Cultural Genocide in Julfa

Stones evidenced about nation that lived there before azeries, and they decide destroy everything that can remind about armenian culture.

Thursday, June 17, 2010
















16th General Assembly of ICOMOS
Quebec, Canada
30 September – 4 October 2008
RESOLUTIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

Composition of the Committee - President: Werner von Trützschler (Germany); Rapporteur: Joan Domicelj (Australia); Members: Beverley Crouts-Knipe (South Africa), Francois Leblanc (Canada), Michèle
Prats (France), Ruth Shady Solis (Peru), Jordi Tresseras (Spain).
A. CURRENT ISSUES

5. The destruction of the historic cemetery of Jugha (Autonomous Republic of Nachitchevan, Azerbaijan).

One of the famous Armenian sites, Jugha, was the hub of commerce and crafts since historic times.
In the 15th and 16th centuries it was recognized as a center of vernacular architecture, epigraphy, writing, the processing of precious stones and tapestry. The historic cemetery of Jugha, as one of the outstanding examples of historic monuments, was composed of tens of thousands of khatchkars (cross stones) that bore witness to the talent of construction and to the artistic skill of the master masons of Jugha.
Given that in recent years the historic and cultural heritage has suffered from wars, conflicts and
political tensions, this heritage that once enjoyed its worthy place among the treasures of the
world's heritage can no longer be transmitted today to future generations,
Considering that despite international efforts in heritage protection, and particularly the measures taken by ICOMOS in the field of World Heritage in Danger, as recommended by the 15th General Assembly of ICOMOS on the protection of cultural heritage outside borders,With the aim of preventing that such events are repeated, the 16th General Assembly of ICOMOS,
meeting in Quebec, Canada, in October 2008 resolves to:
  • Draw the attention of the Azerbaijani authorities, as a State Party to the Convention on the
Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, to the destruction of the Jugha cemetery and to transmit to them the concern of the international community of conservation experts,
  • Ask the Azerbaijani authorities to facilitate the access of an expert delegation from UNESCO and/or ICOMOS in order to study the site and inform the international community of the results.
http://ecovast.ru/images/Canada/GA_08Resolutions.pdf

Friday, June 11, 2010


Parliamentary questions
29 April 2010
E-2867/10
WRITTEN QUESTION by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
Subject: Destruction of Armenian heritage in Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan has been a member of Unesco since June 1992. Moreover, the EU has had a partnership and cooperation agreement with Azerbaijan since 1999.

In Julfa, in the province of Nakhchivan (Yernjak district) is a centuries-old Armenian cemetery. Even though the province has been annexed by Azerbaijan, Armenians have lived there for centuries and are also buried there.

In November 1998 the Azerbaijani authorities began destroying the cemetery. Unesco was able to halt this vandalism only temporarily. In 2005 the cemetery was virtually destroyed. Historically important headstones were broken up manually and mechanically and used as building material. At the beginning of March 2006 the whole area became a military site. Changing the use of a former cemetery containing thousands of human remains shows a lack of moral scruple by the Azerbaijani authorities.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? Is the Commission considering taking action in the framework of the cooperation agreement and asking for an explanation in Azerbaijan? Is the Commission willing to urge the Azerbaijani authorities to restore this heritage site (for example by reopening the site to the public and placing a memorial)? What action can and will be taken so that such incidents do not happen again in the future?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+WQ+E-2010-2867+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN

Thursday, June 10, 2010

CULTURAL DIVERSITY
AND HUMAN RIGHTS


ARTICLE 4 Human rights as guarantees
of cultural diversity
The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope.

ARTICLE 7 Cultural heritage
as the wellspring of creativity


Creation draws on the roots of cultural tradition, but flourishes in contact with other cultures. For this reason, heritage in all its forms must be preserved, enhanced and handed on to future generations as a record of human experience and aspirations, so as to foster creativity in all its diversity and to inspire genuine dialogue among cultures.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf
“The cultural wealth of the world
is its diversity in dialogue”

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity was adopted unanimously in a most unusual context. It came in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001, and the UNESCO General Conference, which was meeting for its 31st session, was the first ministerial-level meeting to be held after those terrible events. It was an opportunity for States to reaffirm their conviction that intercultural dialogue is the best guarantee of peace and to reject outright the theory of the inevitable clash of cultures and civilizations. Such a wide-ranging instrument is a first for the international community.
It raises cultural diversity to the level of “the common heritage of humanity”, “as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature” and makes its defence an ethical imperative indissociable from respect for the dignity of the individual.
The Declaration aims both to preserve cultural diversity as a living, and thus renewable treasure that must not be perceived as being unchanging heritage but as a process guaranteeing the survival of humanity; and to prevent segregation and fundamentalism which, in the name of cultural differences, would sanctify those differences and so counter the message of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration makes it clear that each individual must acknowledge not only otherness in all its forms but also the plurality of his or her own identity, within societies that are themselves plural.
Only in this way can cultural diversity be preserved as an adaptive process and as a capacity for expression, creation and innovation. The debate between those countries which would like to defend cultural goods and services “which, as vectors of identity, values and meaning, must not be treated as mere commodities or consumer goods”, and those which would hope to promote cultural rights has thus been surpassed, with the two approaches brought together by the Declaration, which has highlighted the causal link uniting two complementary attitudes.
One cannot exist without the other.The Declaration, accompanied by the main lines of an action plan, can be an outstanding tool for development, capable of humanizing globalization.
Of course, it lays down not instructions but general guidelines to be turned into ground-breaking policies by Member States in their specific contexts, in partnership with the private sector and civil society.
This Declaration, which sets against inward-looking fundamentalism the prospect of a more open, creative and democratic world, is now one of the founding texts of the new ethics promoted by UNESCO in the early twenty-first century. My hope is that one day it may acquire the same force as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Koïchiro Matsuura
Director-General


http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf

Wednesday, June 9, 2010








Surviving Khachkars from Djulfa.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Cultural genocide

Cultural genocide refers to the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons.

Article 7 of a 1994 draft of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples uses the phrase "cultural genocide" but does not define what it means. The complete article reads as follows:

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.

Cultural advocates have leveled charges of "cultural genocide" in connection with various events:

  • In 2007, a Canadian Member of Parliament criticized the Ministry of Indian Affairs' destruction of documents regarding the treatment of First Nations members as "cultural genocide."
  • The destruction by Azerbaijan of thousands of medieval Armenian gravestones at a cemetery in Julfa, and Azerbaijan's subsequent denial that the site had ever existed, has been widely written about as being an example of cultural genocide.
  • When Turkey's Minister of Cultural Affairs re-opened the medieval Armenian Aghtamar church in eastern Anatolia as a museum, critics objected to the use of its Turkified name, seeing in it a denial of the region's Armenian heritage and as a sort of "cultural genocide".

Tuesday, June 1, 2010


Sacred Stones Silenced in Azerbaijan


When, in the summer of 2005, Scottish researcher Steven Sim visited the region of Nakhichevan, an exclave of the South Caucasus republic of Azerbaijan, in order to study medieval Armenian monuments, he found out his trip was in vain — there was nothing there for him to research. After being detained and questioned by security police, Sim was asked why he expected Armenian Christian churches in a region where only Muslims lived. A villager, too, told him Armenians had never lived in Nakhichevan. When the researcher explained that a book had directed him to the ancient Armenian church in the village, an old man blasted out words in what Sim thought was German. The translator explained that the man was talking to him in Armenian, apparently to see if Sim was an Armenian spy. Knowing Armenian in a place where no Armenians ever lived seemed too awkward.

But Sim did not confront Azeris in Nakhichevan about history. Neither did he resist orders to put his camera away in a military zone at the Azerbaijani-Iranian border when his train was passing by world’s largest surviving Armenian medieval cemetery — Djulfa (Jugha in Armenian). Sim might have done otherwise if he knew back then he was going to be the last known outsider in this remote area — on the border with Iran — to glance at the thousands of sacred and beautifully handcrafted khachkars (literally, cross-stones) — up to eight feet tall burial monuments with intricately carved surfaces — before they were going to be reduced to dust in less than half a year.

More than 350 years ago, a foreign traveller to Djulfa estimated 10,000 khachkars in the cemetery. By 1998, less than eight decades after a Soviet agreement with Turkey placed Nakhichevan under Azerbaijan, there were only 2,000 remaining. Still, the surviving stones were stunning and irreplaceable, and a screaming statement to the aged presence of the Armenian people in Nakhichevan who were forced to leave their ancestral homes as Azerbaijan took over. Archaeology Magazine writes, ‘The oldest burials in the Djulfa cemetery … date to the sixth century AD, but most of the famed khachkars are from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.’ According to the International Council on Monuments and Sites, the Azeri authorities destroyed much of the cemetery in 1998 and in 2002 followed by limited international protest. But as late as August 2005, as Sim witnessed, Djulfa was not entirely wiped out. He says that ‘most of the stones were still there and had only been toppled’.

