Events that led to Karabakh conflict

Nationalism proved to be the principle – if not the only – ‘grave digger’ for the great state with centuries of history, the collapse of which we are now celebrating. It was pure nationalism, without even a hint of rationalism, pragmatic sense or concern for the well-being of common people. Unfortunately, the authors of the wide-advertised documentary “USSR: Collapse” mention this reason only be passing, and when they do mention it, they prove to be surprisingly incompetent in the matter.

For example, the author suggests, that Tbilisi demonstrations of 1989 were held in response to “the decision of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia to separate itself from Georgia and enter Russian Soviet Republic”. But there was no such decision! No official Abkhaz governmental body adopted any documents on this matter. It is true that on March, 18, 1989 a rally was held in Abkhaz town of Lykhni, and the protesters adopted respective resolution. So what? There were dozens of such rallies all over the USSR at the time. The abovementioned event was only a pretext for certain Georgian nationalists to organize a mass protest action in Tbilisi. The chief organizer of that demonstration, Irakli Tsariteli, the leader of the National Independence Party, doesn’t even try to hide that fact that he and his allies hoped for the events to take a violent turn and make the crowd clash with Soviet forces of order “to make the Georgians forget once and for all hopes of reforming the USSR and to let the idea of complete sovereignty win the masses”. The blood spilt by incompetent Soviet generals while breaking up the unarmed rally of April, 9 did the trick.

Few years earlier the Soviet of Parliamentarians of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous District decided to exit the Azerbaijani SSR and enter Armenian SSR. This decision is legally a whole different story than the declaration of the Lykhni rally and it created a precedent for previously unseen processes of decentralization and, eventually, contributed greatly to the process of the disintegration of the Soviet State. This act of the Nagorno-Karabakh parliament constituted the first case of a decision adopted by one of the Soviet parliaments with all due legal procedure that directly contradicted the Constitution of the Soviet Union. This declaration directly violated the sovereign rights of the Azerbaijani SSR and even the sovereignty of the USSR itself.

All potential separatists waited for the reaction of the USSR central government to this act of ‘institutional separatism’ with anticipation – and received evidence that in the central administration is incapable of responding to such challenges. The famous Estonian ‘declaration of independence’ was adopted only after this period of cautious waiting – in November, 1988.

According to the authors of the documentary, the only reason for all existing ethno-territorial conflicts on the post-Soviet space is Stalin’s main principle of managing his empire - divide et impera. That is why, the film claims, he gave Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, and not to Armenia; that is why South Ossetia and Abkhazia found themselves in Georgia, etc.

If the authors of the film really believe that, why do they still cast Ronald Reagan in such a bad light? The abovementioned conclusion suggests that the USSR really was an ‘evil empire’ that played off its subjects one against the other and a ‘prison for peoples’ who were equal only in their right-deprived state.

Maybe, the authors of the film should have looked on the problem without following common misconceptions and stereotypes? Than they would have had to acknowledge that the configuration of Soviet republics and districts in the frames of the USSR as it was when Gorbachev ascended to power wad the only possible one. This configuration was the only one that could grant the unity of the state. This system was a system of checks and balances for local elites that could smooth over the existing inter-ethnic contradictions and allow all Soviet citizens live together in peace. Granted, Lenin and Stalin deserve much of the critics they get, but they were not stupid when it comes to the organization of the unique state they had to run. I would disagree with the film’s ‘geopolitical expert’ Nataliya Narochinskaya who supports nationalists by saying that the Soviet state system was unjust and imperialistic: it was the only possible one to keep the state together after the collapse of the Romanov empire.

Stalin’s policy made all conflict parties to feel that they had to lose a bit – just a bit, as it is necessary according to the laws of conflictology. Georgian and Osseti (or Armenian and Azerbaijani, or Georgian and Abkhaz, etc.) Bolsheviks could have never agreed on anything, much less pursue a common cause without Kremlin resolving their conflicts for them. And it were Armenians who destroyed the fragile yet acceptable status-quo for Nagorno-Karabakh, not the Azerbaijani nationalists.

The authors of the documentary call the decision of Nagorno-Karabakh Parliament to join Armenia instead of Azerbaijan an ‘innocent and legit desire of the people’ – bt that would mean that they agree with the legitimacy of the Union’s disintegration as well.

To be continued

By Georgy Kalatozishvili