07 May 2007
Baroness Caroline Cox of Queensbury is a member of the British Parliament and is often labeled a "human rights activist," instead of what she really is: a "Christian advocate." In order to qualify as a human rights activist, one needs to love all humans without discrimination. If one designates one human as worthier than another, and especially by hurting the rights of the other, one is better called a "racist." Not to say some human rights advocates and organizations don't have noble goals in mind... but they have no idea of the harm they are causing, sacrificing the integrity of the cause they supposedly believe in, when they allow their prejudices to take a front seat.
Let's take a look at Baroness Cox, and her level of shameless partisanship.
Baroness Cox is often lauded for giving "a voice to those neglected by the worldwide media and other aid organizations in countries like Sudan, Burma, Timor and Sri Lanka"; she is called "A Voice for the Voiceless." No doubt there have been times when the neglected have been championed by her (if they mainly happened to be Christian, at any rate), but if we take just one example — her blind support for the Armenians — what she becomes is a voice for the loudest voices around. (That "moniker" derives from the title of her biography, "which details the humanitarian work she undertook before and after Armenia's conflict with Azerbaijan in the early 90s," as the article directly below put it.)
The March 5, 2003 "This is Local London" article by Joseph O'Shea lays this facet about her on the line, in an article entitled, "Baroness Cox makes Mary’s (80th) birthday bash a heroic affair"; we are informed she "is deputy speaker of the House of Lords, but is best known for her humanitarian work in securing medicine and supplies for war-torn regions, and campaigning for justice for victims of the Armenian genocide." How appropriate that Cox's advocacy of Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause, would be up on the list of what she is famous for.
This is another typically distorted article blindly following the path of propaganda, and here the angle is on Cox's making "one Armenian exile's dream come true by dropping in to join her birthday celebrations." But note: the "exile," Mary Hagopian, was born "in 1923 in a town called Diarbekir in Armenia." Never mind that Diyarbakir was Turkish for centuries and still is, and not a part of "Armenia"... concentrate on the fact that she was born in Turkey in 1923, after the relocation (the genocidists' synonym for genocide, which Vahakn Dadrian himself tells us had all but run its course in 1916.) Even this stupid article "sort of" confirms that the "genocide" was long over by 1923: "Aged three, Mary and her sister Malika fled with their father to escape the persecution and ethnic cleansing that saw over a million Armenians driven to their deaths between 1915 and 1916." (Perhaps Mr. O'Shea, crack reporter, sensed something was amiss, so he added, "But Turkish persecution of Armenians continued in the 1920s and Mary's father ... took his family to Palestine," with "Leading historian" Christopher Walker adding for good effect that "...She was lucky to escape.")
Can we pick out all of the stupidities? (And let's put aside the usual ones like "over a million Armenians" dead.) (1) Mary was not "aged three" in 1915-16 when she "fled," not when we are told she was born in 1923; the tricky structure of this sentence makes it seem as though 1915-16 conditions were no different than 1923, (2) If Mary's family was in Turkey in 1923, and her father decided to mosey on away in 1926, we don't call that "exile." We call that "choice." The Armenian Patriarch himself tells us there were some 645,000 Armenians left in what was left of the Ottoman Empire as late as 1921. The ones who left chose to leave at this point (or felt they had to leave with their French allies, for the terrible crimes they had committed, as in "Cilicia.") (3) Turkey had its hands full in the early 1920s kicking out enemies intent on Turkey's extinction, and had no resources to commit to the "persecution of Armenians." Armenia provoked a war (an "irrefutable fact" according to its own Prime Minister) and got whupped; is that what this excuse for a journalist means by "persecution"? (Of course; every time the Armenians attack, and later suffer the consequences, they must always be presented as the poor lambs who get picked on.)
Baroness Cox with the birthday girl
Everywhere one turns, there are these dishonorably mindless "genocide" articles with absolutely no consideration for the facts. The main reason is prejudice... the kind of prejudice Baroness Cox unfortunately fosters. (What exactly was newsworthy here? The elderly Armenian was not an exile. Why did "the well-known human rights campaigner Baroness Cox" pay Mary "a surprise visit," as crack reporter O'Shea informs us? Why, because son Frank wrote that Mary was a fan, and thus Cox felt (as quoted) that "It was worth going that extra mile to visit her and pay my respects to the people of Armenia." (Not to mention the nice little photo opportunity that comes with championing a "persecuted" person, such as Mary... who was "lucky to escape" what must have been certain death in 1926.)
Cox has no consideration for the 2.5 million Turks and Muslims who died, mainly as a result of famine (which claimed the bulk of the lives of most Armenians, regardless of what "historian" Christopher Walker implies — he's really a journalist, not far removed from the inspired example of fact checking Joseph O'Shea), a famine her nation helped significantly cause with Great Britain's naval blockade at the time. Half a million were killed at the hands of murderous Armenians (as even a British colonel, Wooley, came close to estimating: 300,000-400,000 in two Ottoman districts alone — Bitlis being one, practically next door to Mary's Diyarbakir). Regardless of the considerable role her nation played in these deaths (Britain was one of the three imperialistic nations that spurred the Armenians, whom the Armenians made no secret of being allied with; if the Armenians were not goaded by Britain and the other powers into betraying their nation, there would have been no relocation, or "genocide"), Cox only cares for the Armenians. You read it above: she is going out of her way to honor her selective victims, the "people of Armenia," instead of being a true humanitarian, valuing life without prejudice.
