Academic Integrity and Nagorno Karabagh

By Jason Sohigian

After the April summit in Key West between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, sponsored by the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group who are trying to settle the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, a series of meetings, well-placed news articles, and public statements were made in an attempt to "sell" the results of the otherwise secretive meetings to the public.

Apparently as part of that, or a larger, effort, and through Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, it seems that the US State Department has enlisted the assistance of the Harvard University Caspian Studies Program. The program's research director has already written extensively and addressed international forums on the Karabagh conflict, with an apparent insider's perspective and interest in a resolution. This comes as no surprise, as the Caspian Studies Program is openly sponsored by the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of companies led by ExxonMobil, Chevron, Aker-Maritime, CCC, and ETPM.

Harvard University was founded in 1636 and is the oldest institution of higher learning in the US. Its motto, veritas, is Latin for "verity," or "truth." The university has nurtured countless numbers of intellectuals and leaders on its faculty and as graduates. Seven US presidents and 40 Nobel laureates have attended Harvard. The university has also taught countless numbers of Armenian students and has a chair in Armenian Studies. The university has even had cordial relations with the Hairenik, dating as far back as the days under the editorship of Reuben Darbinian.

Given Harvard's glorious history dedicated to the pursuit of independent research, academic integrity, and intellectual freedom, the modern-day convergence of industry, government, and scholarship is of great concern to all.

It is obvious that private-sector funding and governmental support for academic work does not nurture intellectual honesty. Like chairs financed by the Turkish government in universities, this type of support is designed to serve various industry and ideological agendas. These links do not cultivate impartiality, objectivity, or innovation, all of which could lead to new conceptual frameworks, honest analysis, or practical recommendations for future actions based on fundamental human rights or the rights of peoples.
Since the Caspian Studies Program is financed by oil money, it is certain that this industry wants a favorable return on its investment in the Caucasus.

The most recent example of Harvard's complicity in the Azeri-State Department plans is an article circulated last month like a position paper by the Caspian Studies Program. Written by Blanka Hancilova, it is titled "Peace Pending in Nagorno Karabagh: Recommendations for the International Community." The author is a student of international relations studying the Karabagh conflict, and the paper reads, for the most part, like an innocuous piece of theoretical analysis.

The ARF stated its position on the Karabagh issue clearly in its March 20 Declaration, the Armenian Parliament issued a unanimous statement on April 27, and the ARF reaffirmed its position on May 11-12 in Yerevan. The positions of the ARF and the Parliament are clear and do not need to be repeated here, but it is appropriate to respond to a few of the claims and recommendations made in this paper circulated by Harvard.

Hancilova writes, "Unfortunately, it nevertheless seems that the presidents are very much ahead of their constituencies." It is interesting to note that this claim was first heard from Professor Ronald Suny-who, despite his ostensibly left-wing credentials, is well-known for his endorsement of many State Department views regarding Armenian issues-during a panel sponsored by the Harvard Caspian Studies Program on April 23 after the Key West talks. Ambassador Cavanaugh began using this remark in interviews, and soon it was echoed by scholars and journalists of all persuasions. In Hancilova's paper, the remark is presented without quotes, as if it were an original, objective observation rather than the apparent position of a super-power state pushing a so-called peace settlement.

Scholars should use more caution when repeating such statements, because by doing so they become mere mouthpieces for official state or industry propaganda, as have many journalists during the Karabagh peace process. Countless journalists and university analysts have approved, endorsed, and adopted-then unanimously repeated-anti-Armenian, Azerbaijani, and State Department rhetoric. Often these declarations are repeated by those who identify with power rather than with those abused by that power; they are then allowed to speak and are given venues for "analyzing" or commenting on the given situation.

One of Hancilova's recommendations is that "the US Congress should cancel Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act." There is, in general, a divergence of views concerning the effectiveness of sanctions, yet the paper provides no mention of that issue-and provides no grounds to support the recommendation that the sanctions be lifted.

To her credit, the author cites the provision of Section 907 in a footnote; the legislation "prohibits US assistance (with the exception of assistance for nonproliferation and disarmament programs) to the government of Azerbaijan…'until the President determines, and so reports to the Congress, that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.'" Hancilova also adds that "later modifications in the legislation have enabled granting of humanitarian/NGO assistance."

Azerbaijan has not met the conditions cited in Section 907. Rather than punish Armenia, as Hancilova and the State Department would do by advocating the elimination of Section 907, it would make more sense for the US Congress to work on lifting the blockade of Armenia and Karabagh, which would then result in the elimination of restrictions on US aid to Azerbaijan.

In any case, despite the US failure to remove the illegal, life-threatening blockade of Armenia and Karabagh, Section 907 still allows for humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan.

This leads to a final point concerning Hancilova's paper. She writes, "The international community should be ready to provide effective assistance to returning Azerbaijani IDPs," and that the problems of minefields and infrastructure must be resolved by the international community in order to ensure the safety and well-being of Azerbaijani refugees.

Yet, the funds already provided by the international community to Azerbaijan for that purpose have not been effectively utilized. Much of it has been siphoned off by the Azerbaijani government. This is evident from the living conditions of the Azerbaijani refugees, as witnessed by the international mediators and journalists who have recently visited the region. During the conflict, Armenia provided over $105 million to Azerbaijanis who wanted to leave the country. It is now obvious that these funds were not properly utilized. Azerbaijan continues to use its civilian refugees as a propaganda tool to gain sympathy from the West. At the expense of the well-being of its own people, who used to live in regions that the Azerbaijani military used to launch attacks against the Armenians of Karabagh, this strategy has now proven itself to be effective.

The Armenian side took responsibility for its own refugees, especially those who survived the anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku and Sumgait, and offered them citizenship and property. These people proudly became citizens of Armenia or Karabagh, while the Azerbaijani refugees were left to die in camps through the action, or inaction, of their own government. Because of such political use of refugees, and the high level of corruption in Azerbaijan that has diverted humanitarian funds intended for these refugees, the international community, and particularly the US, should not send additional funds to Azerbaijan. If anything, these people will benefit from the expected profits of the oil industry in Azerbaijan, as promised by Heydar Aliyev, their president.