Here again. The “Pro-Armenian” New York Times is reporting on the last Armenian-Azerbaijani meeting in France labeling the Armenian fight for freedom “occupation.”


Armenian President Robert Kocharyan, centre with back to camera, and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev, center, pose before talks over the disputed Nagorno Karabakh enclave, Friday, Feb. 10, 2006, at the Rambouillet Castle, west of Paris France. Kocharyan and Aliyev to talk about ending an 18-year-old conflict over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Others are unidentified. (AP Photo/Patrick Kovarik, Pool)

Noting that the Paris talk between Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev over Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was not successful, New York Times reporter Katrin Bennhold is summarizing the conflict in the following subjective and oilized paragraph:



First of all, Nagorno-Karabakh has not been under “Armenian occupation” since 1994. For the last 2000 or so years the region has been populated by Armenians (if this is what is meant by “Armenian occupation”). It has been part of many united Armenian kingdoms and it has been part of the Armenian Republic of 1918-1920 and later signed off to Soviet Azerbaijan by Soviet tyrant Stalin. In 1991 the population of Nagorno-Karabakh held a referendum, within Soviet legal system, voting for becoming an independent country. When Azerbaijan made clear it would not let Karabakh to be free, local Armenians and Armenians from the Republic of Armenia showed that Karabakh’s freedom could be gained by force.

The note of “a main transit route for oil” reminds of a non-popular movie, featuring Omar Shariff, which basically said the war for Nagorno-Karabakh was between America and Russia and was meant to gain the oil of Baku (according to the movie, America/Azerbaijan won the war).