Despite the influence of the Super Powers and counteractions by Armenian lobbies, the world community strive to learn the truth about the crimes of Armenians in Garabagh and Khojaly. Dozens of experts come together to investigate these crimes in London, France, America and other cities in the west. Maxime Gauin is originally from France and is one of the investigators of the Khojaly events. He is a French historian who has a MA in history from Paris-I-Sorbonne University and a PhD (in the relations between the French Republic and the Armenian Committees, from 1918 to 1923) in history from the Middle East Technical University. He has published articles for the “European Journal of International Law”, the “Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs”, the “Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies”, “Haaretz” and “The Jerusalem Post” (among others). He contributed to the collective book edited by Edward Erickson “A Global History of Relocation in Counter-Insurgency Warfare”, published by Bloomsbury academics in 2019. In 2019, too, he filed an application to the French Constitutional Council against the bill “recognizing” the “Armenian genocide” claims.
.jpg)
Speaking to Eurasia Diary, Maxime Gauin also answered the questions concerning the ongoing conflict of Garabagh and the tragedy of Khojaly in recent history of Azerbaijan.
- We know Armenian lobbies have a great influence in France. How do you asses the roles and activities of Armenian and Azerbaijani lobbies in France and in Europe?
Historically, the lobbying of the Armenian nationalists in France has been mostly a series of failures from 1880s to the end of 1960s. They achieved to be successful in the 1970s by the convergence of several factors, including the fact that the “Armenian vote” became significant, the emergence of a new generation of political leaders (often supporting terrorism, to say the very least), the disappearance of the generations of French civil servants and intellectuals having known the interwar period (ethnic cleansing in Armenia from 1918 to 1920, crimes of the Armenian Legion until its suppression in 1920, support of the Hunchak and Ramkavar for Stalin, etc.), the Soviet domination in Azerbaijan and the fact that the Turkish immigration in France was mostly made of uneducated workers. Currently, the militant basis of the Armenian nationalism is weaker than ever since the beginning of 1920s, but they still take profit of their achievements from 1970s to 1990s, such as building a strong network. Azerbaijanis have been rather successful in France, considering the recent recovery of independence by their own people in 1991, by the shock of the war and the very small number of French citizens of Azerbaijani origins. The choice of Olivier Pardo as Azerbaijan’s lawyer has proven the French government convincing them to go to the administrative justice to obtain the cancelation of the charts illegally signed by some municipalities with cities of the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh. However, I regret that the Azerbaijanis do not sue systematically when they face an attack by Armenian lobbies, and I wish to see soon a better understanding that fighting the “Armenian genocide” label as such is a full part of their fight to recover the occupied territories.
In United Kingdom, the Armenian nationalists have enjoyed the support of the Protestant fundamentalists from 1870s to 1920s, but today, this religious movement is insignificant. The Armenian immigration in this country is modest. As a result, the lobbying of the Armenian nationalists here is not efficient, except with some prejudiced or even dishonest journalists. On the contrary, the Azerbaijanis are often successful (with the same exception).
-The so-called Armenian genocide has always been a topic of discussion in the French Parliament. What do the French Scientific Community think about the most recent genocide of Khojaly in Azerbaijan's history? Do they blame it or...?
It is obvious that the massacre in Khojaly was systematic but is not often discussed (Antoine Constant being an exception in this regard), because of a simple reason that discussing it exposes you to insults, defamation and physical threats. That is why I insisted on the necessity of legal actions: Presenting valuable sources is indispensable but not sufficient. There is also the problem of the infiltration of the academia by people who are less scholars than political militants. When you challenge people who consider that the massacre of Khodjaly was the right choice for Armenia, you cannot expect from them anything but fanaticism and rogues’ methods.
During his interview, the historian also revealed the facts in the history about Armenian nationalism and expansionism that aimed not only eliminate Turks but also Jews and even Armenians who did not cherish their ideas.
As a historian, I can say that this is the continuation of the practices of ethnic cleansing by Armenian nationalists since the 19th century. For example, the French High Commissioner in the Caucasus reported on 20 July 1920 that in June of the same year, the Armenian army had massacred 4,000 Azerbaijani residents (including “women and children”) between Yerevan and the Turkish boundary, and expelled 36,000 others to Turkey. The goal of the massacre at Khodjaly was obviously to eliminate the Turkic presence (human and architectural) in the Azerbaijani territories invaded by Armenia—it was done against the Muslim majority of Zangazur in 1918-1920 and against the Muslim minority around Yerevan at the same time. The Armenian nationalism not only implies expansionism, but elimination of the Turkics, Jews, etc.—as well as Armenians who refuse racism.
First, you must understand that fighting the allegation of “Armenian genocide” is a full part of your fight for the knowledge of the tragedies you suffered (in Khodjaly and elsewhere). The “genocide” label and even more the Manichean use of this inaccurate word by the Armenian nationalists are the core of a fictional account, where the Armenians are always victims. Therefore, all Manicheism, all tendentious simplification have to be fought in this regard. Then, you have to spread the most impartial, the most incontrovertible sources and studies in the international academia and medias — which means a long-term work with the editors, scholars, journalists, etc.: Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to present valuable argument to be published when you fight racist fanatics who never hesitate to use terrorism. In all cases, never forget the legal action: the Chiragov v. Armenia decision of the European Court of Human Rights was a major success, and the cancelation by the French justice of the charts signed by municipalities with towns of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are important as well. There is no reason to stop now on the legal field.
by ELNUR ENVEROGLU
Journalist, Editor-in-Chief at Eurasia Diary
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
