User:Golbez/Nagorno-Karabakh

That the Armenian-Azerbaijani fight on Wikipedia is a pointless exercise in pointless nationalism is, by now, accepted to be simple fact. This is not up for debate. And when reverting an Armenian's (and note that my statement does not denote an assumption of ethnicity/nationality/race, but merely allegiance) move of the Heyvali article, out of procedure, despite being told I'm biased in their favor, I realized something.

First, I knew already that I was always annoyed by the pointless bickering. The Azeri bloc tends to use fanciful, nonsensical arguments regarding the situation, basically towing the Baku line, as if Aliyev was the single arbiter of truth. They often do so while vandalizing; I would say that about 80% of the IP vandalism on Nagorno-Karabakh-related articles come from IPs that resolve to Baku. Whereas the Armenian bloc tends to use more subtle techniques - a sly move here, a revert there. There's vandalism, but it's not nearly as blatant and annoying.

And after this latest move, I realized that one side in this whole fight has not been represented: That of the Karabakhis.

When I mentioned "Karabakhis", a member of the Azeri bloc said, "What Karabakhis?", as if all that exist are Armenians and Azerbaijanis. But I see a hundred thirty thousand people who have been shunned by the entire world. On the one side, supposed brothers who leave them in isolation, ostensibly to fend for themselves. On the other side, a country that, despite signing a cease fire accord with the very people it despises, continues to rattle its saber, and whose supporters believe in it so strongly that, somehow, they believe those 130,000 people don't even exist.

Azerbaijan claims land they haven't set foot on without violence in 20 years, and constantly prattles about how they will own it once again. Armenia claims to be their friends, but has neither annexed nor recognized them; it's a strange relationship. If they were truly their friends, why keep them separate and hidden?

If Armenia cared, they would take one for the team, so to speak, and recognize Karabakh independence.

If Azerbaijan cared, they either would not have signed the cease fire to begin with (giving up on its citizens for two long decades), or it would certainly have done more to resolve the problem rather than just sit back and whine, taking advantage of its oil riches to prevent the world from disagreeing.

Even the terms "de facto" and "de jure" have been co-opted. The republic is de facto independent, and has remained fundamentally unharassed by Azerbaijan for two decades. But, it is said to be de jure part of Azerbaijan. De jure by whose law? Azeri? The Commonwealth of Independent States? The United Nations? God? And, if the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have lived peacefully with their chosen government for twenty years, does that not lend to the government being a de jure power, of its own people at the very least? Do the terms even have any meaning at this point?

It is a legitimate discussion to have: Who can name a city? A government hundreds of miles away that exercises no power over the city, and cannot even dictate what name is written on its signs saying "Welcome", or the people in it? Obviously Azerbaijan can name the city anything it wants, but without the will to back up their assertion, it has as much weight as Germany deciding what to name Paris. But what makes the government of a city illegitimate? A government is just people, and what can make people illegitimate? Their race? Their religion? Their fate for being born on a particular side of an imaginary line?

If Azerbaijan were truly unhappy with the situation, they would correct it. If they never wanted Nagorno-Karabakh to exist, they would never have drawn the line that blessed it. They would have fought on, knowing they were right. Or, they would have yielded like gentlemen.

Do I care about the Azerbaijani point of view in these articles? Almost not at all. That a recognized government makes statements about what it owns notable and should be reflected in articles as the pronunciations of a government, just as we do for stating that the Republic of China thinks it owns Mongolia, and stating that Iran thinks Israel doesn't exist, and that, despite that, it does.

Do I care about the Armenian point of view in these articles? Increasingly less and less. In the past, their argument fit more with reality, at least much more than the Azeri argument, for obvious reasons - it was based on reality, rather than the empty statements of a distant government.

I am American, and even moreso than my fellow Americans I have a certain fascination and love for freedom, to the point where my countrymen would call me a libertarian or even an anarchist. (2018 edit: I'm now a pretty hardcore socialist, rather than libertarian, but this principle remains accurate.) This idiotic revanchism, this useless irredentism, means nothing to me. All that matters is people. Were the Azeris driven out twenty, or forty, or a hundred years ago, wronged? Absolutely; those that drive out one group for the advantage of another are never right, even to correct past wrongs. Are the Armenians remaining there being wronged, every day, by denial and threat? Absolutely.

I have come to the conclusion that I am the only one here with a good faith interest, not in the geopolitical conflict, but in the people. They exist. What they are does not matter. I wish for the day when Azeris and Armenians live together in Nagorno-Karabakh, and it will never happen so long as Baku and Yerevan have anything to say about it.

Am I neutral in the conflict? Absolutely. I have no ties to either side. I am biased only in favor of the truth, and since that truth tends to side more with one side than the other, I am accused of being non-neutral. But that makes no sense - Truth is truth. That one side chooses to espouse a view that is not backed up by truth doesn't make my stance less neutral. Neutrality is about finding fact, not about finding a middle ground between a somewhat reasonable point of view and an unreasonable point of view. All that matters is reason.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, there has existed a wholly unrecognized republic of 130,000 people for twenty years. This simple fact is indisputable, yet multiple Azeri editors continue to dispute it, claiming that the republic is not notable, or illegal, or that it is a figment in the imagination of Armenians. And, likewise, Armenians respond to Baku's dreams and fantasies with their own rhetoric. Truly, Azerbaijan has had no power in the area for twenty years, but that doesn't change the fact that, geopolitically, it is still part of Azerbaijan. So both sides must be represented, but - and this comes back to my libertarianism - geopolitics, being fundamentally false constructions (a line in the sand is rarely natural), must take a back seat to the reality on the ground.

And that reality is there are 130,000 people who live in a limbo imposed upon them by their brothers and enemies.

A pox upon both your houses.

To have any of the stalwart partisans accuse me of bias towards one side or the other is all the proof I need that I am right.

If I must claim a bias, it is solely to the unrepresented.