What do you think?
Rate this book
Черный сад: Армения и Азербайджан между миром и войной
В книге английского журналиста Томаса де Ваала рассказывается о причинах и ходе армяно-азербайджанского конфликта в Нагорном Карабахе. Десятки тысяч людей погибли, более миллиона покинули свои дома, экономике Азербайджана и Армении был нанесен колоссальный ущерб. В основу повествования легли документы, личные наблюдения и многочисленные интервью, взятые автором у армян и азербайджанцев – как у известных политиков, так и у обычных людей, вольных и невольных участников кровавого противоборства.
413 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
98 people are currently reading
1952 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews
September 14, 2022
An acutely relevant book with the re-emergence of conflict in the region, now that Russia has other military priorities to deal with: https://www.theguardian.com/world/202...
A well researched book on a conflict I knew nothing about. The author zooms in on both sides and the frustrating circumstances that block a more complete and peaceful resolution to the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan
Nagorno-Karabach is a frozen (if nowadays more live with Azerbaijan getting more military power) conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with Armenia occupying almost 14% of Azerbaijan.
In the collapse of USSR the nationalist conflicts in the Soviet Empire flared up. Even nowadays the great powers are involved in the conflict, with Armenia allied with Russia and Iran, and Azerbaijan using its new oil wealth to become important to the West and allying itself with NATO member Turkey.
Thomas de Waal starts of the story in early 1988, with a petition of Armenia Soviet authorities to the Central USSR politburo to get the Nagorno-Karabach region, without contacting Azerbaijan. A quarter of Armenia’s population protested when the conflict ignited, followed by three day pogroms, targeting Armenians, erupting in Azerbaijan. Narcism of minor differences lead to animosity and the conflict costing the USSR over 1 billion roubles.
Armenians calling Azerbaijani’s Turks, mirroring the grievances coupled to historical genocide and the escalation turning into mutual ethnical cleansing and deportation of citizens.
Nowadays Azerbaijan, after its initial military weakness, spends more on defence per year than the whole state budget of Armenia due to the oil boom, and it having roughly 3 times larger population. Still almost 1 million displaced people live in Azerbaijan, while Armenia using its American diaspora to pressure Azerbaijan. Meanwhile Russia is delivering weapons to Armenia with discounts to get a military base approved till the 2040’s.
The attraction of clinging on to a status quo frustrates any prospect of peace, with entrenchment of positions. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War is a fascinating book on a region I knew very little about.
A well researched book on a conflict I knew nothing about. The author zooms in on both sides and the frustrating circumstances that block a more complete and peaceful resolution to the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan
Nagorno-Karabach is a frozen (if nowadays more live with Azerbaijan getting more military power) conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with Armenia occupying almost 14% of Azerbaijan.
In the collapse of USSR the nationalist conflicts in the Soviet Empire flared up. Even nowadays the great powers are involved in the conflict, with Armenia allied with Russia and Iran, and Azerbaijan using its new oil wealth to become important to the West and allying itself with NATO member Turkey.
Thomas de Waal starts of the story in early 1988, with a petition of Armenia Soviet authorities to the Central USSR politburo to get the Nagorno-Karabach region, without contacting Azerbaijan. A quarter of Armenia’s population protested when the conflict ignited, followed by three day pogroms, targeting Armenians, erupting in Azerbaijan. Narcism of minor differences lead to animosity and the conflict costing the USSR over 1 billion roubles.
Armenians calling Azerbaijani’s Turks, mirroring the grievances coupled to historical genocide and the escalation turning into mutual ethnical cleansing and deportation of citizens.
Nowadays Azerbaijan, after its initial military weakness, spends more on defence per year than the whole state budget of Armenia due to the oil boom, and it having roughly 3 times larger population. Still almost 1 million displaced people live in Azerbaijan, while Armenia using its American diaspora to pressure Azerbaijan. Meanwhile Russia is delivering weapons to Armenia with discounts to get a military base approved till the 2040’s.
The attraction of clinging on to a status quo frustrates any prospect of peace, with entrenchment of positions. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War is a fascinating book on a region I knew very little about.
August 4, 2013
After reading this and bits on the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, I believe more than ever that we are united by a single "cultural space." That although the land was never a geographically delimited area, it is first and foremost the sum total of three homogenous cultures. Being nationalists, our leaders reject this. I wish they'd read and remember Evgeni Gegechkori's (head of the TDFR) words used to explain the uniting of the Transcaucasian people: "Alone we are a bane to our own existence...each is made whole by the other."
September 30, 2014
The glowing praise this book has received from worthy critics is well-earned, and I cannot recommend a better introduction to the dispute over Nagorno Karabakh. This is an acute and balanced view of the region, its politics, and the small-minded xenophobia that continues to drive the dispute. With this effort, de Waal has written the authoritative overview of the conflict and the region's political climate.
Highly recommended.
P.S. Disregard the hyperbole and complaints of bias. Zealots on either side who wail about the book's imbalance are the greatest testament to its objectivity. Sometimes the truth hurts, and when Armenians and Azeris are willing to accept some of the hard truths covered in this book, there may finally be progress in the region.
Highly recommended.
P.S. Disregard the hyperbole and complaints of bias. Zealots on either side who wail about the book's imbalance are the greatest testament to its objectivity. Sometimes the truth hurts, and when Armenians and Azeris are willing to accept some of the hard truths covered in this book, there may finally be progress in the region.
August 4, 2015
Good book about the conflict.
Though:
1) Nobody should give even a slight credit to international terrorists such as Monte Melkonian. This is similar to give a credit to any terrorist from Al-Kaida or whatever.
2) There is no such thing as 'superior fighting skills of Karabakhi Armenians' - they will not any need for feadins or melkonians then, forget about post-Soviet Russian forces.
3) It is unhealthy to compare, maybe politicial tough person, as Azerbaijani President with some 'bandit' from Karabakh, which Serjik apparently is given his ultranationalistic and I'll even say racist speeches with tune of Zori Balayan. No wonder that Armenia was and still is pretty mononation country - compare with Azerbaijan.
4) I would be extremely happy to see a sort of update to the book by the author himself in light of recent events with Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk.
Though:
1) Nobody should give even a slight credit to international terrorists such as Monte Melkonian. This is similar to give a credit to any terrorist from Al-Kaida or whatever.
2) There is no such thing as 'superior fighting skills of Karabakhi Armenians' - they will not any need for feadins or melkonians then, forget about post-Soviet Russian forces.
3) It is unhealthy to compare, maybe politicial tough person, as Azerbaijani President with some 'bandit' from Karabakh, which Serjik apparently is given his ultranationalistic and I'll even say racist speeches with tune of Zori Balayan. No wonder that Armenia was and still is pretty mononation country - compare with Azerbaijan.
4) I would be extremely happy to see a sort of update to the book by the author himself in light of recent events with Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk.
June 17, 2023
I made sure to read the top 30 reviews of this book on Goodreads before attempting my own, because if I wanted to see if my hypothesis was correct; and it certainly was.
After finishing this study and history of the origins + development of the Nagorno-Karabakh war (hereonwards NK), I had a feeling that Armenian readers would complain about an obvious pro-Azeri bias, and that Azeri readers would complain about the author's partiality to Armenia. And they certainly all did - though many from both countries gave the book positive reviews, most readers seem to complain about de Waal's taking a careful approach to answering questions of fault and responsibility for the sufferings that all three regions have undergone in the past 35 years.
To me, this was the book's greatest strength; de Waal is not quick to attribute 'blame' on anyone at all, and when he does, it is almost always on Russia and other outside influences. When it comes to Armenians and Azeris themselves, he paints a delicate picture of two fractured peoples and the unfortunate NK region as the focal point into which both nations have poured their insecurities and arrogances. If de Waal shows any bias in this book, it is to both nations and peoples, with whom he has clearly spent a great amount of time, getting to know civilians, soldiers, and high-ranking officials from all three regions over the past 30 years. He succeeds in dispelling common myths about the war, clearing up common misunderstandings from the outside and also dispelling the inflammatory propaganda peddled by all parties involved on the inside.
His use of anecdotal evidence and stories never interferes with his journalistic/investigative integrity and often complements it, giving us brief portraits into the lives affected by decades of hot war and cold peace. To briefly join in with the reviewers who make claims of bias, I do think he demonstrates a bias to his Azeri acquaintances and privileges their viewpoint too much on a few occasions; for example, the book certainly gives enough evidence/testimony about Armenian aggression in the conquered Azerbaijani territories, without giving the same airtime and weight to Azeri aggression in both Azerbaijan proper and the NK region. That being said, it is never heavy-handed and does not get in the way of his sober critique of Azeri policy and outlooks towards the NK region. He addresses, for example, the 'irrelevance' of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in its claims to NK with reference to other countries who have attempted to assert control over peoples/regions that claim independence. By addressing this fact, he very commendably highlights the right of NK's Armenians to decide for themselves how their future ought to look.
This book is in essence not a history of the NK region, nor of the dispute itself, but rather a portrait of 3 (or 4 including Russia) peoples and the socio-psychological consequences of the instability and trauma that they have had to bravely face. Ne mutlu insanım diyene...
After finishing this study and history of the origins + development of the Nagorno-Karabakh war (hereonwards NK), I had a feeling that Armenian readers would complain about an obvious pro-Azeri bias, and that Azeri readers would complain about the author's partiality to Armenia. And they certainly all did - though many from both countries gave the book positive reviews, most readers seem to complain about de Waal's taking a careful approach to answering questions of fault and responsibility for the sufferings that all three regions have undergone in the past 35 years.
To me, this was the book's greatest strength; de Waal is not quick to attribute 'blame' on anyone at all, and when he does, it is almost always on Russia and other outside influences. When it comes to Armenians and Azeris themselves, he paints a delicate picture of two fractured peoples and the unfortunate NK region as the focal point into which both nations have poured their insecurities and arrogances. If de Waal shows any bias in this book, it is to both nations and peoples, with whom he has clearly spent a great amount of time, getting to know civilians, soldiers, and high-ranking officials from all three regions over the past 30 years. He succeeds in dispelling common myths about the war, clearing up common misunderstandings from the outside and also dispelling the inflammatory propaganda peddled by all parties involved on the inside.
His use of anecdotal evidence and stories never interferes with his journalistic/investigative integrity and often complements it, giving us brief portraits into the lives affected by decades of hot war and cold peace. To briefly join in with the reviewers who make claims of bias, I do think he demonstrates a bias to his Azeri acquaintances and privileges their viewpoint too much on a few occasions; for example, the book certainly gives enough evidence/testimony about Armenian aggression in the conquered Azerbaijani territories, without giving the same airtime and weight to Azeri aggression in both Azerbaijan proper and the NK region. That being said, it is never heavy-handed and does not get in the way of his sober critique of Azeri policy and outlooks towards the NK region. He addresses, for example, the 'irrelevance' of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in its claims to NK with reference to other countries who have attempted to assert control over peoples/regions that claim independence. By addressing this fact, he very commendably highlights the right of NK's Armenians to decide for themselves how their future ought to look.
This book is in essence not a history of the NK region, nor of the dispute itself, but rather a portrait of 3 (or 4 including Russia) peoples and the socio-psychological consequences of the instability and trauma that they have had to bravely face. Ne mutlu insanım diyene...
October 27, 2020
A WORD TO MY SON (Silva Kaputikyan, armenska pjesnikinja)
With the springtime, with the blossoms,
The early birds, the gurgling streams,
The revival of cheerful songs
Loosened the tongue of my baby boy.
And he stammered a precious word
From the divine Armenian tongue,
As if holy sacrament touched
The rosy lips of my sweet child.
Heed now, my son, your mother's words,
Open your lips and try to speak,
Gladly warble, my sweet darling.
Let be heard our priceless language,
Like a newborn in your fresh age.
Keep it lofty, pure and sparkling,
Like Ararat's divine white peak.
Keep it always close to your heart,
Like the ashes of your loved ones.
And from the blows of evil foes,
Bravely defend it with your breast,
The way you would protect your mother,
If with a sword she was attacked.
And now, my son, through all your days,
Wherever you go under the skies,
Should you foresake your mother own,
Never forget your mother tongue!!
1944
Serj Tankian - Artsakh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttfk0...
With the springtime, with the blossoms,
The early birds, the gurgling streams,
The revival of cheerful songs
Loosened the tongue of my baby boy.
And he stammered a precious word
From the divine Armenian tongue,
As if holy sacrament touched
The rosy lips of my sweet child.
Heed now, my son, your mother's words,
Open your lips and try to speak,
Gladly warble, my sweet darling.
Let be heard our priceless language,
Like a newborn in your fresh age.
Keep it lofty, pure and sparkling,
Like Ararat's divine white peak.
Keep it always close to your heart,
Like the ashes of your loved ones.
And from the blows of evil foes,
Bravely defend it with your breast,
The way you would protect your mother,
If with a sword she was attacked.
And now, my son, through all your days,
Wherever you go under the skies,
Should you foresake your mother own,
Never forget your mother tongue!!
1944
Serj Tankian - Artsakh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttfk0...
June 27, 2021
Գիրքը հրաշալի էր չեզոքության տեսանկյունից։ Կարդալով այն՝ հաճախ բարկանում էի ադրբեջանական տեսակետները գրքում ներառված տեսնելով, բայց հետո հեղինակը տալիս էր լրիվ այլ՝ հայկական ու ադրբեջանական տեսակետներից հեռու, չեզոք տեսակետ, ինչը դուր էր գալիս։
Սկզբում մի քիչ ձևաչափը դուր չէր գալիս, քանի որ ընդմիջվում էին արագ գործողությունները և բարոյական տեսանկյունից էր ներկայացվում տարբեր դրվագներ, բայց հետո հասկացա, որ դա օգտակար է։
Արցախյան խորը հակամարտությունը ուսումնասիրելու հարցում առաջին քայլերը անողներին խորհուրդ կտամ անպայման սկսել այս գրքից։
Սկզբում մի քիչ ձևաչափը դուր չէր գալիս, քանի որ ընդմիջվում էին արագ գործողությունները և բարոյական տեսանկյունից էր ներկայացվում տարբեր դրվագներ, բայց հետո հասկացա, որ դա օգտակար է։
Արցախյան խորը հակամարտությունը ուսումնասիրելու հարցում առաջին քայլերը անողներին խորհուրդ կտամ անպայման սկսել այս գրքից։
January 17, 2021
Before reading the review, if you need some background of the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict, see here my notes
As many of my Goodreads friends know, I am ethnically Armenian, born in Syria but live in Canada. The reason for this strange mix of countries is that both my grandparents' families and thousands like them were driven out of their ancestral lands in historic Armenia, at the time part of the Ottoman empire and today part of Turkey. This happened in the early 20th century in what is known as the Armenian Genocide
image of massacre of Armenians in 1915 taken from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, written by American Embassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr.
I have not lived for any length of time in Armenia but been there a few times. I've never been to NK where today the war enters its 43rd day. I was interested to get a third party and unbiased account of the conflict, and a possible resolution to it, and was more than several times recommended to pick up Thomas de Waal's (TdW) book, mostly by non-Armenians
For learning about the historical, political and geographical background of the conflict this book delivers well. It is well researched, and peppered with firsthand accounts of TdW who has been to Armenia, NK and Azerbaijan. What is particularly commendable is that he selects the relevant and credible details to present. This is especially challenging because despite the availability of reliable data on the conflict one could argue there is 10 times more misinformation on it\
Where the book had grave shortcomings was in its analysis of this conflict, and what it means to Armenians, including this one who doesn't view himself in any sense as a nationalist. I would try to put these shortcoming under four main areas that sometimes overlap
A-Turkish-Azeri vision of a Caucasus empty of Armenians
TdW fails to emphasize the significance of the relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan. For him, it is almost a coincidence that both Turkey and Azerbaijan have engaged in ethnic cleansing and killings of Armenians in their ancestral lands, by using the same baseless arguments of Armenians being untrustworthy, outsiders to the region, a fifth column to Russia etc.
The revisionist histories that support these arguments in both Turkey and Azerbaijan are not enough for TdW to acknowledge why Armenians feel and are threatened by that alliance. For instance, many in Turkey and its despot Erdogan, who is leading a wide geopolitical movement of Neo-Ottomanism instead of acknowledging its historical Genocide against Armenians, still perpetuate the falsehood that Armenians are the perpetrators of massacres on Turks during WWI. Moreover, Azerbaijan without a single piece of evidence claims 2.5m Azeris killed in the 20th century alone by Armenians (whose two thirds were wiped out by the Young Turks in 1915)
The 2.5m Azeri Genocide claim is dismissed by TdW as mere propaganda by the corrupt regime of Azerbaijan. He somehow understands why Azeris espouse such propaganda because you know, Azerbaijan was humiliated by Armenians of NK in the 1994 by losing the war, as if humiliation warrants one to rewrite history in such devastating terms. After all, if the ancestors of Armenians killed 2.5m Azeris, Azeris could surely excuse themselves of killing and expelling Armenians from NK as they are doing today
To demonstrate this point the case of Ramil Safarov is illustrative. A convicted murderer in Hungary who killed an Armenian fellow student with an axe in his sleep, was celebrated as Hero of Azerbaijan both by the government and the people when initially deported to Azerbaijan to continue serving his term. He was pardoned the same day of landing
Ramil Safarov, convicted axe murderer of an Armenian while asleep in Budapest is considered a hero in Azerbaijan
One hopes that the unambiguous support Turkey is providing to Azerbaijan in the current war to cleanse NK of Armenians makes observers including TdW see a more vicious connection, beyond the vague ethnic brotherhood of these "bir millət, iki dövlət". That phrase means "two countries one nation" in Turkish, but for Armenians, and a lot of Tursk and Azeris, it means nothing less than annihilation of NK's indigenous Armenians, if not Armenia itself, who at least Azerbaijan sees as an obstacle for its flourishing
B-The meaning and possible shape of compromise by Armenians of NK
TdW is annoyed at the insistence of the Armenian side to gain full independence of NK before handing over any Azeri territories back. This insistence is weighed against the weak economy of Armenia and NK, and makes TdW wonder why should Armenians be as stubborn to say no to the supposed joys of economic prosperity they could gain from open borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, by showing some good faith and securing "guaranteed" self-rule for NK but not independence.
Besides the critical point that not all nations give the same priority to economic prosperity, TdW doesn't realize that even by forgoing full independence of NK and settling for self-rule within Azerbaijan, the people of NK and Armenians will still be threatened by Azerbaijan and Turkey, never mind what "economic prosperity" they might have. Besides, what guarantees would Armenians of NK have that after handing over the seven occupied territories, Azerbaijan would nicely give an acceptable self rule to the Armenians of NK. What seems to TdW as failure to compromise, seems like common sense
The rhetoric in Azerbaijan (and more recently Erdogan of Turkey) is such that Armenia itself belongs to Azerbaijan. After all, didn't we say that Armenians were brought to the region by the Russian empire to sow division among the Turkic peoples of the Caucasus? The reason for these strange beliefs at least in Azerbaijan is decades of systematic hate-education and revisionist history
Ilham Aliyev, president of Azerbaijan, frequently tweets hate-infested propaganda against Armenia(ns)
Again TdW seems to understand these as expected consequences of the first war and the refugees resulting thereof in Azerbaijan, rather than seeing it as a vicious legitimization of Armenian annihilation, that was present way before the first war of NK. All this is a refusal to see what options the Armenians of NK have, namely ONE option which is claiming and if necessary fighting for their homeland and its independence. Again, one hopes the war that’s panning out today with its war crimes and genocidal rhetoric against Armenians of NK makes the non feasibility of any other option clear
C-The role of nationalism in this conflict
For TdW, Nationalism is the enemy and the problem. It is a tool used by the corrupt rulers on both sides to sow enmity and division between people who lived together for so long in friendship and brotherhood. He think that the fall of the USSR created a vacuum that was filled with Nationalism.
TdW's beliefs stem mostly from his firsthand discussion with people on both sides who claim that "We lived normally with the Armenians" or vice versa, but also from official accounts during the USSR about the supposed brotherhood of the nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Having lived in Syria most of my life, where the official and unofficial rhetoric was that all Syrians regardless of their nationalities are brothers, I am surprise how TdW draws the conclusions he does from these accounts. TdW takes this to mean that the problem largely started in the 1980s when both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing due to bumped up nationalism from their respective power-hungry leaders
That many elements gave Armenians of NK reason to secede, such as restriction on their use of Armenian language and education, economic limitations imposed by Baku, and population trends working against them with the Azeri government settling Azeris in NK to dilute the Armenians' majority there are mentioned by TdW but don't warrant any suspicions or revolt. I am sorry to say that deep under that is a refusal to acknowledge what the people of NK want. For TdW Armenians are just being irrationally nationalistic
He mentions a curious example that illustrates exactly the opposite, that this conflict is NOT about nationalism. But, instead of drawing that conclusion TdW wants to believe that people were all living in brotherly love before 1987, so he finds this as an example of Armenian stubbornness and failure of compromise:
Gukasian tells a story that illustrates this well. In 1995, he was one of the Armenian delegation invited by Finland to talks on the Aaland Islands. These Swedish-speaking islands are part of Finland but have generous powers of self-government. At one point, says Gukasian, his Finnish hosts took him aside and pointed out that this was a good model for Nagorny Karabakh: “They said, ‘Here is a good model,’ and I said, ‘I am ready—right now if you want—to become part of Finland! But we are talking about Azerbaijan'"
The key words here are "generous powers of self-government". That TdW doesn't see how reasonable it is for Armenians to NOT expect generous self-government from Azerbaijan in NK is very strange indeed - after all why should they after decades of subjugation from Baku and when citizens of Azerbaijan proper don't even enjoy their human rights. One is tempted to remind TdW to think of the NK and Azerbaijan relationship as a marriage. He and Azerbaijan must accept, just like a divorced spouse must accept, that the other side doesn't want the relationship to continue whatever the reasons and that's the end of it. The solution and vision being sought by Armenians is not so much defined by positive Armenian dimensions (i.e. nationalistic) as it is non-Azeri, as it must be
D-If not nationalism, then what's behind this conflict?