On December 15th, 2005, Russia’s Regnum News Agency was the first international outlet to quote reports of approximately ‘100 Azerbaijani servicemen … crush[ing] Armenian graves and crosses ….’ An Armenian film crew in northern Iran, where the cemetery was visible from, had videotaped dozens of men in uniforms in the Azerbaijani border hacking the khachkars down with sledgehammers, using a crane to remove some of the largest monuments from the ground, breaking the stones into small pieces, and dumping them into the River Araxes by a large truck. The destruction, which also amounted to desecration of Armenian remains beneath the stones, had reportedly started on December 14th and lasted for a few days giving the world media enough time to report it as it was happening. But it was not until April 2006 when Azeri journalists from the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting confirmed that the cemetery had vanished. The Times reflected on April 21st, ‘[a] medieval cemetery regarded as one of the wonders of the Caucasus has been erased from the Earth in an act of cultural vandalism likened to the Taleban blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.’

While the bombing of the Bamiyan Buddhas had received worldwide coverage at the eve of the war on terror, the destruction of Djulfa was barely noticed. The only Associated Press article quoted Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev as denying the demolition report as ‘an absolute lie, slanderous information, a provocation’ and accusing Armenia of destroying Azeri monuments. The US administration’s response to the vandalism came only after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her assistants were asked about America’s reaction. While in her reply to a US legislator Rice urged Azerbaijan to ‘take appropriate measures to prevent any desecration of cultural monuments,’ her assistant Matthew Bryza said at a news conference it was ‘not really up to the United States to take steps to stop it’ because it was ‘happening in a foreign country’. Thomas de Waal, an expert on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations says, ‘Foreign investors and diplomats in Azerbaijan are very sensitive towards anything that touches on the Armenian-Azerbaijani issue and the peace process and are therefore very timid about raising the issue of the destruction of cultural monuments.’

Although, today, Armenia’s victory in the war with Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh in the early 1990s is understood generally to be the reason for Djulfa’s destruction, the concern for Azerbaijan’s Armenian heritage has its roots in the beginning of the unresolved conflict itself. One reason for Karabakh’s breakaway from Azerbaijan, writes security analyst Emmanuel Karagiannis, was the fear ‘that the Armenian character of Karabakh would disappear as it had in Nakhichevan over the decades. The Armenian population in Nakhichevan had all but disappeared and Armenian monuments there were systematically removed and reportedly destroyed by the Azerbaijani authorities.’ The assertion that Nakhichevan’s native Armenian heritage has been completely cleansed is indirectly affirmed by Azeri officials. Hasan Zeynalov from Nakhichevan, for instance, has told the BBC, ‘Armenians have never lived in Nakhichevan, which has been Azerbaijani land from time immemorial, and that’s why there are no Armenian cemeteries and monuments and have never been any.’

Azerbaijan’s denial of Djulfa’s destruction followed by refusal to allow international observers to visit the cemetery site questions the effectiveness of a number of international laws. While a February 16th, 2006, European Parliament resolution condemning Djulfa’s demolition provided a list of international conventions violated by Azerbaijan, the vandalism was not mentioned in the US State Department’s 2006 International Religious Freedom Report on Azerbaijan released on September 15th, 2006. Identical to the wording of at least five-year-old reports, the State Department proclaimed that ‘all Armenian churches, many of which were damaged in ethnic riots that took place more than a decade ago, remained closed.’ Even outside Nakhichevan the statement did not reflect actuality. A church in central Azerbaijan’s Nizh village, for instance, was reopened in early 2006 for the Udi Christian minority after a publicized restoration eliminated the Armenian letters on church walls and nearby tombstones.

Today’s screamers to Djulfa’s lost treasure are the handful of surviving sacred stones that are scattered around the world similar to the forgotten Armenian exiles of Nakhichevan. These few khachkars were transferred from the cemetery before the 1990s and are found today in the yard of Armenia’s St Etchmiadzin Holy See, at the Hermitage Museum of St Petersburg and other places. Once medieval Armenia’s largest cemetery and rich with thousands of khachkars only years ago, the sacred graveyard of Djulfa has been erased and replaced, as March 2006 and later photographs testily, with a military rifle range.

Excerpts from Simon Maghakyan’s “Sacred Stones Silenced in Azerbaijan” article in History Today Magazine, November 2007. The full article is available at Britannica Online Encyclopædia.