Letters: beware hypocrisy on Nagorno-Karabakh

I write as an academic and Anglo-Armenian. Your coverage of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war over Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh gave a graphic account of the horrors on the ground (“Fresh Azerbaijani shelling shatters peace after fragile ceasefire agreed”, World, and “Putin faces grave dangers in Russia’s ‘near abroad”, editorial). This dispute pits territory (legally Azerbaijan’s) against ethnicity (the enclave of 150,000 is 90% Armenian). To spare civilians (and military personnel) from all sides, I would urge the EU and/or UN to immediately deploy peacekeepers along the line of contact (as was done in Kosovo), so that a diplomatic settlement can be worked towards.

It seems to me that there is gross hypocrisy among the various stakeholders: Armenia is accused of illegally occupying land while, it says, it is protecting a persecuted minority. This is the same argument successfully deployed by Turkey (illegally occupying north Cyprus for nigh on 50 years) and the same could be argued for Britain occupying the Falklands, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and South Ossetia in Georgia and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Either all of these occupations in defence of (alleged) persecuted minorities are valid and should stand or they are all invalid and all should immediately withdraw from occupied territories. The only reason why Armenia is being steered towards handing back NK/Artsakh is that this is a small (3 million population), relatively poor country with limited political clout.
Dr James Derounian, visiting professor, University of Bolton,
Winchcombe, Gloucestershire

Vive la révolution!

I think Kenan Malik is being a little unfair on the French Revolution (“Mangrove isn’t simply a ‘black story’, but central to our country’s history”, Comment). The French National Convention abolished slavery in February 1794, at the height of the “reign of terror”. Not something you read about in reactionary history books or in The Scarlet Pimpernel. Yes, I know Napoleon reintroduced it, but then again he did betray many of the revolution’s principles. Credit where credit is due.
Peter Stevens
London E17

Fitting memorials

Further to the article about the proposed National Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in London’s Victoria Gardens (“The Holocaust and slavery: both need a fitting memorial”, Viewpoint). First, Britain has two Jewish museums, in London and Manchester, both of which cover the Holocaust, while the Imperial War Museum London has an extensive permanent exhibition. Liverpool Street Station has two statues commemorating Kindertransport. And why we would want a “learning centre” when London has the world’s oldest Holocaust library in the Wiener, which also offers continuing exhibitions on many aspects of the Holocaust? The library’s collections also include other genocides – Romanies, Tutsis, Armenians. It is often forgotten, too, that Liverpool houses the International Slavery Museum.

As Rowan Moore suggests, a memorial to slavery and a far smaller and more sensitive one to the Holocaust, but not in the gardens, would be welcome, paid for out of £50m now proposed to be wasted on the national memorial. Some of that money, too, would boost the museums and the library, as well as providing additional funds for Holocaust education, arguably the most effective way to combat all forms of racism and hatred.
Terry Philpot
Limpsfield Chart, Surrey

All in it together on climate

Greta Thunberg warns that we are “stuck in a loop where everyone just blames each other, and as long as we keep doing that, we won’t be able to achieve anything” (“‘Only people like me dare to ask the tough questions on climate’”, News). On the letters page (“Blame construction, not cars, for poor air”), Londoner Anna Farlow rightly points to construction’s 34% of city particle emissions, but road transport at 27% is not far behind. Both must clean up, as must, rather clearly, the remaining 39%.

Criticism of public transport as “expensive and unreliable” is understandable, but London has the best in the country. A flat fare of £1.50 on buses, however long the route, is an enabler. Up here in the north, people without cars are faced with distance-related fares that can be double that amount for a couple of miles. To cut greenhouse gases, we must decarbonise all energy and transport is an important part of the whole. Reducing private vehicles and congestion will also promote physical and mental health. There is danger in the pandemic being used to justify more car travel, more toxic air, more stress. Getting through this crisis, we must rebrand our buses and trains, along with active travel, as safe and sociable transport, promoting a better life.

Thunberg’s message is to reject the unproductive blame game. The whole of society must solve this – locally, nationally, globally. “It’s your building site, not my car” simply will not do.
Stephen Waring
Halifax, West Yorkshire

Better out than in

In response to the article by Robert Ford and Maria Sobolewska (“We’ll move on from the EU vote but we are now stuck in our tribe. Welcome to Brexitland…”, Comment), my family are not unusual in modern Britain in being multicultural and multi-ethnic. Not all of us voted out, but those who did are not bigoted. We primarily want democratic government with full accountability and transparency, which are becoming scarce within the EU.

We want to leave a bloc held back by excessive bureaucracy with an ever declining proportion of world trade and instead join those progressive nations that enjoy a steadily growing proportion. We know that outside the EU we can contribute to a safer, environmentally responsible future for the whole human family. We are not anti-European. Some of us are immigrants from Asia or Africa, but we all rejoice in European culture and civilisation.
Christopher Briscoe
Budleigh Salterton, Devon

No longer proud to be British

I was sorry to read that Emma Beddington’s column was her last (“Being British is one thing, but what exactly are we so proud of?”Magazine). It was a cracker. Her passionate diatribe on this country’s immigration system hit the spot.

The idea of “Britishness” has now been built up by the Home Office into a state, more utopian than British, and lacks real humanity and fairness in its implementation. It appears that its direction of travel is to stop legitimate refugees and asylum seekers from travelling here legally to secure a safe and welcoming haven. With our hard-line home secretary, there is a real sense that humanity has gone missing in action. I echo Emma’s cri de coeur: what are we so proud of in our country now?
Judith Daniels
Cobholm, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk