AS OL
A Life in Three Continents | 5 The Korean Dismay | 10 The Red Centennial | 24 Azeri or Azerbaijani? | 34
May 2018 Volume 3
Because everyone owes something to the motherland‌
2018
May 2018 / Volume 3 Published by ADA Politics Club whis is a non-profit organization and not affiliated with ADA University
SANAN AHMADLI Editor-in-chief, President, ADA Politics Club TOKAY AHMADOV Managing editor, Former Vice-President, ADA Politics Club SAMIR HUSEYNOV Designer
Caspian Political Enquirer LETTER: Politicsclub@ada.edu.az FACEBOOK: Facebook.com/adapoliticsclub
REPRODUCTION: Alrights of Caspian Political Enquirer are reserved. No part of the journal may be reproduced, hosted or distributed in one form or another without prior permision from Caspian Political Enquirer. For permision, send an email to Politicsclub@ada.edu.az
2 |
Table of Contents
Parviz Yarmammadov A Life in Three Continents | 5 Mr. Yarmammadov is a third-year bachelor of International Affairs, interested and made wide researches in Azerbaijani history, culture and language.
Sevinj Huseynova The Korean Dismay | 10 Ms. Huseynova is a senior bachelor of International Affairs, interested in (and even traveled to) East Asian politics and international security.
Orkhan Garibov The Red Centennial | 24 Mr. Garibov is a senior bachelor of International Affairs, interested and made wide researches in Russian and Soviet politics and history.
Parviz Yarmammadov Azeri or Azerbaijani? | 34 Mr. Yarmammadov is a third-year bachelor of International Affairs, interested and made wide researches in Azerbaijani history, culture and language.
| 3
Editor’s Notes
After a long time, the Caspian Political Enquirer once again hails its readers! Because all previous authors are all senior students, and because most of them could not spare enough time, CPE had nothing to do but postpone its 3rd volume. Moreover, in order not to retard by such excuses, the journal moves from quarterly to biannual publishing. Regarding the 3rd volume, for the first time number of articles decreased to 4 but we decided to cover the gap by changing the word limit (allowing more words to the authors). Out of 3 authors in this volume, 2 have submitted their very first article to CPE meaning that our journal is spreading rather widely. In this particular issue, you can find very appealing, if not intriguing, articles; 2 ‘centennial’ articles - one dedicated to Azerbaijan and one to Russia, and 2 analysis articles - one concerning American-Korean relations and the other true pronunciation of Azerbaijani nation. Next issue is scheduled to November, 2018 as we moved to biannual regime. Stay tunned and enjoy the CPE!
4 |
A Life in Three Continents
A Life in Three Continents Parviz Yarmammadov Bachelor of International Affairs
“
Certainly, in order to have more skilled and knowledgeable persons we will send students to Europe former National Council leader of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), Mammad Amin Rasulzada once said in August, 1919 (Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti (1918-1920). Parlament (Stenoqrafik hesabatlar). 2-ci cild, s. 8). The reason for Rasulzada’s speech was clear; in the period of ADR, the number of skilled and educated Azerbaijani specialists was too small. Azerbaijani government, however, needed such people in order to manage the state in The reason for Rasulzada’s speech was clear; in the period of ADR, the number of skilled and educated Azerbaijani specialists was too small. Azerbaijani government, however, needed such people in order to manage the state in a more effective way (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 57). Starting from early 1919, task of sending students abroad got its place on the top of the agenda in Azerbaijan (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 58). Finally, on September 1, 1919, Azerbaijani Parliament made several posi-
| 5
Parviz Yarmammadov tive decisions in regard to send students abroad and ratified that 7 million rubles will be transferred to the Ministry of Education from State Budget (ARDA, fond 895, siyahı 3, iş 103, vərəq 3). One hundred students were sent with state grant and government let and supported two of them study abroad by their own fund (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 102). Unfortunately, after the granted students left Azerbaijan in January 1920, Azerbaijani Democratic Republic had lived only for 3 months (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 79). This griveous fact made the students’ life difficult in foreign countries such as Italy, Germany, France, Turkey, Russia, and the Ukraine due to a halt in the grants from Azerbaijani government. For instance, one of the students Akhundov Ajdar who studied in Paris, worked even in Brazil and in the United States during this difficult period (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 352). With regret, I would like to emphasize that only a few investigations had been conducted regarding the life of these students so far. The paper is, therefore, devoted to the life of one of the students - Abbas bey Atamalibeyov and to the 100th anniversary of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Simply imagine a person who used to be a parliament member, secretary of Paris Peace staff, and a student. Mr. Atamalibayov combined all three characteristics simultaneously. He was born in 1896 in Russian Empire (today’s Georgian territories). After primary education, Abbas bey was admitted to the Saint Petersburg Technical University in 1913 majoring marine engineering (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 407;413). 1917’s Russian Revolution was a crucial point in his life as he returned to his motherland before graduation (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 413). According to his own memoirs, Abbas bey was a parliament member in 1918’s first Azerbaijani Parliament at the age of 22. (Siyasi mühacirin xatirələri, 21.02.2003 №7). As a matter of fact, it is possible to see his signatures as a parliament member in different documents in the State Ar-
6 |
A Life in Three Continents chive of Azerbaijan Republic. On August 17, 1919, he appealed to the Ministry of Education about his participation in study abroad program. Two days later, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mammadyusif Jafarov wanted Abbas bey to join other staff members lead by Mr. Topchubashov and go to Paris. (ARDA, fond 895, siyahı 2, iş 5, vərəq 4). As Atamalibeyov’s wish to study abroad and state duty overlapped, he arrived in Paris on October 9, 1919 (Topçubaşov, 1998, s. 38). Before he went to Paris Mr. Atamalibeov met with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs in Rome to get a permission regarding the education of Azerbaijani students in Italy (Siyasi mühacirin xatirələri, 21.02.2003 №7). As the secretary of Azerbaijani delegation, Abbas bey met with Woodrow Wilson as well in January, 1920 for the de-facto recognition of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic by international community (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 427). These facts clearly proves that Mr. Atamalibeyov worked hard and comprehensively for the state interest. Moreover, as mentioned above, he was a granted student studied in Paris Political Science Institution (İslamzadə & Əhmədov, 2016). Fortunately, Abbas bey could graduate this time from a political institution despite the lack of grant from Azerbaijan SSR. However, after graduation returning motherland was a difficult task due to the repression risks. So, he stayed in Paris and worked as a jewelry expert (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, p. 427). Although he had difficulties, Mr. Atamalibeyov did not terminate his political career. He was an activist at “Azerbaijan National Center” and “Prometheus” organizations (Tahirzadə & Tahirli, 2016, s. 424). The aim was clear: to make Azerbaijan independent again! Since USSR involved in World War II, there were thousands of Azerbaijani hostages in German military camps. According to his memoirs, he rescued many Azerbaijani hostages during the war (Siyasi
| 7
Parviz Yarmammadov mühacirin xatirələri, 07.03.2003 №9 ). For this purpose, he co-operated with Nazi German Security Police and Information Service (Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst). This co-operation could have brought problematic life sceneries for Abbas bey in the aftermath of war. Therefore, he left Europe and moved to Chile after the war (Topçubaşov, 1998, p. 8). Later he moved to Egypt in 1966 to meet his son but his last destination was Cleveland, the USA – a city that is far away from Azerbaijan. He died and was buried in Cleveland in 1971 (Siyasi mühacirin xatirələri, 07.02.2003 №5). In conclusion, Abbas bey Atamalibeyov turned to be a perfect example for Azerbaijani youth. Besides being a student, he served Azerbaijan both in university years and after the graduation. Since he sacrificed his life for our recognition and freedom, we owe him a lot as Azerbaijani citizens. As the paper is dedicated to Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, the essay ends with a quote by Mammad Amin Rasulzada: “You are always ours if we are alive. Long live Azerbaijan!” (Amerikanın Səsi, 2014).
8|
A Life in Three Continents References: 1. Amerikanın Səsi. (2014, January 31). Retrieved from Məhəmməd Əmin Rəsulzadənin Azərbaycan xalqına müraciəti [Audio]: https:// www.amerikaninsesi.org/a/memmed-emin-resulzadenin-muracieti/ 1669815.html 2. ARDA. (fond 895, siyahı 2, iş 5, vərəq 4). Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikasının parlamenti. 3. ARDA. (fond 895, siyahı 3, iş 103, vərəq 3). Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikasının parlamenti. 4. Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti (1918-1920). Parlament (Stenoqrafik hesabatlar). 2-ci cild. (1998). Bakı: Azərbaycan Nəşriyyatı. 5. İslamzadə, V., & Əhmədov, F. (Directors). (2016). Əbədi Ezamiyyət [Motion Picture]. 6. Siyasi mühacirin xatirələri. (07.02.2003 №5). Ayna. 7. Siyasi mühacirin xatirələri. (07.03.2003 №9 ). Ayna. 8. Siyasi mühacirin xatirələri. (21.02.2003 №7). Ayna . 9. Tahirzadə, Ə., & Tahirli, O. (2016). Azərbaycan Cümhuriyyəti Tələbələri. Bakı: TEAS Press. 10. Topçubaşov, Ə. b. (1998). Paris Məktubları. Bakı: Azərbaycan Dövlət Nəşriyyatı.
| 9
The Korean Dismay
The Korean Dismay Sevinj Huseynova Bachelor of International Affairs
R
ecent crisis between the United States and North Korea over threats from Kim Jong Un gets tensions escalated. The reason to have a conflict between these two states is North Korea’s highly prepared, tested and supposedly to-be-used weapons of mass destruction. The United States, such a powerful country felt threatened by the actions of so-called Rocket Man and Donald Trump responded with a quite aggressive speech at the 72nd meeting of the UN General Assembly, specifically with a phrase of “totally destroying” North Korea. Launching new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) on 4th and 28th of July showed the world that North Korea advances its nuclear technologies and with such an advancement they can easily hit the US mainland, the threat is truly real. To understand why the conflict started or the reasons to have nuclear warheads in an isolated state, it is important to dive into the history. The Korean War Two imperialistic states of the Korean Peninsula found themselves in
| 10
Sevinj Huseynova
a war between 1950-1953. After the World War II, the USA and USSR divided the Korean Peninsula on the 38th parallel after its being part of Japanese empire for some years: Soviet-backed North and pro-Western South in 1948. The war started with the settlement of approximately 75,000 North Korean soldiers across the 38th parallel. In this civil war, foreign forces, Canadians, Turks, Australians, British, French, Africans and others also participated under the flag of the UN armed forces. Americans and Russians in Chinese uniforms fought in the air while others battled on the ground. The war did not end with a peace treaty; it was a truce which means until now these two entities are technically at a war. Not any war brought happiness to the nations, the Korean war being not an exception either. Famine, hundreds of thousand deaths, destroyed cities and buildings, damaged economies are just some of the examples. The invasion from the North was unpredictable for the United States,
11 |
The Korean Dismay however, such an action allowed them to fight against the communist expansionism in the region. A Top-Secret report named National Security Report or NSC-68 in April of 1950 recommended “containment” policy to block further Soviet communist expansionism in the world “regardless of the intrinsic strategic or economic value of the lands in question” (The Executive Secretary 1950). The document reveals that
after declining of two powerful regions – Western Europe and Japan in the aftermath of the World War II, the USA and the Soviet Union became new world powers. The ideological faith of the Soviets was aimed to spread its uniformity to the rest of the world, and it was directly opposed to the values and beliefs the United States stood for. Back then ideological pretensions of the Kremlin were used as an instrument of propaganda, subversion and espionage abroad. Such ideas had found “particularly receptive audience in Asia, especially as the Asians have been impressed by what has been plausibly portrayed to them as the rapid advance of the USSR from a backward society to a position of great world power”.
Although under the shades of the Korean War the fighting sides were, indeed, two different ideologies, each stood for one Korea and whatever the final consequence of the war was, both sides paid their dues dearly – nearly 5 million people lost their lives, almost 50,000 American soldiers died, more than 100,000 wounded. Moreover, the countries that participated in the Korean War lost hundreds of soldiers including the Soviet Union itself as well. North Korea during and after the Cold War During the Cold War period the process of renewal of both Koreas started. Globalization process affected each in a different way. While the Republic of Korea benefited the advantages of pro-western interests, especially, American economic investments, the Democratic People’s Re-
| 12
Sevinj Huseynova
North Korean leader Kim Il-Sung, left, signs a document in Seoul, South Korea, in an undated photo.
public of Korea (DPRK) followed the Soviet communist model and became an isolated and living-on-its-own-sources-country. In other words, the foundations of the so-called Hermit Kingdom began to be built. The Korean War ended with such consequences that it might be rebuilt only by the help of its aides one of which was the Soviet Union at the time. The signed armistice agreement was not the sole decision of USSR and North Korea, therefore, Soviet Prime Minister Georgy Malenkov often condemned it and accused the US for forcing them to sign it. Losing the war meant losing the ideological war, dominance of capitalism, lack of Soviet regional dominance in the Northeast Asia. Therefore, in 1953, 21 September an aid agreement signed between North
13 |
The Korean Dismay Korea and the USSR to refresh the faith of North Koreans in Soviets. With the assistance of Soviet Union, it improved its scientific researches and built its first ever nuclear power plant in Yongbyon in the 1980s. At the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the North changed its perspectives about the USA because his one and only huge ally was about to gone. During the post-Cold War period, each US President’s posture on North Korean issue has been quite different. Here is the spoiler: all of them FAILED! History class continues with President Clinton, Bush and Obama’s administration periods and the way they dealt with the issue. Bill Clinton
When Clinton was elected as president, he decided to engage in diplomatic negotiations with Kim Jong Il. The Agreed Framework deal was signed in 1994 comprised the closure of the nuclear plant in Yongbyon and freezing the country’s nuclear facilities. Such an agreement was, most probably, reached because of the geopolitical shift (collapse of the USSR and China’s closeness with South Korea at the time), the only alternative way to do was to normalize the relations with the US. In a sense, the deal lasted until 1998 when Yongbyon plant reopened because of unkept promises of the US Congress. Thus, the Clinton administration failed on the Agreed Framework; while it had a chance in the 1990s to dismantle the power plant totally, they were satisfied with the closure of it. The only minor success can be considered 4-year-delay of nuclear program. George W. Bush
The Agreed Framework effectively broke down in 2003 signaling that the negotiations did not end well for the US. The goal of Bush administra-
| 14
Sevinj Huseynova
North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il toasting U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when she visited Pyongyang in October 2000
tion was a regime change in North Korea as President Bush listed 3 countries in the “Axis of Evil” – his popular speech at the State of the Union in 2002 – and North Korea being one of them. The Bush administration wished to reach a successful negotiation by complete nuclear disarmament and reduction of conventional weapons. Nonetheless, on 10th of January 2003, North Korea became the first ever state to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation treaty due to its illegal enrichment of the uranium program. After the announcement of possessing nuclear weapons, Six Party Talks started by China as a host country in 2005. The very concern of the Talks was to terminate the nuclear program of North Korea and the main negotiators were the United States, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea. The negotiation process resulted with the abandonment of North Korea in 2009. Policies of the Six Party Talks more or less did work and ended up with the description of North Korea as a “nuclear state and a militarily po-
15 |
The Korean Dismay werful state that is indomitable”(Bajoria & Xu 2013). In 2006, the country launched its first ever nuclear test as a response to the threats and sanctions of the Bush administration and the second one after withdrawal from Six Party Talks in 2009. These events revealed that the administration failed to denuclearize with its willingness to change the regime in North Korea. Barack Obama
In contrast to his predecessors, Obama resorted to a strategy of being patient about Kim’s nuclear missiles and tests. During his administration, UN Security Council and US sanctions targeted the Pyongyang. However, when Kim Jong Un became the next leader of North Korea, testing processes intensified and the nuclear weapons technology field got new advancements - improvements can be observable from the powerfulness of each test even today. Although Obama administration had better diplomatic relations with the South, it still failed to make China pressure on its neighbor’s aggressive behavior. He could not achieve either denuclearization or better diplomatic negotiations. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) advancement
According to the CIA World Factbook, North Korea is world’s most “centrally directed and least open” economy, thanks to its isolating itself from the entire free world. Consequences of such an isolation - low level of living conditions, poor nutrition, extreme shortage of powers, large scale of expenditures on military, poor economy with limited import and export deals with certain countries - lead to crucial economic and social problems. During the mid-1990s, North Korea witnessed a severe famine and starvation, and still there are millions of undernourished people. If the proportion of the undernourished in total population used to be 34.6%
| 16
Sevinj Huseynova approximately 5 million people at the time, now this number has increased to 41.6% meaning that almost 10.5 million people are starving over there (FAO, n.d.). Moreover, the Hermit Kingdom has massive economic insufficiency, political corruption, drug, weapons and human trafficking problems. The country’s GDP per capita is $1800 and has not changed since 2012 which is 16 times less than that of South Korea (Cullinane 2013). North Korea is mainly industrialized in military products, machine building, electric power, chemicals, mining, metallurgy. It mostly imports petroleum, coking coal, textiles, machinery and equipment, and exports minerals, manufactures, armaments, agricultural and fishery products, referring to the CIA Factbook. Among its trade partners, China is in the top, then comes India, Pakistan, Taiwan, some European countries, like Mexico, Russia and surprisingly, South Korea. It is interesting how China and North Korea are very close when it comes to trade; 85% of North Korean imports were of Chinese origin and 83% of its exports went to China in 2015 (Holodny 2017). Historically, China has always been the trade partner of DPRK because of their geographical proximity and North Korea’s nuclear power hegemony. In order to secure its nation and power, China might have wanted not to intervene the rising nuclear threats by North Korean leaders. However, China stood against North Korea on the UN resolution about Pyongyang’s nuclear test and other sanctions. While the trade relationships with the North expanded before, a recently passed US drafted UN resolution suggested the ban on imports and exports, and as a result, China cut off its funds to the DPRK. Surely, the seriousness of the conflict with the US increased the leverage of taking actions against the threat. Majority of the political decision-makers, economists, sociologist and others believe China’s role in the conflict is undeniable: due to the historically close trade and diplomatic relations, it solely stands on the responsibility of it and it’s one possible way to resolve North Kore-
17 |