Is Caroline Cox a true Christian?
Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) is, as its site tells us in the "Who We Are" page: "A human rights organisation specialising in religious freedom. CSW works on behalf of those persecuted for their Christian beliefs and promotes religious liberty for all."
If this organization were truly for "religious freedom," they would strive to "promote religious liberty for all" by not choosing a particular religion. They don't want to come straight out and say that they are entirely a Christian advocacy group — nothing wrong with that — and they would rather fudge the issue by appearing "democratic." Already we must wonder about the honesty of such an organization. Not only do we expect real Christians to be upfront, but a real Christian does not discriminate, particularly when presenting oneself as a "human rights" advocate:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3.28)
In their "Prayer Diary" section, under "Christians in the Middle East," we are told that "Christians based in the Middle East face a range of difficulties, from the stigma attached to conversion to losing homes and property during conflicts. Pray that Christians would be a beacon of God’s light in what can be desperate situations." Aren't the described problems rather universal in the Middle East? They don't care about the non-Christians, which again is fine, but why present a deceptive picture otherwise? Why not observe what they say they ought to be observing, on their own "About CSW" page:
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
At any rate, the beef isn't with this organization that is pulling a fast one with its tricky descriptions. What we want to see if Caroline Cox (who was described in several Armenian sites as CSW's "president," seconded by sources such as World Magazine's Dec 3 2004 article, "Baroness for battle": "Danger is a steady diet for the president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide"; the CSW site lists her under "partners," and perhaps she was a president at one time. Regardless, this faithful believer is obviously a strong part of the set-up) follows the above code of religious ethics. Does she speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of the destitute? Does she judge fairly, and defend the rights of the poor and needy? (That would be all the poor and needy, as poverty does not discriminate among religions.)
"Islam is not inherently a religion of peace"
Baroness Cox, World Magazine (a publication for "factual accuracy and biblical objectivity" and dependent on God") cover story, Dec 3, 2004. Some might say the balance sheet of those who began wars of aggression in the last few centuries paints a different picture. Take, for example, the "first Christian nation on earth," Armenia. Responsible for three wars as soon as the nation formed in 1918, and one soon after gaining independence.
"Troubled that killings by Armenians and Greeks did not get into the American press, the admiral [Bristol] wondered in his diary, 'Why aren't the atrocities committed by a Christian nation more heinous than those committed by Moslem races', if Christianity is better than Islam? '" Joseph L. Grabill, "Protestant Diplomacy & the Near East," 1991, p. 264.
It seems whenever there is a positive word about Muslims, Ms. Cox will be there to slap it down. An Oct. 29-30, 2006 article in the Telegraph scorns the nation's deputy prime minister for pointing out religious tolerance in Malaysia, something he should not have done because of the country's "crumbling human rights record." (Good old human rights people again, always critical when their worthier humans could get better treatment, not caring for the rest.) The article was immediately reproduced by the delightfully Islamophobic "Jihad Watch," and the main voice of opposition to the deputy prime minister (John Prescott, described in the article as "lampooned as a lost soul, bumbling around the Far East with his retinue of aides in search of a purpose") was criticized by our own "human rights" activist, Baroness Cox.
Surely Malaysia is no utopia, although the nation is regarded in the West as "moderate," as far as its Islamic ills. Sometimes, however, it makes sense to emphasize the factual good, particularly when other nations Malaysia may be compared to are not as good. This way we hope to encourage the good to continue on a good and hopefully better path, instead of always criticizing, which will only encourage the bad elements from growing stronger.
Forget about sensibility from this partisan politician with a cause, however; Cox (identified in the article as a "human rights campaigner") slammed Prescott's praise as "gratuitously misleading," adding "There is a great deal of religious discrimination. Christians there are finding that human rights and religious rights are crumbling away."
Doesn't it make the humanitarians among us bristle when she singles out the "Christians"? Surely there must be some truth in what she is saying, but is it only the "Christians" whose human rights are affected? Of course not. Ms. Cox, however, does not care about speaking for the rights of the others, those who cannot speak for themselves.
A main factor that motivated a Southern Baptist like Samuel Weems, author of "Armenia: Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," to expose the chicanery of the Armenians is that Weems was outraged over the lack of religious freedom in Armenia, now some 98% "pure," according to the CIA Fact Book. They massacred the Muslims soon after the Republic was open for business in 1918, and frightened the rest into leaving (same M.O. as in 1992 Karabakh: Muslims formed a slight majority in this region not long before and a major majority in the early 1800s), they killed off the ancient Jewish presence, and showed a tremendous intolerance to non-Christians.. But what must have outraged Weems in particular is that "Any Christian denomination, other than the official state-church, is subjected to harassment and violence if they attempt to practice their individual-independent faiths in Armenia... there is little room for any other view of Christ but theirs." (Pg. 360-61, along with plenty of other examples of restricted freedoms, such as a lack of free press and corruption of the court and election systems... what Rep. Adam Schiff must have had in mind when he found this dictatorship "consistent with American values," as you'll be reading below.)