The frustration of reading this book despite its richness in detail, observations and political commentary is the little importance TdW gives to a topic that is at the heart of this conflict, which is the wish of the NK people: being an independent state or at least not being part of Azerbaijan. In other words, their right to self determination
Given TdW's dismissal of the Turkish-Azeri connection, his attribution of this conflict to irrational nationalism on both sides, and his annoyance at the stubbornness of Armenians to refuse compromise, TdW doesn't understand why the Armenians of NK want to be independent, or worse be part of a poor Armenia as opposed to rich Azerbaijan
But we showed that his attributions and conclusions don’t apply, and even if they do, they are beside the point. The people of NK chose how and by whom to be governed, however unreasonable it is, period. Moreover the Azeri government forfeited its right to govern the clear majority of people of NK the moment it refused to respect their wish for independence
TdW seems to suggest (he never says it but his analysis clearly points to that direction) that Armenians during the first war have forfeited their right to self-determination by ignoring what 40,000 of the Azeris in NK want, and claiming lands around NK and displacing their Azeri population. This is a major failing of judgement by TdW and the heart of my criticism of this book. After all, on the question of the referendum, isn't that how democracy works? After all, Azeris were the minority in NK. And yes, the war has been harsh to Azerbaijan including the refugees, but these are a clear consequence of Azerbaijan's refusal to uphold NK's right legitimate right to secede, and the responsibility of that lies in large part with Azerbaijan's government at the time. Should Azerbaijan accepted NK's independence in 1991, the war and refugees resulting thereof could have been averted
I hope that Azerbaijan wanting Karabakh in full without Armenians, and the fact that it is proving it on the ground today, changes the views of TdW and allows him to see clearly the conflict for what it is
Independent third party views of the conflict and the difficulties of solving it
The frustration many Armenians feel from the international coverage of the renewed conflict, namely the two-sides-are-the-same approach, fills many pages of this book. Whenever a massacre where Armenians were victims is mentioned, after a few pages an Azeri one is mentioned no matter who perpetrated it, to avoid seeming biased. One particularly infuriating example is when TdW includes subheading in two "acts" about the Black January in 1990 Baku. In the first Azeri mobs senselessly kill some 90 Armenians. In the second, Soviet government (not Armenians) kills some 120 Azeris to supposedly protect the Armenians. TdW nevertheless juxtaposes them to demonstrate how Azeris and Armenians are both victims and hence cannot be at fault. Is you just for a moment stop and realize that Armenians didn’t initiate neither of the instances of killing, you would have no problem knowing where the responsibility lies: on Azeris and Soviet police
In similar fashion, the media today chooses to ignore that Armenians of NK didn't start the first war, and the second war, and somehow choose the easy way out of splitting responsibility in exactly two halves
In failing to understand the full dimensions of this conflict, I think TdW and much of the world punch below their weight. TdW certainly wants to contribute to the resolution of this conflict, and my intention of writing this review is, I hope, to lead him and others like him to seeing the issues clearly. Instead of dealing with the conflict as a senseless succession of violence and refusal to compromise, and instead of an absurd choice being between Armenian "claims of historical justice" and Azerbaijan's "territorial integrity" the choice is in fact between granting a people its right to self determination vs. trampling on that right, resulting in the annihilation of Armenians in NK
Nations endure through sovereignty and that sovereignty comes from the people not the territory. The conflict is not about history of the Armenians vs. territory or history of the Azeris but of the inalienable right to self-determination which Armenians have exercised three times in 1987, 1988 and 1991, and which Azerbaijan must be made to accept through the international recognition of NK's independence (what Armenians call The Republic of Artsakh)
Just as in Brexit, the 48% had to accept what the 52% have chosen, Azerbaijan could have accepted what at least 75% of the population of NK had chosen, but they chose not to causing great harm to both sides. After 30 years and endless suffering, the right of the people of NK to choose their form of government should be upheld, especially by decent scholars like Thomas de Waal
As many of my Goodreads friends know, I am ethnically Armenian, born in Syria but live in Canada. The reason for this strange mix of countries is that both my grandparents' families and thousands like them were driven out of their ancestral lands in historic Armenia, at the time part of the Ottoman empire and today part of Turkey. This happened in the early 20th century in what is known as the Armenian Genocide
image of massacre of Armenians in 1915 taken from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, written by American Embassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr.
I have not lived for any length of time in Armenia but been there a few times. I've never been to NK where today the war enters its 43rd day. I was interested to get a third party and unbiased account of the conflict, and a possible resolution to it, and was more than several times recommended to pick up Thomas de Waal's (TdW) book, mostly by non-Armenians
For learning about the historical, political and geographical background of the conflict this book delivers well. It is well researched, and peppered with firsthand accounts of TdW who has been to Armenia, NK and Azerbaijan. What is particularly commendable is that he selects the relevant and credible details to present. This is especially challenging because despite the availability of reliable data on the conflict one could argue there is 10 times more misinformation on it\
Where the book had grave shortcomings was in its analysis of this conflict, and what it means to Armenians, including this one who doesn't view himself in any sense as a nationalist. I would try to put these shortcoming under four main areas that sometimes overlap
A-Turkish-Azeri vision of a Caucasus empty of Armenians
TdW fails to emphasize the significance of the relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan. For him, it is almost a coincidence that both Turkey and Azerbaijan have engaged in ethnic cleansing and killings of Armenians in their ancestral lands, by using the same baseless arguments of Armenians being untrustworthy, outsiders to the region, a fifth column to Russia etc.
The revisionist histories that support these arguments in both Turkey and Azerbaijan are not enough for TdW to acknowledge why Armenians feel and are threatened by that alliance. For instance, many in Turkey and its despot Erdogan, who is leading a wide geopolitical movement of Neo-Ottomanism instead of acknowledging its historical Genocide against Armenians, still perpetuate the falsehood that Armenians are the perpetrators of massacres on Turks during WWI. Moreover, Azerbaijan without a single piece of evidence claims 2.5m Azeris killed in the 20th century alone by Armenians (whose two thirds were wiped out by the Young Turks in 1915)
The 2.5m Azeri Genocide claim is dismissed by TdW as mere propaganda by the corrupt regime of Azerbaijan. He somehow understands why Azeris espouse such propaganda because you know, Azerbaijan was humiliated by Armenians of NK in the 1994 by losing the war, as if humiliation warrants one to rewrite history in such devastating terms. After all, if the ancestors of Armenians killed 2.5m Azeris, Azeris could surely excuse themselves of killing and expelling Armenians from NK as they are doing today
To demonstrate this point the case of Ramil Safarov is illustrative. A convicted murderer in Hungary who killed an Armenian fellow student with an axe in his sleep, was celebrated as Hero of Azerbaijan both by the government and the people when initially deported to Azerbaijan to continue serving his term. He was pardoned the same day of landing
Ramil Safarov, convicted axe murderer of an Armenian while asleep in Budapest is considered a hero in Azerbaijan
One hopes that the unambiguous support Turkey is providing to Azerbaijan in the current war to cleanse NK of Armenians makes observers including TdW see a more vicious connection, beyond the vague ethnic brotherhood of these "bir millət, iki dövlət". That phrase means "two countries one nation" in Turkish, but for Armenians, and a lot of Tursk and Azeris, it means nothing less than annihilation of NK's indigenous Armenians, if not Armenia itself, who at least Azerbaijan sees as an obstacle for its flourishing
B-The meaning and possible shape of compromise by Armenians of NK
TdW is annoyed at the insistence of the Armenian side to gain full independence of NK before handing over any Azeri territories back. This insistence is weighed against the weak economy of Armenia and NK, and makes TdW wonder why should Armenians be as stubborn to say no to the supposed joys of economic prosperity they could gain from open borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, by showing some good faith and securing "guaranteed" self-rule for NK but not independence.
Besides the critical point that not all nations give the same priority to economic prosperity, TdW doesn't realize that even by forgoing full independence of NK and settling for self-rule within Azerbaijan, the people of NK and Armenians will still be threatened by Azerbaijan and Turkey, never mind what "economic prosperity" they might have. Besides, what guarantees would Armenians of NK have that after handing over the seven occupied territories, Azerbaijan would nicely give an acceptable self rule to the Armenians of NK. What seems to TdW as failure to compromise, seems like common sense
The rhetoric in Azerbaijan (and more recently Erdogan of Turkey) is such that Armenia itself belongs to Azerbaijan. After all, didn't we say that Armenians were brought to the region by the Russian empire to sow division among the Turkic peoples of the Caucasus? The reason for these strange beliefs at least in Azerbaijan is decades of systematic hate-education and revisionist history
Ilham Aliyev, president of Azerbaijan, frequently tweets hate-infested propaganda against Armenia(ns)
Again TdW seems to understand these as expected consequences of the first war and the refugees resulting thereof in Azerbaijan, rather than seeing it as a vicious legitimization of Armenian annihilation, that was present way before the first war of NK. All this is a refusal to see what options the Armenians of NK have, namely ONE option which is claiming and if necessary fighting for their homeland and its independence. Again, one hopes the war that’s panning out today with its war crimes and genocidal rhetoric against Armenians of NK makes the non feasibility of any other option clear
C-The role of nationalism in this conflict
For TdW, Nationalism is the enemy and the problem. It is a tool used by the corrupt rulers on both sides to sow enmity and division between people who lived together for so long in friendship and brotherhood. He think that the fall of the USSR created a vacuum that was filled with Nationalism.