The Korean Dismay an threat in the region. Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1968 as an international. treaty to prevent spread of WMDs, achieve nuclear disarmament and international security, promote cooperation in the peaceful usage of nuclear energy. North Korea joined the treaty in 1985, and because of sufficient suspicions on having nuclear reactors, the state approved to sign a safeguard agreement in 1992 and withdrew eventually. Although Pyongyang always launched missile tests, it never attacked any countries whatsoever – SIMPLE TESTS. Withdrawal from NPT and not being a member of Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) gave North Korea a selfconfidence to reproduce plutonium. While PTBT restricts nuclear testing in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water it is not binding North Korea at all. Even though UN Security Council sanctioned the North with resolutions on its nuclear weapons and launching missiles, it has continued to expand its nuclear technologies, test weapons and threaten the world. Thus, 2017 was a quite busy and progressive year for Kim’s Korea. Since February the country conducted 15 tests every time with a more developed one. The latest missile tested in September, 2017 was bearing 100 kilotons of power. For those who want to make a quick comparison, the ‘Little Boy’ the one that United States dropped into Hiroshima – was merely of 15 kilotons and 1 kiloton is equivalent to 1000 tons of TNT. Such a powerful and dangerous hydrogen bomb test even caused an earthquake of 6.3 magnitude near North Korea detected by Japan. Of course, to respond the nuclear threats the USA has advanced its missile defense systems in the peripheral regions:
•
Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot interceptor missiles positioned in South Korea
•
Aegis ballistic missile defense system from warships positioned in the
| 18
Sevinj Huseynova Pacific
•
Multi-stage interceptors positioned in Alaska and California
Even though the US has such impressive and high technological defense advancements and develops them to operate in perfect conditions, North Korea will also strengthen its nuclear technology to confuse or defeat those anti-missile defense systems and to keep itself in the arms race. The only hope is the diplomatic negotiations rather than a destructive war. Analysis of recent escalating tensions
Whether the missile tests are successful or unsuccessful ones, President Kim does not seem to stop boosting the system. Some may argue that increasing the number of warheads or testing them consistently make no sense. Whereas, the state secures itself in the region, indeed. In this case, South Korea and Japan are often regarded as the victims of escalating tensions. Seoul is situated quite close to the border being vulnerable to the missiles that can easily hit and devastate the city. Moreover, tensions escalated when North Korea launched two Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) in July which meant Pyongyang might be capable of hitting the US mainland. Since his inauguration to the office, Kim launched more missiles than his father or grandfather did, he only tested them. Psychologists would say he only tries to get attention from the international arena because when a child isolates himself from others and then wants to play with them he only tries to catch the attention with an aggressive behavior. So far, no single military action has been taken yet and all we have is a battle of words through social media. It’s already widely known that in his Twitter account, Donald Trump called Kim Jong Un a ‘rocket man’ and easily lost his good fortune in power of discourse. In the afterwards of
19 |
The Korean Dismay the events, a response from Kim came out when he called Trump a ‘barking dog’. For the first time in his reign, President Kim used a rare opportunity to respond Trump’s UN GA speech where he stated to “totally destroy” North Korea. Specifically, President Kim accused Trump of being “mentally deranged” due to his emotional, meaningless words against the dignity of a non-active state of international community. It can be inferred that North Korea has the advantage of attacking or defending itself with the highest technological weapons which may not make him a just side in the conflict. Nonetheless, a US attack or declaration of war on North Korea would result with the same consequences of Iraq War of 2003 – unnecessary, irrational and devastating war for North Korea. The USA has more advanced technologies to prepare and launch nuclear warheads than North Korea, although the lack of precise information about the readiness of WMD, their capabilities and other unknown details do not allow us to analyze the case better. However, the world has already witnessed the military and economic power of the USA in the World War II when it hit Nagasaki and Hiroshima with atomic bombs or in Afghanistan and Iraq. It may be true that North Koreans are more psychologically ready for the war rather the Americans. The reason behind such a preparedness takes its root from the Korean War where President Truman declared the possibility of using nuclear bomb in the conflict. Moreover, as a consequence of the war South chose to follow American model capitalism and left its historical pureness behind. These two seminal reasons clearly reflected the behavior of North Korean leaders and their actions: owning nuclear weapons is the only way to securitize Washington not to attack and totally destroy them. Nuclear technology is the safe zone; it protects them and isolation from the world gives them power to be pure and secure. Experts suggest various ways to deal with the issue (Time, n.d.), but two of them are more significant to mention:
| 20
Sevinj Huseynova 1. A preemptive strike: before the President Kim takes an action, the USA may do but it may not end well for both nations since it would be an irrational decision to strike Pyongyang. 2 possible results may come out: first, the US strikes may fail, and second, the Korean nation may face a devastating and miserable life after strikes. Therefore, diplomatic negotiations should be entrenched so firmly to deflect Kim from his beliefs and reduce his nuclear arsenal so that he may not threaten the world, especially its close neighbors. 2. The importance and necessity of China is undoubtedly huge because it is the only state that has close economic and diplomatic ties with DPRK. Therefore, the possibility of relinquishment of North producing WMDs, testing or threatening other nations with them can be maintained by bilateral diplomatic negotiations at the table. Recent deeds Conversely, the progress of events changed the whole story. Let’s analyze what happened in 2018 and what is in the horizon. Recently, the meeting between Kim Jong-Un and Moon Jae-in at the military demarcation line altered the entire chapter of the North and South Korean relations. The negotiation process started in the Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic Winter Games when the Koreans from North and South entered the stage and marched under the Korean Unification flag displaying the whole Korean peninsula on it. This happened at the very crucial moment that the North was almost ready to use its newly developed and tested ballistic missiles and rockets in the area and further.
Moreover, Mr. Kim secretly visited China in late March just ahead of the summit meeting with President Donald Trump. The fate of nuclear weapons and missiles had to have a solution - either to dismantle nuclear plants or abandon the arsenal. The prior meeting with Xi Jinping played a
21 |
The Korean Dismay strategic role; as it was already mentioned previously, good economic and diplomatic ties between two countries need to be sustained and no military actions towards the South could be thought of. Supposedly, Mr. Xi demanded North Korea to be open for negotiations and domestic changes even it would cost to lose WMDs. Unsurprisingly, the North wants Chinese support for gaining leverage in further discussions realizing that actual military conflict would cost a lot to Kim. Finally, the historic moment of two Korean leaders shaking hands, crossing their boundaries and making jokes between each other ended the Korean war officially by signing a peace treaty in late April. While many hopefully expected further peace negotiations on the unification of two Koreas but such a future is under question because of Mr. Kim’s abrupt decision to postpone the meeting with the South because of the joint military drills by the USA and South Korea. The summit meeting between Kim and Trump, who will meet a Korean leader as a first sitting president, may write a history in any case. We may be at the brink of a nuclear war which is not simply a war between states, it is a war against humanity, future and the world. The ultimate solution should be improvement of negotiations among all parties of the crisis. Hopefully, the summit meeting will make Kim realize that not any country, especially, the USA is an enemy. Even if so, fighting against the enemy with the nuclear technology would destroy not only them but also the others and the North too. The only faith is to believe what diplomacy can do, how to strengthen the relations between negotiating parties and what responsibilities can be taken by the involved
