for terrorist attacks against Turkish interests, all over Europe throughout the 20th century.

In October 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution ended the involvement of Russia in the First World War and Russia withdrew its troops from the South Caucasus. In May 1918, after a brief spell in the short-lived Transcaucasian Federation, Azerbaijan and Armenia declared independence. Several chaotic and violent years followed, with episodes of the Russian civil war, the Turkish-British military enmity for control of the region and ethnic strife where Armenia and Azerbaijan sought, unsuccessfully, to control N-K. This is also the time when ethnic pogroms, on both sides, took place.

From May 1918 to April 1920, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) existed. Azerbaijani historiographers are proud of this 23-month period. They underline that ADR was the first secular state in the Orient, with the first European-like Parliament, Cabinet of Ministers and other democratic institutions. The ADR was represented at the Paris Peace Conference and at the League of Nations.

Picture

The ADR delegation in Versailles, 1919

Azerbaijani sources attach great importance to the short-lived Batum Treaty of 4 June 1918 between the Ottoman Empire and Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The treaty accorded to Armenia only the Erivan and Echmiadzin districts, some 10 000 sq. km.

From July to September 1918, ethnic conflict raged in Nakhichevan, Karabakh and Zangezur. Azerbaijanis fled the area of Zangezur (according to Azerbaijani sources, their number was 50 000). Subsequently the ADR fought the Soviet Commissars for control of Baku. The takeover of Baku was followed by anti-Armenian pogroms in what some Azerbaijanis viewed as retaliation for earlier anti-Azeri violence.

Map

Source: MFA ADR, 1920

In 1920, the Bolsheviks took over the South Caucasus or, as seen from Moscow, the Transcaucasus. In November 1920, the Azerbaijan Revolutionary Committee recognized the disputed regions of Zangezur and Nakhichevan as integral parts of Soviet Armenia and granted N-K the right to self-determination. The resolution, which some historians ascribe to a wish to help the Armenian Bolsheviks to take power, was never put into practice. However, N-K Armenians will often quote this episode, as they believe it gives historic legitimacy to their claim to unity with Armenia or sovereignty.

In July 1921, the Bolshevik Party Caucasus Bureau reversed the above decision. N-K was granted a broad autonomy within the newly created Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1923, the N-K Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established. Russian analysts believe that the final decision was made to appease the Muslim population of the region: in the Bolshevik mindset Azerbaijan, with its larger population and oil resources was assigned the role of a beacon of the revolution in the East and was therefore more important than Armenia.

Armenian historiographers generalize the Soviet period as the time of determined policy of the Azerbaijan SSR to under-fund N-K and prevent the growth of the Armenian population in the region. They point out that, if in 1921 Armenians were 96% of the N-K population, in 1979 the percentage dropped to 75%.

For their part, Azerbaijani historiographers stress that, due to Stalinist ethnic-territorial gerrymandering, the 114.000 sq km of ADR territory (1918-1920) were reduced to the present-day 86.600 sq km. They particularly point out that in 1947, Moscow ordered the resettlement "on a voluntary basis" of one hundred thousand Azerbaijanis from Armenian SSR to the Kura-Araz lowland of the Azerbaijan SSR.

Late in the Soviet epoch, in the winter of 1987-1988, Yerevan re-launched the move for ethnic homogeneity of the Armenian SSR by driving 165 000 Azerbaijanis out of Armenia.

Note

Picture: the Nagorno Karabakh conflict has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire and the displacement of the Armenians during 1915 – 1916.