Ironically, if "Good Christian" Baroness Cox were to actually live in her beloved Armenia and tried to practice her non-Gregorian form of Christianity, she might find Malaysia's level of tolerance like a Shangri-La, in comparison.
No Secret: In Line with Armenians
The "Office of of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" page is batty for Ms. Cox, in a September 30, 2005 press release (emphasis below is Holdwater's):
Lady Cox poses with ANCA's Aram Hamparian
and NKR Rep. Vardan Barseghian, at center
Members of Congress and leading human rights activist, British House of Lords Vice-Speaker Baroness Caroline Cox, joined together on Capitol Hill September 28 to mark the 14th anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic’s (NKR/Artsakh) independence.
Now this page cannot make a justice-seeker any sicker. Armenians stirred trouble (that is, they fired the first shot, as they are famously known for doing) in 1987, expelling some 4,000 Azeris in 1987. Sent to Sumgait, a powder keg was created, and some Armenians were even killed by fellow Armenians. Naturally, Armenian propaganda points to Sumgait as an example of aggression against Armenians, neglecting that the violence would have never taken place if not for the actions of the Armenians.
Karabakh's Armenians filtered in beginning circa 1828 to their "ancient homeland," the result of Russian conquests, and Russian plans to fill up the neighborhood with friendly Christians. Karabakh was the territory of the Azeris for centuries. Stalin decided to keep it that way in 1923, although Armenian propaganda tells us Karabakh was transferred to Azerbaijan, as though Armenia had owned it previously.
It was Armenia's sneak, cowardly Pearl Harbor-style attack in 1992 (with one billion dollars of Russian military equipment/aid and some manpower, some of which is outlined in a Congressional report, "Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict," IB92109, June 7, 2001, by Carol Migdalovitz, Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Division [Weems, "Armenia," p. 213; the manpower claim is not the thrust of this report, although it says: "Moscow shares Yerevan's distrust of Turkey and reportedly aided the Armenian war effort; the former chief of operations of the Soviet 7th Army in Armenia (a Ukrainian) is Karabakh defense forces' chief of staff." The one billion dollar claim derives mainly from the testimony of Russian General Lev Rokhlin, who was mysteriously murdered afterwards, with the wife taking the rap], along with millions in American taxpayer money, as well as private American aid) that left some 800,000 Azeris homeless, a good number still languishing in refugee centers today. The familiar ethnic cleansing methods and crimes of the Armenians were this time witnessed by the West. (Only to be quickly forgotten. Although Cox's nation was the first European state in 2003 to commemorate the victims of the Khodjaly massacre.) 16% of Azeri territory has been stolen. The war was fought exclusively on Azeri soil, never in Armenia. Armenia has been condemned several times by the U.N.'s Security Council. Armenia is the aggressor here, Azerbaijan the victim. (Even though Armenian-influenced "imperialists" rule over the Minsk Group — led by Russia, France and America — deplorably finding the case to be the reverse.)
The above are the facts. Pure and simple.
So here we have in this article Armenian-supported political sell-outs such as Frank Pallone and Joe Knollenberg, shamelessly making horribly dishonest statements
The Congressional rhyme word for "baloney," Pallone, actually said Karabakh was declared independent "under international law and under Soviet law" and that it "truly is a democracy"— perhaps in the same vein as the Dashnak-controlled motherland that people can't leave fast enough.) Another sell-out, Rep. Adam Schiff of California supported “independence for NKR because," for one thing, it is "consistent with American values" (!!!) and he made sure to cry a Burning Tigris River for the poor, innocent Karabakh Armenians "politically and militarily challenged by Azerbaijan and its powerful ally Turkey." How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?
But let's get to the star of our show:
World-renowned human rights activist and an outspoken champion of Karabakh’s right to self-determination, Baroness Caroline Cox gave the keynote address. Baroness Cox, who recently returned from her 60th trip to the region, provided an eye-witness account of Azerbaijan’s ethnic cleansing campaign, pogroms and outright war against the people of Nagorno Karabakh and spoke passionately about the incredible progress — both democratic and economic — Karabakh has made since the 1994 cease-fire accord.
That is the way "Lady Cox" was described, and this is what she was quoted as saying:
“It is high time for the international community to address the challenges raised by the conflict of the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. Surely, there must be some recognition of the rights of a vulnerable minority, threatened by a repressive state with attempted ethnic cleansing or genocide, to have the right to claim their independence in order to survive … The time for recognition of the rights of the people of Karabakh for self-determination is NOW – for the sake of justice, peace and, in due course, the economic prosperity and stability for all who live in the region.”
“If any people in the world today deserve the right to self-determination and the recognition of independence, it is the people of Nagorno Karabakh.”
So Baroness Cox is telling us that the perpetrators of the massacres, the ones acknowledged by her own nation, are really the victims here. Not just victims, mind you, but victims of "a repressive state (that) attempted ethnic cleansing or genocide."
We have seen exactly what kind of a "human rights" activist this little lady actually is. Moreover, she couldn't make any clearer how she stands as a woman of good moral character. Not only is she turning a blind eye to the humans she has designated as worthier, but she is lying to make criminals of the real victims.
In other words, she is behaving exactly as the Westerners around WWI who accused the Ottoman Turks of committing a genocide, when it was the Turks forced to act out of self-defense, in response to Armenian aggression (as even some Armenian historians have documented.)
Lady Cox is a fine Christian practitioner of "Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31:8), as her own CSW organization suggests she follow.
It's one thing to be a religious and racist bigot. Quite another to pretend to be moral, and for "human rights."
The Baroness Helped the Armenians with Their Criminal War
The aforementioned WORLD Magazine article informs us the lady is really a commoner, and got her fancy title when Margaret Thatcher recommended Cox "to Queen Elizabeth for a lifetime seat with title in the House of Lords." (Thanks to a book Cox co-authored, "The Rape of Reason.") This article, which gushes over Cox's "Christian sense of justice," sheds light on the former nurse's involvement with the Karabakh Armenians:
Muslim Azerbaijan annexed the region, historically home to 150,000 Armenians. A systematic campaign, backed by Soviet-made missiles and air defenses, sought to rid the region of the Christian Armenians, a tiny minority long persecuted by Turks in the east and now at the mercy of 7 million Azerbaijanis to the west. Moscow implicitly sided with Azerbaijanis...
In other words, the land Armenians started filtering into in 1828 became a "historic home," the Azeris were the ones with the super-powered missiles and other weapons, and the Armenians are once again presented as the poor, innocent lambs in danger of getting wiped out by the barbaric Turkish hordes. And in this version of the story, Russia was actually cast as Azerbaijan's ally!
Hearing of besieged Armenians hiding in root cellars, Mrs. Cox made the first of dozens of sorties to the remote enclave, setting out from England in cargo planes, then switching to smaller craft in Armenia to skirt radar across Azerbaijani airspace and the Caucasus. Throughout a conflict much of the world ignored, she smuggled cigarettes for the pilots, food for Armenians, and needed drugs for doctors performing surgery by candlelight and without anesthetics. She counted 17 pilots among her friends killed during that period. Still, she kept up steady jaunts to the region, often hunkering with families in bomb shelters.
She was more than a Christian sympathizer; this fine Christian woman was actually a participant who provided support for the crimes the Armenians were committing, no different than many of the missionaries of Ottoman times. Some might call that an "accessory to murder."
By the way, the above comes from the "dependent on God" publication which strives for "factual accuracy and biblical objectivity." Isn't the Ninth Commandment somewhere in the Bible? You know, the one that says "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor"?
"The Simple Question Must be Asked: Would Jesus Christ Do What the Armenians Did? Of course not."
Samuel Weems, Christian Scholar, Judge and Author of "Armenia: Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," p. 202, after pointing to yet another example of Armenian deception and/or terrorism, utilizing Richard Hovannisian's history as a base.
Lady Cox wrote an article entitled, "Nagorno Karabakh: Forgotten people in a forgotten war," appearing in an Armenian site. Would she be referring to the real forgotten people, the Azeris? Let's not kid ourselves, here.
She begins by telling us, "The history of the Armenian people is beset by tragedy. They have been subjected to repeated massacres, including the genocide of over one-and-a-half million by the Turks in 1915."
One and a half million... correction, over one-and-a-half million, in a nation where there was one-and-a-half million or so to begin with. Armenian extremists like Balakian and Dadrian concede there were one million survivors, and even the Armenian Patriarch accounted for 840,000 deaths from his bloated pre-war number of 2.1 million.
Add to this toll of suffering the legacy of Stalin's cruel policies of enforced dislocation of people, when he cut off part of historic Armenia and relocated it as an isolated enclave in Azerbaijan..
What Stalin did was turn down the Armenians' request to fork Karabakh over to them, which is not the same as giving something away. This region was already Azerbaijani for centuries.
Cox reluctantly mentions the suffering of the Azeris (taking second place to the Armenians' sufferings, naturally) but will lose no opportunity to make it sound as though Azerbaijan were the aggressor.
A fragile cease-fire has held since April 1994, but there is a constant possibility that Azerbaijan may use the massive investment of millions of petro-dollars by international oil companies to purchase new weapons to try once again to achieve a military "final solution" to the political problem of Karabakh.
Yes, the Azeris should be ashamed for desiring the return of what was stolen from them. What exactly is she getting at, by the way, with the term "final solution"? (Rhetorical question.)
If war does break out again, the Armenians of Karabakh would defend themselves again; if it appeared likely that they might become subjects of another Armenian genocide, Armenia itself could not stand passively by. If Armenia were to engage to defend fellow-Armenians in Karabakh, the conflict could broaden...
As if Armenia had nothing to do with the stealing of this land in the first place! Of course if violence erupts, Armenia is going to get involved. More importantly, we can see what our fine Christian woman is getting at. Pity the poor Christian lambs, always the victims, and now those brutal Turks will come out swinging their swords and perpetrate yet another "genocide." This lady has actually been the Deputy Speaker of the British Parliament's House of Lords since 1985, folks, and she got that spot because she simply co-wrote a book that caused an impact. Unbelievable.
"The actions taken by the government of Armenia in the context of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh are inconsistent with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Armenia supports Nagorno-Karabakh separatists in Azerbaijan both militarily and financially. Nagorno-Karabakh forces, assisted by units of the Armenian armed forces, currently occupy the Nagorno-Karabakh region and surrounding areas in Azerbaijan. This violation and the restoration of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been taken up by the OSCE."
William Clinton, President of the United States of America
Cited from Presidential Determination (PD) No. 99-8 of December 8, 1998, and PD No. 98-11 of January 26, 1998, Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Re: "Assistance Program for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union."
It must be emphasised that the war which has been raging is not a religious conflict, but, as Andrei Sakharov put it, in 1989: `For Azerbaijan the issue of Karabakh is a matter of ambition, for the Armenians of Karabakh, it is a matter of life or death'.
It was the Azeri people who got massacred and the lives of nearly a million were ruined through exile, and it's only a matter of life or death for the Armenians? And it's mere greed and ambition for the Azeris? Perhaps Sakharov's Armenian wife, Yelena Bonner, had a little influence with the human rights activist's partisanship. At least Sakharov questioned the morality of his atomic and hydrogen bomb research before settling into the human rights arena. One wonders whether Lady Cox will ever undergo a similar moral awakening.
I first heard of Karabakh during the Andrei Sakharov Memorial Congress in Moscow in May, 1991. Chairing a group of experts on human rights, I met, as a member of this group, one of Karabakh's elected deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. He spoke in great detail of major violations of human rights being inflicted on the Armenians living in and around Karabakh, including systematic deportations of villages' in which entire communities were driven off their land, in brutal operations accompanied by murder, torture and pillage.
Have you got that folks? She made up her mind only after looking into one side of the matter, and it was good enough to get the dope almost strictly from an Armenian. I thought the proverb instructed her to "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves"; she has been speaking up for those who have been speaking for themselves, and quite loudly, too. Lady Cox should consider writing a sequel to her biography, "Voice of the Ones Who Can't Shut Up."
As Chairman of this group, I was asked by the Congress to lead an independent, international delegation to the region to ascertain the facts. We were truly independent, with no preconceptions or prejudices.
"No... preconceptions... or... prejudices." A regular Joan of Arc.
She says she also visited the Azeris by having "walked across the border.... to hear the Azeri viewpoint." She was "deeply concerned" by the findings, yet I haven't seen one example of the "Azeri viewpoint," so the "Azeri viewpoint" must not have made any impression to this unprejudiced lady. (Naturally, as with the "Armenian Genocide," you don't solely go to the Turks to get the information. You go to the sources that would have no reason to defend Turks. That would be Westerners, in general. Was Our Lady in Heaving totally unaware of the Western press reports laying the blame entirely on the aggressor, Armenia? At any rate, Ms. Cox says she prepared a publication, no doubt "with no preconceptions or prejudices," entitled "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress: War in Nagorno Karabakh," by Caroline Cox and John Eibner, with a foreword by Elena Bonner Sakharov (The Armenian wife), available "from Christian Solidarity International (CSI), a human rights organisation, working for victims of repression, regardless of their colour, creed or nationality." (Not regardless of religion, however; and the wise will beware before buying the rest.)
BBC reporter was live on line and he claimed that he saw more than 100 bodies of Azeri men, women and children as well as a baby who are shot dead from their heads from a very short distance.
BBC1 Morning News, 3 March 1992; there were plenty of such reports coming from British media sources. Note Cox will tell us in the next couple of paragraphs that "This article reflects the conclusions we have reached during all our visits since 1991." So she surely must have gotten a good taste of the Armenians' bloodthirsty ways during the 1992 Khojaly period.
After those two initial visits, the members of the international independent delegation came to the conclusion that Azerbaijan was the primary aggressor and that its policy of attempted ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was a gross violation of human rights. Subsequently, CSI became involved, initially as a human rights organisation; later, in 1992, with a commitment to try to meet some of the urgent needs for humanitarian aid required by the Armenians in Karabakh.
That's one heck of a human rights organisation, caring for those "regardless of their colour, creed or nationality." Near East Relief, anyone? Let's not even go near the repulsiveness of Azerbaijan being found the "aggressor," by this oh-so-neutral "international independent delegation."
At the time of writing, CSI is preparing to undertake the 29th mission to Karabakh. This article reflects the conclusions we have reached during all our visits since 1991. It will be clear that our position has changed from impartiality to advocacy.
What a dishonest, dishonest woman. She chooses the side she prefers based on propaganda and her prejudice, and then she shamefully tells us she was a shining example of "impartiality." The whole idea was "advocacy" to begin with.
She continues to assure us her conclusions were based upon "first-hand evidence and our analysis of the situation which has led us to conclude that Azerbaijan has been the primary aggressor in this tragic conflict." We're told that the Azeris' sufferings have been "deeply" regretted, and her gang performed "some humanitarian aid work for them." But the "overwhelming" blame must fall upon Azerbaijan.
A brief review of events will demonstrate the grounds on which we base our conclusions and recommendations. After the historic Armenian land of Karabakh was relocated by Stalin, in the 1920s, as an enclave (oblast) within Azerbaijan, the Armenians who lived there (then approximately 94.5 per cent of the population) suffered not only from Soviet but also from Azeri repression. For example, also in the 1920s, Azeris brutally massacred and evicted Armenians from the town of Shushi....
It's truly stomach-turning. She provides this "impartial" information entirely from Armenian propaganda, such as the 94.5% population which probably came from the same source telling her over 1.5 million were killed in the "Armenian genocide." Not that a population reduction of Azeris isn't believable.
The 1926 Great Soviet Encyclopedia (that nation's "Encyclopedia Britannica") lays the blame on the Armenians. Our good lady might say the Soviets were in cahoots with the Azeris (as she actually contended for the 1990s period), but this time the Soviet information is reliable; we are told that Armenians were told to leave Karabakh and other Azerbaijani areas alone in July 1920, but "the Yerevan government began guerilla actions on the above mentioned territories," beginning in September 1920. The "Dashnaks, having received weapons from Britain, organized pogroms of the Moslem [mainly Azerbaijani] population in the whole of Kars province and Erevan district reducing Shuragel, Sharur-Daralagez, Kaguzman, Surmanly, Karagurta, Sary Kamysh regions to ashes. Having secured such a rear they attacked Olta and Kaguzman acquiring the support of Makin Sardar."
What makes the above aggression all the more despicable is that it came roughly at the tail end or as a continuation of the real genocide Armenia had perpetrated, roughly beginning in 1919. From "The Jewish Times" (June 21, 1990):
"An appropriate analogy with the Jewish Holocaust might be the systematic extermination of the entire Muslim population of the independent republic of Armenia which consisted of at least 30-40 percent of the population of that republic. The memoirs of an Armenian army officer who participated in and eye-witnessed these atrocities was published in the U.S. in 1926 with the title 'Men Are Like That.' Other references abound."
Lady Cox is not saying anything about this real genocide, one that even Professor Libaridian expressed a tiny bit of sorrow for. Her "omissions" are not easy to take; if Karabakh Armenians actually constituted 94.5% of the population in the early 1920s, the reason resulted from great evil, and the ones who neglect to mention this evil in an attempt to whitewash preferred humans become agents of evil themselves. Let's see how she described the period of the Khojaly massacres:
"The war raged from January 1992 to April 1994, bringing death to tens of thousands of Azeris and Armenians. Massively outnumbered, the 150,000 Armenians who inhabited Karabakh had to defend themselves against 7-million strong Azerbaijan, assisted by Turkey. At one stage in the hostilities, the Azeri government also hired several thousand mujahideen mercenaries."
She is deceptively giving the idea that the Karabakh Armenians were holding out on their brave lonesome, 150,000 against 7 million "strong" (!) and it sounds like even Turkey was a participant, the first I'm hearing of that claim. (She offers no proof; a little later she will claim retired military officers helped, but whether they did so on their own initiative or whether they did so at all is anyone's call, as there appears to be no reliable proof. [The Migdalovitz brief does make reference to this point, as reported in the Turkish media of late 1993; there's probably some truth here, but we don't know if this claim has been substantiated; just because something appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true, as we'll be powerfully reminded in the "A Habit of Allegations" section, coming up below.] What the lady is really doing here is capitalizing on the stigma Turkey has, thanks to the relentless, hateful anti-Turkish propaganda ongoing for years. Connect Azerbaijan with Turkey, and Cox will have an easier time in getting others to swallow her allegations, because the main thing the Christian world knows about Turkey is that Turkey loves to slaughter innocent Christians.)
The fortunes of war vacillated. In May 1992, the Armenians of Karabakh won two significant military victories: they opened a corridor through Lachin to Armenia, allowing supplies to come overland from Armenia to Karabakh.
No mention of Armenia's aggressive action, supported by one billion dollars in Russian arms and some Russian manpower. No, the Karabakh Armenians were all alone. Horrible! (Yet note she is finally letting on Armenia was involved, and it wasn't just 150,000 poor, innocent Karabakh Armenians facing a Turkish horde of 7 million, after all.)
The international community criticised the Armenians for this violation of the integrity of Azeri territory. But the blockades of both Armenia and Karabakh were themselves violations of human rights, yet the international community was largely passive and silent about these. If there had been no blockades, it would not have been necessary to create a corridor.
The woman is hopeless. The idea of that territory's conquest by Armenia had nothing to do with establishing a "corridor" for the simple passage of supplies; it was all in the grand plan for Armenia to perform yet another of her famous land-grab schemes, and this time in history, it worked. And of course the international community was not going to squawk over the blockades, as they were fully aware the blockades were placed in response to Armenian aggression. Using Cox's words, "If there had been no Armenian aggression, it would not have been necessary to create a blockade."
She also apologizes for the takeover of Shushi.
Secondly, the Armenians of Karabakh successfully regained control of Shushi: "The Karabakhi Armenians were also criticised by the international community for taking this 'Azeri' town." (Why is she putting "Azeri" in quotation marks? To her, apparently everything in sight must be designated as Armenian property.) You see, the fault was the Azeris', as they "retaliated" against this Armenian aggression, "assisted by recently retired Turkish Army officers." (Since she can't let go of the idea that Turkey was again salivating to commit a genocide on her beloved and innocent Armenians, let's assume it was true that some Turkish military personnel lent a hand to Azerbaijan. Did they do so at the outset, as part of a grand Turkish scheme to attack Armenians, as the Russians joined the Armenians in attacking Azeris? Or did the Turks come in after noticing the Azeris were getting creamed by the Armenians and Russians, and felt they had to do something to curtail the monstrous massacring and other crimes being committed upon the Azeris? There's a big difference there, and if Turkey was involved, it would have been on the same humanitarian level exhibited by the allied coalition [including Turkey] that tried to curtail the ethnic cleansing practices of the Serbs in Bosnia. It's morally corrupt for anyone to give the impression that Turkey was engaged in aggressive or oppressive behavior, as our little lady is trying to go for here.)
In June, massive Azeri forces over-ran Armenian villages in Shaumyan to the north of Karabakh and occupied 40 per cent of Karabakh itself, coming to within a few miles of Stepanakert. Armenians who did not escape from their homes in time were murdered: I have seen the headless corpses of decapitated Armenians....In August 1992, the Azeris started aerial bombardment of civilians in Karabakh. In January 1993, they even resorted to the use of ground-to-air missiles against civilians."
"The Armenians of Karabakh fought back, using mainly captured weapons. They eventually regained much of their own territory, but were still vulnerable to continuing bombardment from Azeri towns around the perimeter."
So that was her explanation of how Armenia massacred and mutilated hundreds of civilians, and chased nearly one million people from their homes, stealing their land and property. Note how a relative handful of Armenians armed with "mainly captured weapons" beat back 7 million Azeris. That is amazing.
It's criminal, what this "impartial" and "Christian" prevaricator is doing here. She is trying to paint the picture of hopelessly outnumbered Armenian civilians besieged by a professional force possessing super-weapons, just as propagandists did during the WWI period, where the rebellious Armenians in Van, for example, with their superior machine gun-like "Mauser" and other weaponry, were portrayed as innocent civilians engaged in "self-defense" against extermination-minded Ottoman Turkish hordes... when in reality, it was the well prepared Armenians who attacked first (as almost always), treacherously hoping to hold the ground for their Russian allies, and it was the outnumbered Turks (with most of their men away on the multiple wartime fronts) engaged in the real self-defense.
The situation in Azerbaijan in the early 1990s was as such: the Soviet Union had recently dissolved, and this poor nation was trying to get its bearings, not at all prepared for the aggression committed by Armenia and her Big Bear brother. Baroness Cox prefers to reverse the roles here, but Azerbaijan's lot was actually on a very similar parallel as with the earlier part of the century, as Armenian Army Officer Ohanus Appressian reported:
"In the Armenian-Tartar War of 1905 the Armenians had much the better of the fighting. Many of our men had served in the Russian Army, and were trained soldiers. We Armenians were rich and possessed arms. The Tartars had never received military training. They were poor, and possessed few arms beyond knives."
Okay, finally! Some word on Azeri victims:
"Such operations had the inevitably tragic consequences of displacing tens of thousands of Azeris from their homes. But the responsibility for the suffering of their own people must lie with the Azeri government. If they had not continued to pursue military offensives, even after cease-fires had been agreed; and if they had not continued to kill and to wound civilians in Karabakh by bombardment from outside Karabakh, it would not have been necessary for the Armenians of Karabakh to respond by taking these bases."
From nearly a million to just "tens of thousands," and note how hysterically defensive she is of her poor, defenseless Christian martyrs. No matter what wrongs the Armenians commit, it always must be the other guy's fault. Lady Cox might have become more Armenianized than she would care to admit.
The madness of sheer, blind prejudice! It's not the poor Armenians we may need to pity as much as poor Lady Cox. Here she goes again; her ravings are becoming as hard to pull away from as the need to witness a gruesome traffic accident:
One option is quite definitely not open; namely, any attempt to declare Nagorno Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan. That would be to reward those who indulged in aggression and invasion of a neighbouring independent state, as well as to cause gross violations of human rights in total defiance of treaty obligations.
And this woman, completely distorting history the way she has, actually has a seat on the British Parliament. God Save the Queen!
Her last line:
"Today, it is still possible to find a solution for the Karabakh conflict and to save Armenia on the basis of the principles of defending human rights."
"Save Armenia." (Only Armenia.)
"Human rights." (Only Armenians'.)
A Habit of Allegations
Lady Cox called on her irresponsibility
It's not only with the Armenians that Lady Cox has gone haywire. A June 2000 publication (or article) was titled, "CHEMlCAL WEAPONS IN SUDAN: THE BARONESS COX ALLEGATIONS FIASCO."
In July 1999, the Sudanese armed forces were accused of using chemical weapons in attacks on Sudanese rebels. These rebels, the SPLA, had on their side what sounds to be a "human rights" group, Norwegian Peoples Aid. (A generally worthy humanitarian organization; although they describe themselves a little too Cox-like: "a voice for the vulnerable, the poor and the oppressed.") They issued a press release: 'Confirmed Chemical Bombing in Southern Sudan.'
As the media often does with human rights groups (because "human rights" is "good"), their word was accepted at face value, and "In August 1999, for example, several British newspapers repeated them, and the BBC Online Network published no less than six articles mentioning the allegations, with headlines such as 'Sudan "Chemical" Attack on Rebels' and 'Warning on Sudanese "Chemical Attack"'."
Let's have the article take over:
The allegations were also subsequently repeated by Baroness Cox, President of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, in the British House of Lords on 12 and 13 October, 1999. Cox specifically claimed that the after effects in these incidents were "compatible" with symptoms associated with poisoning by arsenical compounds such as Lewisite. Cox also claimed that there was "cumulative evidence of the likely use of chemical weapons by the NIF" and that the Sudanese government were able to "use these unconventional weapons with impunity". Cox provided the British government with soil, water and shrapnel samples to back up her claims.
The Sudanese government categorically denied any such use of chemical weapons, and immediately agreed to a United Nations investigation of the claims. This investigation took the form of an Operation Lifeline Sudan medical team which travelled to the areas in which it was alleged chemical weapons attacks took place. A number of samples, including blood and urine specimens, were taken and sent for analysis to the Centre for Disease Control (CDC), an independent and world-renowned laboratory in Atlanta. These tests "indicated no evidence of exposure to chemicals".
In a letter dated 5 June 2000, the British government revealed the results of the "very careful analysis" of the samples provided by Baroness Cox and all other evidence. The samples had been tested by the British Defence Ministry's chemical and biological weapons establishment at Porton Down (CBD). The results showed that the samples provided "bore no evidence of the CW [Chemical Weapons] agents for which they had been tested". The British government also pointed out that in addition to the American tests, further samples had been tested by the Finnish institute responsible for chemical weapons verification. These too had been negative. The Government commented on the "consistency of results from these three independent sets of analysis".
The text of this British Government letter is appended to this publication.
It has to be said that allegations of involvement in weapons of mass destruction technology are amongst the most serious that can be levelled at any government. These particular allegations are unusual in that the United Nations, and others, were able to scientifically collect samples from the area concerned and from the people said to have been affected. Usually such claims are made and there is no way of independently verifying what has been alleged.
Once again Baroness Cox has been proved wrong with regard to her claims about Sudan. She has made very serious allegations against the Sudanese government — allegations that were manifestly unfounded. This allegation is but one in a series that Baroness Cox has made which have subsequently been found to be unsupported by the evidence. Surely it is time that Baroness Cox reconsiders both her position, and the accuracy of her sources, with regard to Sudan and ceases to be the over-eager and all too questionable partisan that she so clearly is on Sudanese issues?
Allegations of genocide are also among the most serious that can be leveled against a government, and ethically-challenged partisans with agendas rarely care for the facts. When they claim to be for noble causes such as "human rights" or "against genocide," lazy-thinking people simply and irresponsibly accept such ruinous claims at face value.
The baroness has obviously made a fool of herself on a number of occasions with her complete disregard for the facts. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher performed a great disservice to her nation by appointing this prejudice-stirring pharise to her post for life.
Her title may fancily tell us she represents Queensbury, but the last thing she has bothered to familiarize herself with are the "Marquis of Queensbury Rules." Lady Cox likes to hit below the belt.
False Christian Double-Talk Exposed by a True Christian
Samuel Weems covers the banditry tactics of the Armenians when Armenia launched guerilla punitive actions in Azerbaijan's Karabakh, Nahcivan and Zanzegur regions in 1920 (not to be confused with the brief "sneak attack" war Armenian fought with Azerbaijan a year or so earlier, soon after the Dec. 1918 war Armenians began in Georgia, and only a year after Armenia had signed a treaty recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan). Pointing to Hovannisian's history (the "P123" reference below), Weems wrote on p. 276 of "Armenia":
The Allies investigated and concluded that some "dirty work was taking place in Kars [P123]." These self-styled Christians were getting rid of Muslims, so the terror campaign was okay in their minds. The same is true today of the horrible terror campaign Armenians are waging to take 20 percent of Azerbaijan and rid the area of more than 1 million Muslims.
Jesus had something to say about such people, didn't he?
"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
"You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
"Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
"Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonderful works in your name?'
"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." [Matthew 7:15-23]
Christians have to ask themselves if the attacking of defenseless Muslim villages counts as the Lord's work. Would any Christian want to stand in the "Christian" Armenian leaders' shoes before Christ on judgment day?
Given the manipulation of truth Baroness Cox feels free to engage in with her "Christian sense of justice," exactly as the missionaries of the Ottoman Empire before her in what they also regarded as a Holy Crusade, the question may be rephrased outside of the Armenian leaders:
Would any Christian want to stand in the "Christian" Baroness Cox's shoes before Christ on judgment day?
The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows: