“A Journey Through Modern Karabagh” by Dr. Hewsen

Chris Tozlian
Staff Writer

Last semester, Dr. Robert Hewsen was appointed as the Kazan Visiting Professor for the Armenian Studies Program at Fresno State. In his brief time in Fresno, he has delivered four lectures to the public, with his most recent, on March 19th, dealing with the current status of Karabagh.

Dr. Hewsen graduated from Georgetown University in the late 1960’s and went on to post-graduate work that focused on Armenia and the Caucasus. He first traveled to Armenia in 1969; while there, he did research for his graduate advisor, and since then, he has had a “special place” in his heart for Karabagh. Specifically, he is deeply fascinated with the ongoing Azeri-Armenian conflict over Karabagh.

Dr. Hewsen has traveled to Armenia numerous times since 1969; his most recent trip was in October 2000. While in Armenia, he was able to visit both of the major towns (considered cities) in Karabagh, Stepanakert and Shushi. He was also able to visit the Armenian monasteries in Karabagh and the only university in Karabagh. Dr. Hewsen outlined for his audience an overview of the geography (as seen in his travels.) After giving a brief background about Karabagh he spoke about the prevalent political issues that are currently affecting this self-declared Republic.
In 1991, Karabagh declared its independence from the ailing USSR. However, this bold political move offended Azerbaijan, which, in turn, battled with the independence-driven Armenians of Karabagh for almost three years, until a cease-fire was declared in May 1994. Dr. Hewsen explained that the years of Azeri-Armenian conflict had destroyed many of the small villages, as well as both Stepanakert and Shushi. Reconstruction was still taking place to repair war-torn areas when Dr. Hewsen returned to Karabagh.

The first buildings that were built after the fighting stopped, and which are still being built, are churches. Dr. Hewsen explained that there is a positive psychological effect on the Armenian people when they see churches being constructed. Not only does it encourage the imagery of permanent residence in Karabagh by Armenians, but it also draws their attention to the reality that they were battling a people who disagreed with them both politically and religiously. The building of churches offers hope and comfort to those who have lost loved ones or homes during the fighting. It also serves as a healing tool for the Armenian people.

Dr. Hewsen then turned his attention to the debate over the status of Karabagh and went on to explain why he believes that the Armenians within Karabagh will not give up their control of the land. Dr. Hewsen began by pointing out that the Armenians are spending money building new roads. He also pointed out that Armenia is partially stimulating the Karabagh economy and that the Armenian government is currently paying Armenians to relocate from Armenia to Karabagh. Finally, on October 3, 2000, all of Karabagh’s district names were changed to Armenian names. When observing this list of examples of Armenian involvement within Karabagh, it is evident that the Armenians not only consider this land to be theirs, but also will fight to retain ownership of it.
Dr. Hewsen spoke of the possible solutions regarding the Azeri-Armenian dispute over Karabagh. While possible solutions include giving the land to either Azerbaijan or Armenia, this solution would anger the non-recipient nation. The “American solution” has also been proposed: this would give Armenia the Karabagh region, but it would give to Azerbaijan the southern border region of Armenia; this proposal would also displease both sides.

Others have suggested giving Karabagh autonomy, but within the administrative structure of Azerbaijan; this has also been unacceptable to the Armenians of Karabagh. Another possible solution is the “Cyprus solution,” which will allow the Karabagh situation to remain as is, perhaps leading only to more fighting and bloodshed. The only commonality between these proposed solutions is that they would not solve the current debate over Karabagh.

However, a plausible and positive solution called the “Endoran solution” has been suggested, which would give Karabagh its autonomy and the ability to dictate its own actions in domestic affairs; this solution would allow for Azeri and Armenian involvement within Karabagh’s foreign affairs. Many feel that the “Endoran solution” is the fairest solution and that it will bring a long-needed peace to the region. Others, however, look to this proposal with pessimism, unable to trust either the Armenians or the Azeris to stay out of the Karabagh’s domestic affairs.

Overall, Dr. Hewsen’s discussion was both informative and intriguing, bringing greater clarity to the issue of the Karabagh for all who attended.