TdW's beliefs stem mostly from his firsthand discussion with people on both sides who claim that "We lived normally with the Armenians" or vice versa, but also from official accounts during the USSR about the supposed brotherhood of the nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Having lived in Syria most of my life, where the official and unofficial rhetoric was that all Syrians regardless of their nationalities are brothers, I am surprise how TdW draws the conclusions he does from these accounts. TdW takes this to mean that the problem largely started in the 1980s when both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing due to bumped up nationalism from their respective power-hungry leaders
That many elements gave Armenians of NK reason to secede, such as restriction on their use of Armenian language and education, economic limitations imposed by Baku, and population trends working against them with the Azeri government settling Azeris in NK to dilute the Armenians' majority there are mentioned by TdW but don't warrant any suspicions or revolt. I am sorry to say that deep under that is a refusal to acknowledge what the people of NK want. For TdW Armenians are just being irrationally nationalistic
He mentions a curious example that illustrates exactly the opposite, that this conflict is NOT about nationalism. But, instead of drawing that conclusion TdW wants to believe that people were all living in brotherly love before 1987, so he finds this as an example of Armenian stubbornness and failure of compromise:
Gukasian tells a story that illustrates this well. In 1995, he was one of the Armenian delegation invited by Finland to talks on the Aaland Islands. These Swedish-speaking islands are part of Finland but have generous powers of self-government. At one point, says Gukasian, his Finnish hosts took him aside and pointed out that this was a good model for Nagorny Karabakh: “They said, ‘Here is a good model,’ and I said, ‘I am ready—right now if you want—to become part of Finland! But we are talking about Azerbaijan'"
The key words here are "generous powers of self-government". That TdW doesn't see how reasonable it is for Armenians to NOT expect generous self-government from Azerbaijan in NK is very strange indeed - after all why should they after decades of subjugation from Baku and when citizens of Azerbaijan proper don't even enjoy their human rights. One is tempted to remind TdW to think of the NK and Azerbaijan relationship as a marriage. He and Azerbaijan must accept, just like a divorced spouse must accept, that the other side doesn't want the relationship to continue whatever the reasons and that's the end of it. The solution and vision being sought by Armenians is not so much defined by positive Armenian dimensions (i.e. nationalistic) as it is non-Azeri, as it must be
D-If not nationalism, then what's behind this conflict?
The frustration of reading this book despite its richness in detail, observations and political commentary is the little importance TdW gives to a topic that is at the heart of this conflict, which is the wish of the NK people: being an independent state or at least not being part of Azerbaijan. In other words, their right to self determination
Given TdW's dismissal of the Turkish-Azeri connection, his attribution of this conflict to irrational nationalism on both sides, and his annoyance at the stubbornness of Armenians to refuse compromise, TdW doesn't understand why the Armenians of NK want to be independent, or worse be part of a poor Armenia as opposed to rich Azerbaijan
But we showed that his attributions and conclusions don’t apply, and even if they do, they are beside the point. The people of NK chose how and by whom to be governed, however unreasonable it is, period. Moreover the Azeri government forfeited its right to govern the clear majority of people of NK the moment it refused to respect their wish for independence
TdW seems to suggest (he never says it but his analysis clearly points to that direction) that Armenians during the first war have forfeited their right to self-determination by ignoring what 40,000 of the Azeris in NK want, and claiming lands around NK and displacing their Azeri population. This is a major failing of judgement by TdW and the heart of my criticism of this book. After all, on the question of the referendum, isn't that how democracy works? After all, Azeris were the minority in NK. And yes, the war has been harsh to Azerbaijan including the refugees, but these are a clear consequence of Azerbaijan's refusal to uphold NK's right legitimate right to secede, and the responsibility of that lies in large part with Azerbaijan's government at the time. Should Azerbaijan accepted NK's independence in 1991, the war and refugees resulting thereof could have been averted
I hope that Azerbaijan wanting Karabakh in full without Armenians, and the fact that it is proving it on the ground today, changes the views of TdW and allows him to see clearly the conflict for what it is
Independent third party views of the conflict and the difficulties of solving it
The frustration many Armenians feel from the international coverage of the renewed conflict, namely the two-sides-are-the-same approach, fills many pages of this book. Whenever a massacre where Armenians were victims is mentioned, after a few pages an Azeri one is mentioned no matter who perpetrated it, to avoid seeming biased. One particularly infuriating example is when TdW includes subheading in two "acts" about the Black January in 1990 Baku. In the first Azeri mobs senselessly kill some 90 Armenians. In the second, Soviet government (not Armenians) kills some 120 Azeris to supposedly protect the Armenians. TdW nevertheless juxtaposes them to demonstrate how Azeris and Armenians are both victims and hence cannot be at fault. Is you just for a moment stop and realize that Armenians didn’t initiate neither of the instances of killing, you would have no problem knowing where the responsibility lies: on Azeris and Soviet police
In similar fashion, the media today chooses to ignore that Armenians of NK didn't start the first war, and the second war, and somehow choose the easy way out of splitting responsibility in exactly two halves
In failing to understand the full dimensions of this conflict, I think TdW and much of the world punch below their weight. TdW certainly wants to contribute to the resolution of this conflict, and my intention of writing this review is, I hope, to lead him and others like him to seeing the issues clearly. Instead of dealing with the conflict as a senseless succession of violence and refusal to compromise, and instead of an absurd choice being between Armenian "claims of historical justice" and Azerbaijan's "territorial integrity" the choice is in fact between granting a people its right to self determination vs. trampling on that right, resulting in the annihilation of Armenians in NK
Nations endure through sovereignty and that sovereignty comes from the people not the territory. The conflict is not about history of the Armenians vs. territory or history of the Azeris but of the inalienable right to self-determination which Armenians have exercised three times in 1987, 1988 and 1991, and which Azerbaijan must be made to accept through the international recognition of NK's independence (what Armenians call The Republic of Artsakh)
Just as in Brexit, the 48% had to accept what the 52% have chosen, Azerbaijan could have accepted what at least 75% of the population of NK had chosen, but they chose not to causing great harm to both sides. After 30 years and endless suffering, the right of the people of NK to choose their form of government should be upheld, especially by decent scholars like Thomas de Waal
July 17, 2017
Ես սիրում եմ ստեղծագործություններ, որտեղ կարող եմ կարդալ այլընտրանքային կարծիք, ու կարևոր չէ՝ դա սուտ է, թե ճիշտ։ Կարևորը, որ ես կարդալուց հետո կուսումնասիրեմ, կփորփրեմ, կգտնեմ, ճիշտն իմ համար ավելի պարզ կլինի։
Թոմաս Դե Վաալի «Սև այգի»-ն հենց այդօրինակ գրքերից է։ Կարդացել եմ բավականին երկար ժամանակահատվածում (մեկ ժամանակս թույլ չէր տալիս, հետո էլ առաջ եկան դիպլոմայինս ու քննություններս)։ Իրականում բավականին սահուն կարդացվող գիրք է, թարգմանությունն էլ՝ հիանալի։
Երբ ընկերներիցս մեկին ասացի, որ ստեղծագործությունը հիշեցնում է «մի քիչ մեզնից-մի քիչ իրենցից» ֆորմատը, ընկերս ասաց, որ պոլիտկոռեկտություն է հիշեցնում, իսկ դա ոչ միշտ է ճիշտ։ Երբ ավարտեցի գիրքը, հասկացա, որ իրականում ադրբեջանցիներին աղաղակումները, թե ստեղծագործությունում առավելապես հնչում են հայկական տեսակետներ, ճիշտ է։ Շատ քիչ հանդիպեցի ադրբեջանցիների անուններ, բայց դրանք կան։ Գուցե այդ հանգամանքը պայմանավորված է նրանով, որ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ կարելի է մուտք գործել միայն Հայաստանից, այնտեղ էլ բացառապես հայեր են ապրում։ Չգիտեմ։