| 22
Sevinj Huseynova References: 1. Bajoria, J., & Xu, B. (2013, September 30). The Six Party Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ six-party-talks-north-koreas-nuclear-program 2. Cullinane, S. (2013, April 09). How does North Korea make its money? http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/09/business/north-koreaeconomy-explainer/index.html 3. FAO (n.d.) - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/ 4. Holodny, E. (2017, September 20). North Korea's biggest trading partner is China - and it's not even close. http:// www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-and-china-trade-2017-9 5. McCormack, G. (2004). Target North Korea pushing North Korea to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. New York: Nation Books. 6. TIME (n.d.). North Korea: 6 Experts on How We Can Solve the Problem. http://time.com/north-korea-opinion/
23 |
The Red Centennial
The Red Centennial Orkhan Garibov Bachelor of International Affairs
L
ast year, the world marked 100th anniversary of Russian Revolution of 1917. 1917 has become a key year in both Russian and World history. This event turned Russia into a global superpower, which competed with other powers across the world. In spite of the events of 1917-1918 that took place at Russian land and were related exclusively to Russian political problems, these events were fairly considered as global in which Russia became that mother to finally give birth to the tartar of communism. Yet, the notion about Bolsheviks as lucky maniacs to catch the power and terrorize poor Russians is not true. Author believes that a closer view to the inner processes and political retrospection of the two revolutions as well as events and trends preceded it are good ways to make the image clearer. Paper is targeted to prove that Bolsheviks’ success was the least evil for Russia. The paper consists of three parts; the author attempted to express the social and political situation in Russia in the last decades in the first part, the second part draws certain conspiracies which were there in 1917 between February Revolution and October Revolution,
| 24
Orkhan Garibov and the third part will consist of a discovery in the certain patterns of Russian history made by the Russian historian Andrey Fursov and summarized here in English for a broader audience. Before 1917
Throughout the XIX century, Russia moved to a social revolution. The autocratic serf regime came in crisis stage, and this crisis was intensified and aggravated by the fact that Russia was integrated into the world capitalist system. Moreover, after the defeat in the Crimean War, the Russian Empire integrated into this system as a dependent element of this new world system. In the mid-XIX century, the World had changed significantly. If earlier capitalism was predominantly pre-industrial, by the mentioned time, the industrial system in England had been formed completely. Thus, capitalism gained an adequate production system for itself. As a result, European world-system (term by Immanuel Wallerstein), turned into a global system (Wallerstein, 2004). Unlike world-systems, which can be several on the planet, there was only one global system. In the "long 50s" of the XIX century, which fit between 1848 and 1867, very important historical processes started. During this period, the world capitalist system did everything to crush and destroy the remaining world-systems. At that time, there were only two of them - Russian and Chinese. Although China have never been turned into a colony, and Russia was not thrown out of its borders of the 17th century, both countries ceased to be world systems and became elements of a global system. In Russia, integration into the world capitalist system deepened the crisis trends of that time. Contemporaries realized this very quickly. For example, Nikolai Bunge (economist, finance minister and chair of the Russian Cabinet) wrote in 1886 that the financial situation in the country
25 |
The Red Centennial is in disassembled condition, and the decline of Russian finances began to show up as far back as the 1860s. As for the 1880s, during this period, the crisis processes became simply threatening. Further, I will simply quote: "All this, in the absence of even a hint of any improvement, is preparing in the near future a heavy denouement, state bankruptcy, followed by a coup d'Êtat (Osrtrovskiy, 2014).� This is said in 1886! And in 1916 the economic bankruptcy came to existence, followed by a coup d'Êtat. Simultaneously, the development of the capitalist model in Russia had created certain social groups that were interested in bringing the empire to the capitalist developmental tracks and at the same time, pressuring or eliminating the autocracy altogether. To this must be added the contradiction between the Moscow and the St. Petersburg factions of the bourgeoisie. The fact is that the St. Petersburg bourgeoisie was integrated into the world establishment while Moscow bourgeoisie included number of Old Believers and to much less extent participated in global affairs. Among the leaders of the 1915 - 1916 conspiracy, there were quite a lot of people from the Old Believers' milieu. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, several processes were going on, interwoven at once: the crisis and the disintegration of the autocratic serf system; development of capitalism, which in Russia took an ugly form (which is natural, since with rare exceptions no other form of capitalism can be formed in a fundamentally anti-capitalist country); and the social wave of society's reaction to the development of ugly social structure. At the same time, the process of decomposition of the old outstripped the new system endowment, turning in an additional factor that generated ugly social forms of a neo-traditional and quasi-capitalist type. By 1914, the autocracy came in a state of inevitable crisis (Pyzhikov, 2013). On the eve of the war, all social and political forces balanced one anoth-
| 26
Orkhan Garibov er; the bourgeoisie counterbalanced the nobility, the liberals and revolutionaries were too weak to change anything, the autocracy oligarchised and got completely impotent, as it was, if not in a state of managerial collapse, then a deep crisis, as almost all contemporaries wrote about it. The war blew up in such a situation. It is hard to say what would have happened if the war had not erupted. Perhaps, in any case, the agrarian sphere would have shown itself - especially since Pyotr Stolypin, through his reforms, had done a lot to bring the revolution closer. Moreover, the paradox is that the collapse of the Stolypin reforms gave autocracy a few more years. If the Stolypin reform project was crowned with success, then in 1911 - 1912 approximately 20-25 million peasants would reach cities. According to estimates of economists, industry would be able to absorb only 1.5 - 2 million of them. Therefore, it is possible that we would have received a very, very bloody revolution. The peasants' final response to the Stolypin reforms was a simple fact: by 1920, the peasants had returned some 97-98% of the land to communal ownership (Beresnev, 2017). In the conditions of a crisis aggravated by the Great War, at the end of 1915 - beginning of 1916 several conspiracies took shape at once: 1) the bourgeois Duma, with which a number of influential generals were closely associated; 2) conspiracy of the socialist environment led by people such as Chkheidze and Kerensky (the connection between these two Russian conspiratorial groups was provided by the Masonic line) 3) British conspiracy. 1917 in the Eyes of Contemporaries
One should note that in the course of the war, the interests of a part of the major Russian capital and the ruling circles of Great Britain went in tandem. As noted by General Alexander Spiridovich, Capital was afraid of
27 |
