Readers' comments

Would you like to post a comment ? Be the first to share your thoughts.

Post a comment

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. However, comments not pertaining to the topic or containing slander or offensive language will be deleted. You have to be registered to be able leave your comment. Sign in or Register now for free.

Enlarge Photo

"It's good for Armenia's image…" Davis (front) now says.

Why?

“Does the Council of Europe have the right to judge Armenia’s image not from the view of adhering civil freedoms, but of the declared interest in preservation of the Armenian nation’s cultural heritage?” wonders a well-known art critic, the Head of Avan’s Museum of History and Archeology Ara Demirkhanyan. “The events of the recent years have shown that even such an apolitical structure as UNESCO at least seems to be, is guided by the same familiar double standards as other international organizations.”

What are those events of the recent years the expert is talking about?

On October 1, 2003 in Paris the 32nd General Assembly of UNESCO launched its work during which RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian made several serious motions directly connected to the issues of fixing and protection of monuments of world cultural heritage. In particular, he called upon the UNESCO Commissariat to delegate its observers to Nakhijevan- a zone of large-scale destruction of numerous monuments of ancient and medieval Armenian architecture.

“Destruction of the monuments of Armenian architecture is a systematic policy implemented on the government level. It takes a great deal of power and means: there isn’t a single khachkar (cross stone) left today out of 5,000 at Jugha necropolis,” the Minister stated. “Armenia has repeatedly raised alarms of the happenings at different international forums. Previously UNESCO has indeed offered to send observers to estimate the damage, but Azerbaijan refused that offer.”

Oskanian’s speech in Paris in part said:

“Armenian presence in the region has been verified from the earliest times. It takes a continuous planning, efforts and means to reject and reconsider this historical reality. All of that has been used by Azerbaijan in the region of Nakhijevan, which has been Armenian for ages- a fact proved by the very name of the region. During several decades of the 20th century the Armenian population of Nakhijevan has been reduced to the amount we see today. Azerbaijan has managed to deprive Nakhijevan of its Armenian population. One more time let me, in firm belief and full awareness, call upon UNESCO to send observers to that region to register where and how the destructions were done.”

UNESCO did not heed Oskanian’s request.

“. . . the new appeal (in 2004) of official Yerevan to delegate an observer mission to the zone of destruction of the Armenian cultural stratum in Nachijevan was again blocked by Azerbaijan,” Demirkhanyan says. “And none of the international structures condemned Baku’s position. The session of the Council of Europe’s Parliament Assembly only asked ‘the states of South Caucasus to be mutually indulgent and tolerant in the issues of preservation of the cultural heritage of the countries in the region in order not to allow acts of vandalism and destruction of historical monuments in the future’.”

It was then that the Armenian delegation appealed to the Council of Europe (CoE) to interfere and put an end to that destructive process. There was a suggestion to create a special commission of the CoE on the issues of the return of Armenian khachkars, if only they were not irrevocably destroyed. MP Ashot Galoyan delivered a speech in Strasburg on the matters of preservation of Armenian historical monuments. In particular, he said: “I have recorded acts of vandalism, namely at the cemetery of Old Jugha. Armenian khachkars were being destroyed also during the Soviet times; and 800 khachkars disappeared in 1998. In November 2002, the extinction of the Armenian level was resumed again with new force.”

It’s noteworthy that it was in that period when a special archeological expedition started operating on the territory of Nakhijevan. “It [the expedition] was called by a direct order of Heidar Aliyev in 2001,” says the Deputy Head (on scientific issues) of Azerbaijan’s National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Archeology and Ethnography Najaf Musiebli. “That expedition continued its work up to 2003. During the three years large-scale field works were held on the territory of Nakhijevan aimed at revealing historical monuments so far unknown to science. As a result of archeological excavations monuments of ancient settlements were discovered.”

“It’s quite possible that the given archeological party, besides other things, was engaged in making an ‘inventory’ of Armenian monuments that were subject to extermination. This is indirectly confirmed by the timing of its activity,” Demirkhanyan says.

Musiebli’s recently published (November 5) statement in this connection is worth mentioning here: “We have to say that the expedition was not organized by chance. Constant disinformation of the world community by the Armenians that the territory of Nakhijevan is also an ancient Armenian land forced the state to call a scientific-research expedition and as a result of numerous archeological facts the false propaganda of the occupants was proved.”

When there was not a single khachkar left on the territory of Jugha, CE Secretary General Terry Davis, commenting on the readiness of the Armenian authorities to hold the monitoring on the state of the cultural monuments on the territory of the republic, emphasized that such position is in Armenia’s best interests as it would have a positive impact on the country’s international image. Here truly rises a question: do international organizations have the right to judge Armenia’s image in respect of the declared interest in preserving world cultural heritage?