Բայց հստակ գիտեմ, որ ստեղծագործությունը տալիս է ահռելի տեղեկատվություն անցյալի ու ներկայի մասին, իսկ վերջինը ոչ պակաս կարևոր է։
Եթե ընկեր ունեք, որը ցանկանում է տեղեկանալ հայ-ադրբեջանական և արցախա-ադրբեջանական համակարտության մասին, «Սև այգի»-ն հիանալի տարբերակ է։ Անպայման կարդացեք։
Թոմաս Դե Վաալի «Սև այգի»-ն հենց այդօրինակ գրքերից է։ Կարդացել եմ բավականին երկար ժամանակահատվածում (մեկ ժամանակս թույլ չէր տալիս, հետո էլ առաջ եկան դիպլոմայինս ու քննություններս)։ Իրականում բավականին սահուն կարդացվող գիրք է, թարգմանությունն էլ՝ հիանալի։
Երբ ընկերներիցս մեկին ասացի, որ ստեղծագործությունը հիշեցնում է «մի քիչ մեզնից-մի քիչ իրենցից» ֆորմատը, ընկերս ասաց, որ պոլիտկոռեկտություն է հիշեցնում, իսկ դա ոչ միշտ է ճիշտ։ Երբ ավարտեցի գիրքը, հասկացա, որ իրականում ադրբեջանցիներին աղաղակումները, թե ստեղծագործությունում առավելապես հնչում են հայկական տեսակետներ, ճիշտ է։ Շատ քիչ հանդիպեցի ադրբեջանցիների անուններ, բայց դրանք կան։ Գուցե այդ հանգամանքը պայմանավորված է նրանով, որ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ կարելի է մուտք գործել միայն Հայաստանից, այնտեղ էլ բացառապես հայեր են ապրում։ Չգիտեմ։
Բայց հստակ գիտեմ, որ ստեղծագործությունը տալիս է ահռելի տեղեկատվություն անցյալի ու ներկայի մասին, իսկ վերջինը ոչ պակաս կարևոր է։
Եթե ընկեր ունեք, որը ցանկանում է տեղեկանալ հայ-ադրբեջանական և արցախա-ադրբեջանական համակարտության մասին, «Սև այգի»-ն հիանալի տարբերակ է։ Անպայման կարդացեք։
February 24, 2024
Thank you Thomas de Waal for saving my thesis
Read
December 7, 2020It was not an easy read for me. Coming from a family of displaced people from one of the occupied regions and having lost my grandmother, I struggled to call this book an objective read. As I was reading how Azerbaijanis become innocent(no, I am not exaggerating even a tiny bit) victims of this game played by Soviet Armenians and their diaspora, having Russia by their side, I felt deep heartache and paused a lot while reading. It was not easy to digest and turn another painful page of history towards reading how Qarabağ fell into the hands of Armenians.
A lot has been suffered, only a tiny bit was covered in this book. Well, I understand that this was not an intention after all. I must confess, the book does it's job very well and shows how alienated the two nations became to point where they are unable to recognize the right of the other to exist on the earth. There is so much hatred ingrained deep into the hearts. But unfortunately, like any country in the world, we are destined to live with our neighbors, for better or for worse. Armenians need to learn to put aside their sickly hatred towards 'turks' and heal from it, so that they cause less destruction to it's neighbors ( even though, Armenians and Western society struggle to recognize the simple fact: Azeri lives matter, turkic and muslim lives matter!) and themselves and become less manipulated by Great Powers. Yes, Azerbaijan lost it's precious lands in 90s, but Armenia hasn't gained anything either(trying to hold on to something which deep within your heart you know doesn't belong to you, is nothing but only self-deception).
Edit: After liberation of our lands and having also read the author's other book "Great Catastrophe", I would advice the author to care more about lost lives *not only Armenian lives!* and less about armenian churches, it's so pathetic! ! Turkic(any other lives in general) lives also matter dear de Wall, especially if you call yourself an objective, liberal and civilized human being. Otherwise don't call yourself so. Say it openly so that everyone knows and become less disgusted by your biased actions under the hood of 'unbiased' show.
A lot has been suffered, only a tiny bit was covered in this book. Well, I understand that this was not an intention after all. I must confess, the book does it's job very well and shows how alienated the two nations became to point where they are unable to recognize the right of the other to exist on the earth. There is so much hatred ingrained deep into the hearts. But unfortunately, like any country in the world, we are destined to live with our neighbors, for better or for worse. Armenians need to learn to put aside their sickly hatred towards 'turks' and heal from it, so that they cause less destruction to it's neighbors ( even though, Armenians and Western society struggle to recognize the simple fact: Azeri lives matter, turkic and muslim lives matter!) and themselves and become less manipulated by Great Powers. Yes, Azerbaijan lost it's precious lands in 90s, but Armenia hasn't gained anything either(trying to hold on to something which deep within your heart you know doesn't belong to you, is nothing but only self-deception).
Edit: After liberation of our lands and having also read the author's other book "Great Catastrophe", I would advice the author to care more about lost lives *not only Armenian lives!* and less about armenian churches, it's so pathetic! ! Turkic(any other lives in general) lives also matter dear de Wall, especially if you call yourself an objective, liberal and civilized human being. Otherwise don't call yourself so. Say it openly so that everyone knows and become less disgusted by your biased actions under the hood of 'unbiased' show.
July 27, 2013
The strength of the book lies in its assessment of how the conflict in Nagorno-Kharabagh has affected the social and political environment of the Caucasus. The problem lies in that this assessment is not fairly balanced to both sides of the question. In the prologue, De Waal states repeatedly that he is taking an unbiased, third-party approach to his assessment. Yet, I found a clear imbalance in the focus of most chapters, leaning towards the Azeri perspective. In describing the situation of both the Armenian and Azeri refugees after their exodus from Baku and Kharabagh, respectively, De Waal appeals to emotion in describing the Azeri settlements. The sources used and the structure of the chapters reflects that it was not necessarily objective, but served as a point of influence.
One of my favorite parts of the book was the use of human experience and narrative to describe the relations between the Azeri's and Armenians before the war and the sporadic inclusion post-war. The narrative that described the close relations that the two shared before the war and the longing for such after the war gave me hope that there will be an eventual agreement between the sides. The book shines a light on the heavy hand that the Soviet Union, and its eventual disenfranchisement, played in the conflict. The use of anecdotes adds more weight to the analysis.
One of my favorite parts of the book was the use of human experience and narrative to describe the relations between the Azeri's and Armenians before the war and the sporadic inclusion post-war. The narrative that described the close relations that the two shared before the war and the longing for such after the war gave me hope that there will be an eventual agreement between the sides. The book shines a light on the heavy hand that the Soviet Union, and its eventual disenfranchisement, played in the conflict. The use of anecdotes adds more weight to the analysis.
Read
September 28, 2015The most comprehensive work on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Though de Waal is not an academic, he is a recognised authority on the Caucasus, and his book is by far the most important, and neutral, publication on the conflict. It has become nearly impossible to find anyone who doesn't cite this book when writing about the conflict.
April 20, 2019
The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict may not have been the worst of modern wars, but it has produced one of the worst peaces.
It has, indeed.
February 3, 2021
Must read for anyone interested in the origin of Nagorny Karabakh, Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
July 7, 2021
The chronology of the Karabakh conflict, which is an important issue for both modern Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the causes of its occurrence have never been studied so precisely, concisely, and at the same time comprehensively. Although the author was not directly involved in wars and events, such as Thomas Goltz (Azerbaijan Diary), listening to and investigating people and officials from both sides and traveling to conflict zones after the war increased the value of the work. In particular, the parts on refugee camps were one of the most impressive to me. Therefore, I consider both books to be important works on the history of Karabakh and Azerbaijan. These books are not only historical and political research, but also the voice of humanity!