The Red Centennial the victory of the Russian army, as it would strengthen the autocracy. At the same time, Russian capital did not want to get out of the war on which it spent a huge amount of money. It is no coincidence that in 1916 the jeweller Carl Faberge received, despite the crisis, the largest number of orders for his crafts. When the collapse of Nicholas II was announced in the British parliament, David Lloyd George, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, declared that one of the main goals of the war had been achieved. For the British establishment and the main goal of the First World War was to solve Russian and German issues, that is, to destroy Russia and Germany by punching them in a deadly battle (Terentyev Jr., 2016, Fursov, 2017, Pyzhikov, 2013). To this fight, in which one part of Europe was pitted against another part (and the Russian and German empires were supposed to be in different camps), the British prepared since late 1880s. Local Bourgeoisie was a good ally of Brits in this issue. American capital was another side on this playground. Rockefellers sponsored the group of Fioletov so that he organized uprisings and strikes in Baku. Thus, damage befell to the oil production established by the Rothschilds and Nobels. Rockefellers were very interested in removing Russia as a potential competitor in the global oil market, and the revolution solved this problem. That is, on the one hand, the AngloSaxons acted in concert (it was all important for them to weaken Russia), on the other hand, they confronted each other (Tymofeyev 2014, Terentyev Jr. 2016, Fursov 2017). As in any major historical event, in February the game of internal and external forces came together. However, this would not have happened if Russia had not been in the deepest crisis - agrarian and managerial - by the beginning of the 20th century. In the managerial plan, the structure decayed completely. Therefore, as Russian intellectual Vasily Rozanov once wrote, Russia "faded in two days, at most - in three." No one even jerked to defend the autocracy. Maxim Gorky testified that in the first two
| 28
Orkhan Garibov or three days of the coup one company was enough to clear the Tauride Palace (seat of State Duma, which became the headquarters of the February Revolution), and nothing would happen. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that if the Tsar, instead of signing a renunciation, would have called the Cossacks and ordered the arrest of the traitors who came to convince him to renounce, most likely, all would end on this. The revolution began on March 2, 1917 at 22:40, when Nicholas handed Guchkov and Shulgin an act of renunciation. At the same time, he violated Article 37 of the laws of the Russian Empire because he had no right to renounce Aleksei, the Grand Prince, and thereby opened a wide road of turmoil and chaos in Russia. This does not mean that in two or three years after the victory in Russia there would not have been a peasant war, who was transferred to the city. In the central part of the country, to survive in the conditions of agriculture, 4 hectares per person were required. Meanwhile in 1913 there were 0.4 hectares per person. The agrarian question did not dare in any way within the framework of the autocratic system. Nevertheless, if considering specifically the situation of February-March 1917, the strong position of the tsar would have solved the issue of the ‘Februaryists’ very quickly. It can be said that the reincarnation of the Russian Empire into the Soviet Union is not a fateful thing. This was the only salvation of the Russian Empire in its another version. Of course, on the one hand, it is an accident that two people connected with Simbirsk and Kazan became the central figures of the revolution. On the other hand, this was not accidental, since Kazan University was a powerful intellectual forge. What was considered periphery in the Russian Empire was an area of active intellectual fermentation, something even more active than that in the capital, where a full life and strict control did not always contribute to this. In addition to Lenin and Kerensky, there were other outstanding fig-
29 |
The Red Centennial ures, not connected with Kazan - Trotsky, Stalin, Sverdlov. In the most general sense, it can be assumed why so many people who crushed the autocracy turned out to be from the periphery. The fact is that the St. Petersburg period was a very strange-unnatural time-bloc in Russian history. What happened in 1917 was largely a revolt of Russian history against the St. Petersburg period. Naturally, this riot was to be led by people from the provinces. Revolt of Russia against Russia
In the Moscow autocracy, there were inequality, oppression, and exploitation. Nevertheless, the upper and lower classes spoke the same language and were linked with the same culture. In addition, despite the difference in provisions, people and the elite qualitatively belonged to the same cultural and historical field. After Peter’s reforms, consumption behaviour of the nobility was not according to the one Russian economy could satisfy but according to that of the Western aristocracy’s and the bourgeoisie’s consumption level. This flourished further under Catherine the Great. Above mentioned consumption gap was dramatic as Russia had different agriculture with a different productivity from one in Western Europe. For example, in England by the XVII century the average outcome from wheat production was twice more than Russian one. At that period, the West capitalist system launched proto-industrialization and the robbery of Asia and Africa. Thanks to this, it became possible to satisfy such needs, which were simply impossible in the 15th-16th centuries’ Europe. Russian economy model and agriculture have remained the same with rudimentary industry without colonies. Nevertheless, the demonstration effect is already there: people had learned how the privileged strata lives in Europe. Therefore, a certain part of the Russian nobility began to live in
| 30
Orkhan Garibov accordance with Western consumption standards. However, if you live by the needs that the local economy cannot satisfy with its resource base, then, in Marxist terms, you should extract not only the surplus product, but also the part of the necessary, that is, to increase the exploitation. Even under Catherine II, exploitation increased thrice: unpaid domestic debt plus the first loan that Russia made in 1769 from Holland. Therefore, when Paul I came to power, he was horrified: Russia's debt, internal and external, was 200 million roubles. Russia could paid off this debt only by the 1840s, thanks to the financial reform of Kankrin. However, the life of the top strata with no reliance on local resources continued. Worse than it could be, the top socio-cultural level had become alien to the rest of the population. The upper classes even had their own language – French - and their own culture. Kliuchevsky, a Russian historian, described this as two different socio-cultural formations. Therefore, the Civil War was so cruel. On the one hand, there were representatives of exploitative groups or those who were not exploiters but coincided with them in the sociocultural sense - people of "westernized" Russia: engineers, students, etc. On the other hand, there were people who lived in a completely different socio-cultural field. In this context, the events of 1917 were the rejection by the popular masses of a culture that became self-isolated and decayed. After all, what is the silver age with all its brilliance? This is a good sign of decay. The Silver Age is the expression of this dying alienation, the agonizing autocracy and the culture that begins to degenerate - the decadent culture. The big system of "Russia" rejected these socio-cultural phenomena. In general, the revolution was a brutal reaction of the body to unhealthy phenomena, because the unhealthier the society is, the less healthy are the means of treatment. Russia cut off this degenerating Petersburg epoch, which at the end of the autocracy turned out to be a serious tumour.
31 |
The Red Centennial ‘Februarysts, moreover, tried to save this tumour and treat it with "chemotherapy". Bolsheviks took it and cut it off. The irony or what Hegel called the insidiousness of history lied in the fact that when the Bolsheviks came to power, Russia in itself was not very interested in them, among them there were enough Russophobes. They needed a global republic and a world revolution. However, a red empire grew from it. This once again shows that the one who does not know where he will go next will go further. Only that force in Russia, which set world tasks, could solve Russian problems’ (Fursov, 2017).
