Most Helpful Customer Reviews
71 of 91 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Rightful intentions, wrongful neutrality, May 13, 2003
The book represents independent, comprehensive and up-to-date research of one of the most disastrous modern wars in the Caucasus region. It can definitely serve as a good reference point for anybody who is interested in the post-Soviet development of South Caucasus countries. Numerous references, original interviews with top officials of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey and other courtiers offer an invaluable piece of information, which could not be found anywhere else. At the same time, however, the book has single but fundamental flaw. Apparently, in pursue of not being accused of siding with either party of this conflict, the Author obstinately balances the "pro-Armenian" and "pro-Azeri" facts with each other in order to create some facade of neutrality. In most of the cases it is expressed in improper comparisons, putting accents on incomparably important aspects of the conflict and sometimes even bringing about unchecked (if not dubious) information in order to counterbalance the well-known facts. As a result the truth is often obscured, hidden or even compromised. After all, the reality is much more uneven than 50-50 formula adopted in the "Black Garden...". First of all, one of the greatest misleading simplifications (hopefully, not intentional) is equalization of Turkey-Azerbaijan with the Russia-Armenia ties. Turkey-Armenia relationship can only be wished to be better. Turkey spends millions of dollars every year to deny the fact of 1915 Genocide. It refuses to have any diplomatic relationships with Yerevan; it keeps the land border locked damaging badly Armenian economy, and sometimes even retreats to open bullying of Armenia. Meanwhile Russian-Azerbaijani ties, even at the worst point, included diplomatic, economic and military aspects (e.g. Gabala radar station). Today Russians' attitude to Azeris is hardly less favorable than to Armenians. The Russian president Vladimir Putin in a friendly gesture (rarely ever made to others) is planning to attend Azeri president's birthday party. Russian oil companies have heavy share in developing Azeri oil and Russian language, TV and newspapers are still very popular in Azerbaijan. At the same time, the level of Azeri-Turkish relationship is often expressed as "two countries - one nation" by top officials of both countries. Perhaps the most astonishing example of the Author's strictly enforced "complimentary policy" is the chapter covering the pogroms of Armenians in Sumgait. Apparently, he considered the section - for obvious reasons - too "pro-Armenian". In order to somehow "neutralize" such impression, he went as far as trying to console Azeris by citing cases of similar atrocities committed by other nations widely recognized as civilized, such as English. As if it wasn't enough to "smooth away the differences" between the sides, the Author, in another part of the book referring to the same timeframe, quotes the "study" made by an Azeri about scores of Azeri victims of pogroms on the territory of Armenia. This information, never confirmed by any independent source, seems highly doubtful since in 1988, under relatively well-organized Soviet Government, it was practically impossible to violently kill 127 people without any trace in official statistics. Although throughout the book the Author seems to be very reluctant to rely on information given exclusively by either side of the conflict, in the above part - evidently to "balance" Azeri pogroms of Armenians - he decided to depart from this logic. Less significantly, but equally unfair is "matching" of Ziya Buniatov and Zori Balayan. The first "discovered" and propagated a completely bogus (as the Author confirms himself) theory of Karabakh being historically Azeri land belonging centuries ago to "Caucasian Albania" - and consequently Armenians being only guests there. Today this theory is still the moral foundation of Azeri side of the conflict, thus Buniatov's role in instilling the hatred over Armenians is indeed tremendous. In turn, Zori Balayan's biggest sins are cited to be connecting dots between the 1915 Genocide and the pogroms in Sumgait, calling Turks "an enemy" (if they are not, then tell me what "enemy" means) and Arax river "Armenian" (which it may be called as it runs not only on Azerbaijan's border, but also on Armenia's). Sometimes it looks like the facts in the book are really stretched to fit each other... Many other examples could follow. Most importantly, however, the Author seems to fail recognizing (or at least to properly illustrating in the book) the significant political, demographic and territorial differences between the sides of the conflict. With the history of narrowly escaping the full physical extermination 88 years ago - Armenians still seem to battle with the same dreadful perspective. Less than three millions of Armenians with 80% of their borders blocked by hostile neighbors since the independence are scrambling to survive in today's eventful reality. It takes looking at the map to understand that any potential change in great powers' stance is prone with the deadliest consequences for Armenians (taking into account that Turks are so much stronger, and still never even apologized for the Genocide of 1915 - who would guarantee Armenians' security?). On the other side are eight millions Azeris - with 15+ millions more in Iran - have open access to the sea, plenty of oil (which seem to have hypnotizing effect on Western democracies, too), and with 60 millions Turkey (the second strongest NATO army in the region) as their staunchest ally. The asymmetry is obvious, and it is impossible to understand the history of Karabakh conflict without recognizing it. Not by coincidence, Andrey Sakharov, the prominent Russian scientist and dissident, a person with huge personal moral authority, was quoted to say "Karabakh is a matter of honor for Azeris, but matter of survival for Armenians". It seems, the Author - who spent so much time studying the history of the region - would agree with such statement, but is very unwilling explicitly acknowledging it in the book. Despite of the above-mentioned weaknesses the book is definitely worth your time and money, especially if you are able to read between the lines, use your judgment and not fall into "all-balancing" trap skillfully set by the Author.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
21 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good book to inform but stumbles from an intricate balancing act, April 15, 2006
This review is from: Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War (Paperback)
Thomas De Waal's book "Black Garden" is one of the first English-language publications on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which began just when the Soviet Union was on its death-knell. With the introduction of perestroika and glasnost by Mikhail Gorbachev, Armenians decided to take advantage of new political freedoms and push and take back Karabakh, peacefully at first and violently when war crept forward from the horizon. De Waal does an interesting job in interviewing both Armenian and Azerbaijani officials and those who (mis)led their respective countries. De Waal also describes the history of the region and debunks a not insignificant number of myths that were created just prior to and during the conflict. However, it is here where his book is mired with slightly stretched facts and unsourced statements, a key factor of De Waal's undoing. He unfortunately concentrates too much of his time giving both sides 50-50 air time to explore controversial issues. For example, when speaking about the 1915 Armenian Genocide and sympathizing for the victims and attending the march in Yerevan, De Waal brings up recent Azeris claims that a genocide had been perpetrated against them by Armenians, giving equality for both without elaborating enough that the Azeris' claims are largely unfounded. The book is strewn with generalizations which are otherwise very difficult to prove: he states that during the Karabakh protests outside Yerevan in February 1988, some Armenians didn't even know where the region was and had simply decided to skip work that day. In some parts of the book, he also seems reluctant to place judgment. Near the end of his book, he states that Armenians felt the issue began in Sumgait, Azerbaijan (the site of a brutal pogrom of Armenians by Azeris) while the Azeris said it began in Khojaly in 1992 (the site of an alleged mass murder of Azeris by Armenian armed forces) and finally, leaves the reader hanging on on the edge of a cliff, not dwelling or at the very least expressing his opinion on it, a habit that is otherwise prevalent in his book. His use of interviews is at times questionable, since it only makes sense that politicians, whether they are Armenian, Russian, or Azeri leaders, or from writers who had slant towards either side (Andrei Sakharov, Thomas Goltz), would seem to convey the viewpoint they feel would serve their interests best. His book also substantially covers many pages of Karabakh's history, from the reign of the Armenian princes in the 12-13th centuries who governed Artsakh (Karabakh) to the protests in Yerevan and Baku (Armenia and Azerbaijan's capitals, respectfully) in 1988 to the peace talks in Key West, Florida in the summer of 2001. But for a book which dwells so much on history, it's unfortunate that he does not make better use of the works by historians and other scholars. Another shortcoming is in De Waal's subtle yet central theme, in that of his constant promulgation that Armenians and Azeris are largely alike and had a good relationship with each other until the conflict began in 1988. I lived in Armenia and have spoken to many Armenians and for the most part, Armenians did not have any extraordinary friendships with them. Perhaps this is true in Baku, Karabakh, or Sumgait but I felt that De Waal inflated this claim in an appreciated effort to mollify both sides in seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict. De Waal makes little effort to emphasize of how a brutally dishonest and racist campaign is undertaken by the Azeri government to this day to smear and criticize Armenians; going so far as equate them to the Nazis and even discredit the history of their existence. His analogies are also lopsided; he rightly castigates the work of the Azeri "historian" Ziya Buniatov for blatant academic dishonesty but then compares his actions to the Glasnost-era Armenian writer Zori Balayan who correctly asserted that Azeris had Turkic heritage. Later on in the book, while he again criticizes the harsh rule Armenians lived under the Azeris, he quickly goes on and (inaccurately) condemns Armenians for enacting the same brutal deeds during the 20th century against the Azeris. Perhaps the most contemptible and unconvincing example that he uses is in the end chapter of the book. De Waal praises the famous 18th century Armenian poet Sayat Nova who supposedly overcame the divide and made peace between not only the Armenians and Azeris, but also the Caucasian Georgians. De Waal admonishes both sides for not taking Nova's example but leaves out the brutal circumstances of his death. In 1795, the invading Iranians, led by the Muslim leader Agha Mohammed Khan, demanded that Sayat Nova convert to Islam. Nova was a Christian and refused to do so and hence, was promptly executed and beheaded. Nevertheless, it is a welcoming gesture to bridge the divide between two peoples which have been at war for almost twenty years and De Waal should be commended for writing the book and my own misgivings shouldn't preclude someone from reading it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
So far the best book written on "Black Garden"..., May 15, 2003
By A Customer
Unlike many previously written texts on the Karabakh conflict, I have to admit that Thomas de Waal has retained a very neutral view of the issue expressing views of both conflicting parties. I am Azerbaijani student in the USA. Thomas has clearly revealed many issues about our so called "enemies" Armenians, their views, beliefs and worries, of which I had only a blurry view. Any foreign author, who considers the Karabakh subject important enough to write a book on it, often ends up with a very biased composition in his hand. Thomas de Waal has managed to do what, not every passionate writer could; stay thrilled by the subject, meanwhile baring a very neutral position with a hint of insignificance. I had not heard of Sayat-Nova, which the author quoted in the book. Throughout the book there were moments of grief for my own people and for those across the border. As a young son of Azerbaijan, often exploding with nationalistic thoughts like "we will win back our lands", after reading this book, will need to start considering what Sting sang in "Russians": "There is no such thing as a winnable WAR,
It is a lie we (Europeans) don't believe anymore"
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