Read
October 21, 2007http://nhw.livejournal.com/125758.html[return][return]This is a really good book. Even if you don't have a professional interest in the Nagorno-Karabakh question (and let's face it, not a lot of people do), I think the studies of how a historical dispute over a very small patch of land destroyed two countries and helped to destroy the Soviet Union are of worldwide, human interest. The narrative of the conflict is interspersed with either interviews with today's survivors or historical reflections on how we got there.[return][return]The first few chapters are also particularly interesting because of the light they throw on Gorbachev, especially from research in the Politburo archives. In a week when we have all been debating the extent to which Ronald Reagan deserves any credit at all, I found this September 1988 exchange between the General Secretary and the hapless official in charge of preventing the conflict illustrative of the fantasy world in which the leadership of the other superpower lived:[return][return][Gorbachev] rang and said:"... Tell them that if they don't stop this, we will expel them from the Party!" I said, "Mikhail Sergeyevich, they've already trampled on their party cards. The members of the committee are all the organisers of these demonstrations!... What Party methods are you talking about?" [return][return]Two years later, of course, the Soviet Union suddenly collapsed completely. This was one of the few warning signs. (Also the August 1990 coup attempt in Moscow had a direct effect on the outcome of the war.)[return][return]The interesting human story is what happens to people who used to live in a society that has been destroyed. The chapters about the massacre in Sumgait in early 1988, and about the children of Azerbaijan's 750,000 refugees, are particularly vivid.
January 3, 2021
Это очень хорошая книга, конечно же никто внутри диаспор не согласится с этой книгой, так как у каждого гордость выше разума, обиды ярче чем былая доброта. Но я призываю прочитать эту книгу армян и азербайджанцев, мы все люди и надо отказываться от политики ненависти которая воспитывается внутри этих народов, в 21 веке это недопустимо.
November 9, 2011
I don't understand how 'balanced and objective' this book can be if it mostly presents Armenian civilians' viewpoints and never mention about more than 600 civil Azerbaijanis being tortured/killed in Khojaly in February 26th 1992 by Armenians.
May 2, 2021
Maybe it was just me, but it was a slower and boring read. The book details from the Soviet dissolve to the modern Armenia and Azerbaijan territorial dispute. The account of the political and ethnic tension in the region was insightful but was a little on the dull side for me.
November 7, 2020
Brexit in the Caucasus
The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in a nutshell
Summary to those unfamiliar with the conflict (skip to review link at the bottom if you have some background)
Nagorno-Karabakh (NK), where a bloody war is underway since 27th of Sep this year, is a disputed region controlled by ethnic Armenians. In 1920s around when the USSR was founded, despite NK's 90%+ Armenians population, the USSR (in particular comrade Stalin) handed it over to Azerbaijan, but allowed it to self-govern.
Right before the collapse of the USSR, Armenians in NK petitioned for independence from Azerbaijan in 1987, passed a resolution of it in the local soviet in 1988 (remember, they had self-government), and did an actual referendum in 1991 that voted* for independence from Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan has since then been resisting this legitimate secession by various means including 1) revoking NK's autonomous status in 1991 after the fact of independence 2) allowing and possibly encouraging pogroms against Armenians in Azerbaijan to discourage independence and 3) when all this failed invading NK in the first NK war that claimed some 30,000 lives and displaced about a million people, both figures on both sides.
A ceasefire was agreed in 1994 after Armenians captured not only NK but seven Azeri districts around it. The ceasefire was broken a few times but the conflict was kept largely frozen. in Sep 2020 amid a pandemic, Azerbaijan launched a wide scale offensive to reclaim its lost territories including NK.
The region strategically has no importance for Azerbaijan, but is used to rally Azeris around the dictator Ilham Aliyev and ignore their shrinking economy and human rights. Aliyev whose family ruled the country for almost 40 years has been in power for 17 years and is considered behind major corruption and human rights abuses by Azerbaijan against its people.
Turkey who supported Azerbaijan during the first war, has been unconditionally supporting again with weapons, military training, political coverage but more critically with at least 2000 Syrian mercenaries brought to the region
As I write on 7th of Nov, Azerbaijan has taken back a big chunk of the territories surrounding NK but also entered NK itself. About 100,000 of the 150,000 Armenian inhabitants of NK have left their homes and entered Armenia as refugees, and much of NK infrastructure has been destroyed. Death toll is at about 5,000 people on both sides in just 43 days (compare with 30,000 in 6 years during the first war)
The situation very simply is the equivalent of EU invading the UK after Brexit and bombing much of the country and killing its civilians to discourage its secession from the EU. This is a thing unimaginable in Europe, but somehow the world thinks acceptable when it happens 4000km away, especially when the "energy security" of the EU is at stake given the oil Azerbaijan supplies to it.
Despite "calls on both sides for ceasefire", Azerbaijan has clearly the upper hand against tiny and poor Armenia, no incentive to stop fighting. It has broken three recent ceasefires minutes after they came into effect. Armenians didn't have any incentive to start this war, or break any ceasefire (as they are obviously losing territory, equipment, and people)
*referendum was boycotted by Azeris of NK who were about 40,000 out of 162,000 of NK's total population in the 1980s. The vote for independence was 99.98%. Even if all Azeris voted against independence, the referendum would have passed by more than 70%
Now...The Review
The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in a nutshell
Summary to those unfamiliar with the conflict (skip to review link at the bottom if you have some background)
Nagorno-Karabakh (NK), where a bloody war is underway since 27th of Sep this year, is a disputed region controlled by ethnic Armenians. In 1920s around when the USSR was founded, despite NK's 90%+ Armenians population, the USSR (in particular comrade Stalin) handed it over to Azerbaijan, but allowed it to self-govern.
Right before the collapse of the USSR, Armenians in NK petitioned for independence from Azerbaijan in 1987, passed a resolution of it in the local soviet in 1988 (remember, they had self-government), and did an actual referendum in 1991 that voted* for independence from Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan has since then been resisting this legitimate secession by various means including 1) revoking NK's autonomous status in 1991 after the fact of independence 2) allowing and possibly encouraging pogroms against Armenians in Azerbaijan to discourage independence and 3) when all this failed invading NK in the first NK war that claimed some 30,000 lives and displaced about a million people, both figures on both sides.
A ceasefire was agreed in 1994 after Armenians captured not only NK but seven Azeri districts around it. The ceasefire was broken a few times but the conflict was kept largely frozen. in Sep 2020 amid a pandemic, Azerbaijan launched a wide scale offensive to reclaim its lost territories including NK.
The region strategically has no importance for Azerbaijan, but is used to rally Azeris around the dictator Ilham Aliyev and ignore their shrinking economy and human rights. Aliyev whose family ruled the country for almost 40 years has been in power for 17 years and is considered behind major corruption and human rights abuses by Azerbaijan against its people.
Turkey who supported Azerbaijan during the first war, has been unconditionally supporting again with weapons, military training, political coverage but more critically with at least 2000 Syrian mercenaries brought to the region
As I write on 7th of Nov, Azerbaijan has taken back a big chunk of the territories surrounding NK but also entered NK itself. About 100,000 of the 150,000 Armenian inhabitants of NK have left their homes and entered Armenia as refugees, and much of NK infrastructure has been destroyed. Death toll is at about 5,000 people on both sides in just 43 days (compare with 30,000 in 6 years during the first war)
The situation very simply is the equivalent of EU invading the UK after Brexit and bombing much of the country and killing its civilians to discourage its secession from the EU. This is a thing unimaginable in Europe, but somehow the world thinks acceptable when it happens 4000km away, especially when the "energy security" of the EU is at stake given the oil Azerbaijan supplies to it.