This paper targeted to estimate the crisis in Russian society, and show different scenarios, which were there in the mid-1917. For one it should be clear that Bolsheviks were rather a solution to such a deep and dramatic crisis than its initiators. Problems of Russian Empire lied in centuries of bad governance, and the success of Bolsheviks might be more of a coincidence which eventually brought Russian idea back to the top of global politics in the middle of 20th century. Games of different forces both internal and external - in Russia in 1917 stopped and comprehensive development of Russia for the next 50 years was settled. Therefore, I believe that this has been an exhaustive introduction into the topic of actual historical processes on the eve of the Russian Revolution.
| 32
Orkhan Garibov References: 1. Immanuel Wallerstein, (2004), "World-systems Analysis." In World System History, ed. George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK 2. Osrtrovskiy, A. (2014). Sushestvoval li sistemniy krizis v Rossii (Kritika konzepzii B. Mironova). SOCIAL SCIENCES AND CONTEMPORARY WORLD, 2, 124-138. Retrieved from http:// ecsocman.hse.ru/data/ 2015/11/28/1250991295/124-138(Ostrovskiy).pdf 3. Pyzhikov, A. V. (2013). Grani russkogo raskola: zametki o nashei ̆ istorii ot XVII veka do 1917 goda. Moskva: Drevlekhranilishche. 4. Beresnev, V. (2017). Interview with Fursov, A. «Февраль 1917-го – это заговор против русской истории, который сорвали большевики». Retrieved from https://m.business-gazeta.ru/article/
339568 5. Terentyev Jr., A. (2016, April 21). «Нам нужна слабая Россия». Retrieved from http://www.odnako.org/magazine/material/namnuzhna-slabaya-rossiya/ 6. Tymofeyev, A. (2014, August 4). «Теория заговора» или как Ротшильды и Рокфеллеры Россию делили. Retrieved from http:// communitarian.ru/novosti/finansy/ teoriya_zagovora_ili_kak_rotshildy_i_rokfellery_rossiyu_delili_0408 2014/
33 |
Azeri or Azerbaijani
Azeri or Azerbaijani? Parviz Yarmammadov Bachelor of International Affairs
T
he name of nation and the language of Azerbaijan has been a controversial and long-debated issue. Some Azerbaijanis think that there is no difference between the words “Azeri” and “Azerbaijani” and see no problem to call the nation and the official language of Azerbaijan with both names. Contrary, some people think that it is not correct to call the nation and its language “Azeri” and usually they feel broken when foreigners or natives use the word “Azeri”. Moreover, when tourists, mostly foreigners, come to Azerbaijan for living, they also encounter the issue. In this manner, the issue needs a clear research and explanation. Starting explanation with etymology of the words “Azerbaijan”, “Azeri” and “Azerbaijani” would not give exact information because etymologies are often not precise and come from different opinions of different historians or local people. Therefore, to begin with, we will have an official approach to the topic and use reliable sources based on the President’s Library. As a disclaimer, in the article, we do not approach the topic politically, neither Soviet regime nor Iran is blamed, and Pan-Turkism is
| 34
Parviz Yarmammadov not promoted. Simultaneously, the article has been divided into three main parts: speeches of political leaders, reflection of the issue on constitutions and laws of Azerbaijani governments and on demography. What have leaders of Azerbaijan said?
Here, we start with the first state named “Azerbaijan” in the history – Azerbaijan Democratic Republic that existed between the years of 1918 and 1920 (from now, ADR). Mammad Amin Rasulzade who declared the independence of the ADR and is considered one of the founding fathers of it, designated the nation as “Azerbaijani Turks” and “Azeri Turks” in one of his articles (Rəsulzadə, 1919). However, there has never been any nation called “Azeri” in the history of Turkic nations and branches. On the other hand, Mammad Amin Rasulzade, in his speech delivered on radio 35 years after the collapse of the ADR in 1953, used the word “Azerbaijani” referring to the nation. He emphasized: “Azerbaijanis who were deprived of state management during Russian reign, had become police and security forces [during ADR]” (Rəsulzadə, 1953). “Turkish had been declared as the official language [during ADR]” – he said in the same speech. (Rəsulzadə, 1953). As Rasulzade called the language Turkish, it is worth mentioning that both as nation and language “Azeri” does not necessarily signify any Turkic nation and/or language (Hacıyev, Cəfərov & Xudiyev, 2009). After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan had declared its independence for the second time. The main founder and figure of modern Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, in his speech at “The World Azerbaijanis’ Congress” in 2001, used the word “Azerbaijani” for referring to his own nationality as well as to the whole people living in Azerbaijan: “I have always been proud and today also I am proud of being an Azerbaijani” (Elmanoğlu, 2010). There is a considerable amount of citati-
35 |
Azeri or Azerbaijani ons by Heydar Aliyev about the name, origin, and the importance of official language. In one of his speeches national leader Heydar Aliyev said: “We are a nation who belongs to Turkic spoken nations but there are many branches of Turkic languages. We have proved and all communities have acknowledged this” (Sadıqlı, 2011). In addition, Heydar Aliyev used the word “Azerbaijani language” not “Azeri language”: “Azerbaijani language united us in the past, is uniting us now, and will continue to unite us in the future” (Sadıqlı, 2011). Reflection on laws and constitutions
This part of the article is about official name of the language in different periods and we start with a closer look at the first republic and its laws. In accordance with the decision of the ADR regarding the official language in June 27, 1918, the official language of the Republic was succinctly declared Turkish and the government let people use Russian in circumstances (Dövləti lisan türkcə qəbul edilərək müvəqqətən hökuməti müəssisələrdə rus lisanı istemalına müsaidə edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Nazirlər Şurasının qərarı, 1919). As it can be clearly seen, the government declared the name of official language Turkish meaning that the language spoken in Azerbaijan at the time was one of the Turkic languages. The declaration also refuses the term “Azeri” because there was no such a nation or language in the history of Turkic nations. After the collapse of the ADR, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (from now, AzSSR) was established with the efforts of communists and invasion of Russian Red Army. In June 27, 1924, the Soviet Government of Azerbaijan issued a decree regarding the language of the state. According to the document, the official language of the AzSSR was declared Turkish (Balayev, 2002). However, in July 24, 1956, the commun-
| 36
Parviz Yarmammadov nist regime changed the name of from Turkish to Azerbaijani (Azərbaycan SSR Konstitusiyasına Azərbaycan SSR dövlət dili barəsində maddə əlavə edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan KP MK bürosunun Qərarı, 1956). Nevertheless, even if the word “Turkish” was abolished, the name of language was called “Azerbaijani” not “Azeri”. In 1956, when the Soviet government changed the name of 151st article in Constitution as “State Language, Coat of Arms, Flag, Capital”, the state language was manifested as “Azerbaijani language” and the number of the article was changed from 151 to 152 [Azərbaycan SSR Konstitusiyasına (Əsas Qanununa) Azərbaycan SSR dövlət dili barəsində maddə əlavə edilməsi haqqında Qanun, 1956]. After Heydar Aliyev was appointed as the First Secretary of the Central Committee of Azerbaijan Communist Party in 1969, the new constitution of 1978 was applied and in accordance with 73th article of the Constitution, the State Language of the AzSSR was defined as Azerbaijani (Azərbaycan SSR-in 1978-ci il Konstitusiyasından çıxarış. Maddə 73, 1978). In the course of collapse of the USSR, Azerbaijan was one of the lucky states to gain its independence. After the declaration of independence, the government issued a new law about the official language. According to the first article of the law, the official language of the Republic of Azerbaijan was accepted as Turkish (Azərbaycan Respublikasının Prezidenti, 1992). In 1995, during the first presidential term of president Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijanis voted for a new constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan in a nationwide plebiscite. In accordance with 21st article of the new constitution, the state language was defined as Azerbaijani (Azərbaycan Respublikasının 1995-ci il Konstitusiyasından çıxarış, 1996). All in all, from 1918 until now, the word “Azeri” has never been mentioned as a language in the official documents of different republics of Azerbaijan.
37 |
Azeri or Azerbaijani Demography
In this last part of the article, the demographic statistics are analyzed in order to detect the name of majority people living in Azerbaijan. In 1919, when delegation of the ADR paid a visit to Paris Peace Conference, in the documents submitted, in order for giving a general information about Azerbaijan, the name of the nation was noted as “Azerbaijani Turks” (Quliyev, 2008). In 1926, the AzSSR held a census. According to the census, the majority of Azerbaijani people (1.473.977) were indicated as Turks and it is worth to note that in the census Ottoman Turks (335) and Turkmens (94) were shown separately (Всесоюзная перепись населения, 2017). The next census was held in January 6, 1937 and in this one, the majority of population (1.778.798) in Azerbaijan were called Azerbaijani Turks rather than simply Turks and it was the last time during the period of USSR that the word “Turk” was used to define the people of Azerbaijan (Всесоюзная перепись населения, 2009). After 1937, in the following censuses of 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, and 1989 the name of majority part of Azerbaijani people was delineated as Azerbaijani (Всесоюзная перепись населения, 2017). In the modern period, after the collapse of USSR, the censuses held by Azerbaijani State Statistics Committee, the name of the majority part of the nation was noted as Azerbaijani as in the previous censuses held during the Soviet reign (Əhalinin milli tərkibi, ana dili və sərbəst danışdığı dillərə görə bölgüsü, 2009). Summary
In conclusion, the ideas of two main political leaders of Azerbaijan, legislations and constitutions of Azerbaijan and the demography of Azerbaijan in 20th century have been discussed so far. In none of the abo-
| 38
Parviz Yarmammadov vementioned topics – except M. A. Rasulzade’s speeches, the word “Azeri” as an official definition could not be found in one form or another. It means that it is a big mistake to call people and language of Azerbaijan “Azeri” since by saying “I speak Azeri” (instead of Azerbaijani) the speaker ignores the official Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and above all, history of a nation. In the same manner, saying “I am an Azeri” (instead of Azerbaijani) is a mistake because in the Republic of Azerbaijan there is no nation (at least officially) called “Azeri”. Hence, the correct names of the nation and language of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijani!
39 |
Azeri or Azerbaijani References: 1. Azərbaycan Respublikasının 1995-ci il Konstitusiyasından çıxarış (1996). Azərbaycan Respublikasının Konstitusiyası, 17. 2. Azərbaycan Respublikasının Prezidenti (22 dekabr 1992). Azərbaycan Respublikasında dövlət dili haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanunu. 3. Azərbaycan SSR Konstitusiyasına (Əsas Qanununa) Azərbaycan SSR dövlət dili barəsində maddə əlavə edilməsi haqqında Qanun (21 avqust 1956). (25 avqust 1956). Kommunist. 4. Azərbaycan SSR Konstitusiyasına Azərbaycan SSR dövlət dili barəsində maddə əlavə edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan KP MK bürosunun Qərarı. (n.d.). ARSPİHDA, fond 1, siyahı 43, iş 87, vərəq 113. 5. Azərbaycan SSR-in 1978-ci il Konstitusiyasından çıxarış. Maddə 73. (1978). Azərbaycan Sovet Sosialist Respublikasının Konstitusiyası (Əsas Qanunu), 25. 6. Balayev, X. (2002). Azərbaycan dilinin dövlət dili kimi təşəkkül tarixindən (XVI-XX). Bakı. 7. Dövləti lisan türkcə qəbul edilərək müvəqqətən hökuməti müəssisələrdə rus lisanı istemalına müsaidə edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Nazirlər Şurasının qərarı. (1919). Azərbaycan Cümhuriyyəti hökumətinin qanun və binagüzarlıqları, 18. 8. Əhalinin milli tərkibi, ana dili və sərbəst danışdığı dillərə görə
bölgüsü. (2009). Azərbaycan Respublikasının Dövlət Statistika Komitəsi. 9. Elmanoğlu. (2010). Dünya Azərbaycanlılarının I qurultayı. Bakı.
| 40
Parviz Yarmammadov 10. Hacıyev, T., Cəfərov, N., & Xudiyev, N. (2009). Ümumtəhsil Məktəblərinin 10-cu Sinfi üçün Dərslik. Bakı: Aspoliqraf. 11. Quliyev, V. (2008). “Azərbaycan Paris Sülh Konfransında” (1919 -1920). Bakı: Ozan. 12. Rəsulzadə, M. Ə. (1919). Azərbaycan Cümhuriyyəti. İstiqlal. 13. Rəsulzadə, M. Ə. (1953, May 28). 1953-cü ilin 28 Mayısda "Amerikanın səsi" radiosu ilə Azərbaycan xalqına xitab. Retrieved http:// www.resulzade.info/xitab19530528.htm 14. Sadıqlı, A. (2011). Ümummillli lider Heydər Əliyev və Azərbaycan dili. Bakı: Mürtəcim. 15. Heydər Əliyev "MƏN FƏXR EDİRƏM Kİ, AZƏRBAYCANLIYAM". (2012, November 26). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/kvcAHmAwsno 16. Всесоюзная перепись населения (2017, September 25 – October 8). Национальный состав населения по регионам республик СССР. Демоскоп Weekly, № 741 - 742. Retrieved from http:// www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/census.php?cy=6 17. Всесоюзная перепись населения (2009, April 13-30). Национальный состав населения по регионам республик СССР. Демоскоп Weekly, № 373 - 374. Retrieved from http://
www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2009/0373/biblio05.php 18. Всесоюзная перепись населения (2017, December 18-31). Национальный состав населения по регионам республик СССР. Демоскоп Weekly, № 753 - 754. Retrieved from http://
www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/census.php?cy=6
41 |