Despite "calls on both sides for ceasefire", Azerbaijan has clearly the upper hand against tiny and poor Armenia, no incentive to stop fighting. It has broken three recent ceasefires minutes after they came into effect. Armenians didn't have any incentive to start this war, or break any ceasefire (as they are obviously losing territory, equipment, and people)
*referendum was boycotted by Azeris of NK who were about 40,000 out of 162,000 of NK's total population in the 1980s. The vote for independence was 99.98%. Even if all Azeris voted against independence, the referendum would have passed by more than 70%
Now...The Review
March 5, 2024
This is the seminal text on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict - no English language source gives so comprehensive an examination as Black Garden. Thomas de Waal writes with the voice of a scholar, a diplomatic practitioner, and as someone with extensive personal experience with both sides of the conflict, giving his perspective immense weight. The conflict and relationships in question have changed significantly since the publication of this book, but the analysis provided here is simply peerless in its detail on the conflict's foundations.
October 7, 2018
3.5. disappointing editing: formatting, mechanics, even spacing were distracting, and the circular chronology does the reader no favors. still one of the most comprehensive NK accounts.
September 15, 2021
It’s hard to imagine a more even-handed and insightful treatment of this controversial subject. I especially appreciate that de Waal didn’t overlook the ordinary people affected by the conflict.
dnf
December 16, 2024@50% it’s not bad but I can’t be detached enough to finish this unfortunately
January 14, 2024
This was a very difficult book to read; not stylistically, but emotionally. The author does a brilliant job to traverse a very difficult and complicated situation in the disputed regions from the ground - interviewing and researching top down and bottom up. His equanimity brings to life the paraphrased Twain aphorism: “History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
I felt the pain, the confusion of individuals and the subtle back beat of the third or alternative narrative that was brilliantly presented without pontification or pomposity.
Hope however is withering.
I felt the pain, the confusion of individuals and the subtle back beat of the third or alternative narrative that was brilliantly presented without pontification or pomposity.
Hope however is withering.
December 24, 2018
Թոմաս դե Վաալը իր գրքում փորձում է ակողմնակալ ձևով ներկայացնել Արցախյան հակամարտությունը: Քանի որ ինքս տեղյակ չէի հակամարտության շատ դետալների, գիրքը հետաքրքիր էր կարդալը:
November 6, 2016
Це передусім зразок на совість виконаної журналістської роботи: з бажанням розібратися в усіх цитатах, причинах, наслідках і цифрах. Приміром, він проаналізував кілька джерел, аби вияснити: тогочасний президент Азербайджану Гейдар Алієв трохи лукавив, коли стверджував, що окупованими є 20 відсотків території його країни — насправді це майже 14, хоча навіть поважне BBC не перевірило цих даних.
Критики зауважують: ще ніхто не написав про карабаський конфлікт так розлого й виважено, як це зробив Томас де Ваал. Він багато уваги приділяє передумовам та розгортанню конфлікту, а також намагається спрогнозувати його наслідки. При цьому трохи важко запам'ятати прізвища всіх політичних діячів, що з'являються на сторінках книжки, але це і не є принциповим для розуміння контексту. Зате куди живішими є сцени, де автор описує абсурдність війни: наприклад, коли протистояння сягнуло того, що вірмени й азербайджанці обмінювалися пацієнтами психіатричних лікарень — аби не лишилося “чужинців” на “своїй” території.
І, як і очікувалося, у книжці гарно переданий східний колорит: описи міст та їхньої архітектури, змалювання гостинних застіль із м'ясом оленя й шовковичною горілкою, атмосфера ринків з їхніми пістрявими килимами, з вантажівками, набитими пелюстками троянд, із яких потім варитимуть варення... Оці детальки в тексті дуже щемкі, бо війна руйнує цю споконвічну східну витонченість і затишок.
В автора виходить бути “над” конфліктом, він уміє подивитися зверху на війну, що відбувається, він розуміє обидві сторони конфлікту — як мені здається, тому, що це не заторкує його звичний життєвий устрій, його рідних, його країну. Принаймні, мені важко уявити, що хтось із українських журналістів міг би з таким холодним розумом, так відсторонено, але водночас так правдиво передати на папері той конфлікт, який зараз розгортається у нас. Під час читання також важко утриматися від порівнянь Нагірного Карабаху з Донбасом: на окремих сторінках хоч міняй географічні назви — все інше достоту так само, а місцями розумієш, що (перефразовуючи Толстого) всі сторони конфлікту нещасні по-своєму.
Критики зауважують: ще ніхто не написав про карабаський конфлікт так розлого й виважено, як це зробив Томас де Ваал. Він багато уваги приділяє передумовам та розгортанню конфлікту, а також намагається спрогнозувати його наслідки. При цьому трохи важко запам'ятати прізвища всіх політичних діячів, що з'являються на сторінках книжки, але це і не є принциповим для розуміння контексту. Зате куди живішими є сцени, де автор описує абсурдність війни: наприклад, коли протистояння сягнуло того, що вірмени й азербайджанці обмінювалися пацієнтами психіатричних лікарень — аби не лишилося “чужинців” на “своїй” території.
І, як і очікувалося, у книжці гарно переданий східний колорит: описи міст та їхньої архітектури, змалювання гостинних застіль із м'ясом оленя й шовковичною горілкою, атмосфера ринків з їхніми пістрявими килимами, з вантажівками, набитими пелюстками троянд, із яких потім варитимуть варення... Оці детальки в тексті дуже щемкі, бо війна руйнує цю споконвічну східну витонченість і затишок.
В автора виходить бути “над” конфліктом, він уміє подивитися зверху на війну, що відбувається, він розуміє обидві сторони конфлікту — як мені здається, тому, що це не заторкує його звичний життєвий устрій, його рідних, його країну. Принаймні, мені важко уявити, що хтось із українських журналістів міг би з таким холодним розумом, так відсторонено, але водночас так правдиво передати на папері той конфлікт, який зараз розгортається у нас. Під час читання також важко утриматися від порівнянь Нагірного Карабаху з Донбасом: на окремих сторінках хоч міняй географічні назви — все інше достоту так само, а місцями розумієш, що (перефразовуючи Толстого) всі сторони конфлікту нещасні по-своєму.
May 29, 2024
Until recently, the frozen conflict over Nagorno Karabakh emblemized some of the most problematic areas of the post-Soviet world. As the USSR came apart, Armenians made a play for the autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR and managed to wrest it from Baku's orbit. This seminal work on the war in the early 1990s captures the strategic and personal impact of the conflict on people in the region.
The author includes top-down chapters that focus on the military actions and peace negotiations, bringing Baku, Yerevan, Stepanakert, Moscow, and Washington into the conversation with key generals and politicians directing the action. Alternating with these, local chapters focus on the experiences of the people and victims of the invasions and massacres on both sides of the fighting. He presents these stories empathetically, but dispassionately, avoiding sensationalizing or assigning blame to one side or the other. These are complex and heart-wrenching stories and de Waal handles them with care.
Now that Azerbaijan has seemingly unilaterally resolved the conflict through force of arms, an outcome alluded to as a distant possibility in de Waal's conclusion, the future of the region is in question. Who will be allowed to live in Karabakh and will this "resolution" last? What will it mean for Azerbaijan's or Armenia's strategic reorientation in the 2020s and beyond? Keep watching!
The author includes top-down chapters that focus on the military actions and peace negotiations, bringing Baku, Yerevan, Stepanakert, Moscow, and Washington into the conversation with key generals and politicians directing the action. Alternating with these, local chapters focus on the experiences of the people and victims of the invasions and massacres on both sides of the fighting. He presents these stories empathetically, but dispassionately, avoiding sensationalizing or assigning blame to one side or the other. These are complex and heart-wrenching stories and de Waal handles them with care.
Now that Azerbaijan has seemingly unilaterally resolved the conflict through force of arms, an outcome alluded to as a distant possibility in de Waal's conclusion, the future of the region is in question. Who will be allowed to live in Karabakh and will this "resolution" last? What will it mean for Azerbaijan's or Armenia's strategic reorientation in the 2020s and beyond? Keep watching!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews