The blog contains articles and thoughts in English, Armenian and Arabic about Armenian issues, Artsakh-Karabakh issue, Armenian Genocide as well as the life of Armenians and Christians in Iraq and the Middle East.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Karen Nazaryan submitted letter to UN Sec Gen on Baku and Sumgait events
Ambassador Karen Nazaryan also refers to the interview of the former President of Azerbaijan Ayaz Mutalibov with Czech journalist Dana Mazalova in April 1992. Mutalibov stated that the militia of the Azerbaijani National Front actively obstructed and actually prevented the evacuation of the local civilian population from the military operation zone through the mountain passages specifically left open by Karabakhi Armenians (during liberation of Khojalu (Khojaly), my addition). The hope and intention of the Azerbaijani opposition was to utilize civilian losses of such a magnitude to instigate a popular uprising against the Baku regime and seize the reins of power.
http://news.am/en/news/15117.html
http://news.am/en/news/15117.html
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
New site on Khojalu (Khojaly)
Dear Readers,
The following web site exposes the fake pictures, which the Azeri state propaganda uses in distorting the events of Khojalu (Khojaly) during Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) liberation war.
Khojalu (Khojaly) Events
Dear Readers,
Once more, Azerbaijan’s state propaganda and Azeris throughout the world began a fierce campaign about what they call “Khojaly Genocide”.
In the following some articles and news stories I published in my blog (in English and Arabic), which expose Azerbaijan’s misleading information.
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/02/truth-about-khojalu-events-azeri.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/03/misleading-information-about-artsakh.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/10/khojalu-khojaly-case-special-dossier.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/07/internet-misleading-and-armenias.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/03/truth-about-khojalu-khojaly-slde.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/12/armenias-foreign-ministry-shows-up.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/12/documentary-on-20-years-since-armenian.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/20.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_3032.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/armenian-pogroms-in-baku.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_10.html
Once more, Azerbaijan’s state propaganda and Azeris throughout the world began a fierce campaign about what they call “Khojaly Genocide”.
In the following some articles and news stories I published in my blog (in English and Arabic), which expose Azerbaijan’s misleading information.
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/02/truth-about-khojalu-events-azeri.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/03/misleading-information-about-artsakh.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/10/khojalu-khojaly-case-special-dossier.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/07/internet-misleading-and-armenias.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/03/truth-about-khojalu-khojaly-slde.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/12/armenias-foreign-ministry-shows-up.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/12/documentary-on-20-years-since-armenian.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/20.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_3032.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/armenian-pogroms-in-baku.html
http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_10.html
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Majority of eligible Members of the UK Parliament have recognized the Armenian Genocide
Armenia Solidarity
Nor Serount Cultural Association
c/o The Temple of Peace, King Edward VIIII Ave., Cathays Park, Cardiff
0044 7718982732
eilian@talktalk.net
This week the number of MPs in the House of Commons who have signed motions (called Early Day Motions) recognizing the 1915 Genocide of Armenians and Assyrians has passed 250 this week, representing the majority of all eligible MPs. Of the 646 MPs , only 495 of them are eligible to express their own views on these motions, because the other 151 are part of the government or have other roles which preclude their signatures.
The number of MPs who have signed (254 exactly) did so by signing motions in 2007 and during this parliamentary year (2009-2010), put by Dr. Bob Spink MP, an Independent MP, at our request. The current Early Day Motion (number 287) contains a clause which states:: "This House....condemns unreservedly denial and denigration of the memory of the Holocaust, as well as of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians and Assyrians in Turkey, and the politics of hatred and division which led to these events" and also "..... and calls on hon. Members to respect Holocaust Memorial Day and to ensure that the Holocaust, the 1915 Genocide and modern atrocities such as the 1988 Anfal Genocide are never forgotten"
This UK-wide Recognition of Genocide follows the example of Welsh MPs in 2006, and 2007, and Scottish and Irish MPs a few weeks ago.
Of the 349 Labour MPs (the party of Government), 225 are eligible and 150 (two thirds ) have signed.
Also, the majority of all non-Conservative MPs have signed (222 Labour, Liberal Democrat, Irish, Welsh and Scottish Nationalist and Independent MPs out of 442 total non-conservative voting MPs in nparliament ) . Most Conservative MPs do not sign such motions without the permission of their Party, and therefore do not express their own opinions,
The figure of 635 Voting MPs discounts the 5 Irish Sinn Fein members, who never took up their seats, not recognizing the authority of parliament.
Armenia Solidarity/Norserount Cultural Association spokesman Eilian Williams said: ". The UK, and the other countries of the European Union must now accept that Turkey's present borders are based on its succesful Genocide of its Armenian and Assyrian population. The issue of Armenian and Assyrian Churches and lands which were confiscated by the Turkish State in the 1923 "Law of Abandoned Properties" should be given a high priority, before any progress is made on Turkey's accession to the E.U."
Nor Serount Cultural Association
c/o The Temple of Peace, King Edward VIIII Ave., Cathays Park, Cardiff
0044 7718982732
eilian@talktalk.net
This week the number of MPs in the House of Commons who have signed motions (called Early Day Motions) recognizing the 1915 Genocide of Armenians and Assyrians has passed 250 this week, representing the majority of all eligible MPs. Of the 646 MPs , only 495 of them are eligible to express their own views on these motions, because the other 151 are part of the government or have other roles which preclude their signatures.
The number of MPs who have signed (254 exactly) did so by signing motions in 2007 and during this parliamentary year (2009-2010), put by Dr. Bob Spink MP, an Independent MP, at our request. The current Early Day Motion (number 287) contains a clause which states:: "This House....condemns unreservedly denial and denigration of the memory of the Holocaust, as well as of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians and Assyrians in Turkey, and the politics of hatred and division which led to these events" and also "..... and calls on hon. Members to respect Holocaust Memorial Day and to ensure that the Holocaust, the 1915 Genocide and modern atrocities such as the 1988 Anfal Genocide are never forgotten"
This UK-wide Recognition of Genocide follows the example of Welsh MPs in 2006, and 2007, and Scottish and Irish MPs a few weeks ago.
Of the 349 Labour MPs (the party of Government), 225 are eligible and 150 (two thirds ) have signed.
Also, the majority of all non-Conservative MPs have signed (222 Labour, Liberal Democrat, Irish, Welsh and Scottish Nationalist and Independent MPs out of 442 total non-conservative voting MPs in nparliament ) . Most Conservative MPs do not sign such motions without the permission of their Party, and therefore do not express their own opinions,
The figure of 635 Voting MPs discounts the 5 Irish Sinn Fein members, who never took up their seats, not recognizing the authority of parliament.
Armenia Solidarity/Norserount Cultural Association spokesman Eilian Williams said: ". The UK, and the other countries of the European Union must now accept that Turkey's present borders are based on its succesful Genocide of its Armenian and Assyrian population. The issue of Armenian and Assyrian Churches and lands which were confiscated by the Turkish State in the 1923 "Law of Abandoned Properties" should be given a high priority, before any progress is made on Turkey's accession to the E.U."
Ten Reasons Why Turks Won’t Allow Their Leaders to Ratify the Protocols
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
In earlier columns, I pointed out Turkey’s deceptive designs in negotiating and signing the Protocols with Armenia on October 10, 2009.
In addition to planning to deceive Armenia and international public opinion, Turkish leaders tried to mislead their closest ally, Azerbaijan, and the Turkish public, about the potential benefits of the Protocols. Even though the Protocols were clearly in Turkey’s interest, its leaders tried to oversell the benefits of the negotiated agreement in order to overcome possible objections from critics at home and abroad, particularly Azerbaijan.
As expected, the Erdogan government did get into trouble with Azerbaijan when Pres. Ilham Aliyev complained loudly that by planning to open the border with Armenia, Turkey would be abandoning its "Little Brother" which would remove the key incentive for Armenia to negotiate the return of Karabagh (Artsakh). Azerbaijani officials, not appeased by Turkish assurances, retaliated by tripling the price of gas exported to Turkey, taking down Turkish flags from public places, banning Turkish movies and songs from Azeri TV, and shutting down Turkish-financed mosques in Baku!
Meanwhile, opposition forces in Turkey, seeing a golden opportunity to diminish Prime Minister Erdogan’s Parliamentary majority, immediately accused him of betraying Turkey’s national interests by siding with their perennial Armenian enemies, rather than with their Azeri brothers!
In order to counter such accusations, Turkish leaders were forced to make a series of unsubstantiated claims, exaggerating the benefits of the Protocols to both Azerbaijan and Turkey. They assured the Azeris that they would pressure Armenia into returning Artsakh to Azerbaijan before the Turkish Parliament would ratify the Protocols and normalize relations with Armenia. Furthermore, Turkish officials reassured their own public that the Protocols would put an end to "Armenian claims" of genocide and territorial demands in Eastern Turkey.
The Turkish and Azeri publics were not fooled by Ankara’s misrepresentation of the Protocols. Here are ten major reasons why the Turkish Parliament could refuse to ratify the Protocols:
1) Despite repeated announcements by Gul, Erdogan and Davutoglu that the resolution of the Artsakh conflict is a precondition for the ratification of the Protocols, the United States, Russia, the European Union as well as Armenia have repeatedly pointed out that there is no such stipulation in the Protocols. In addition, they have counseled against linking the two issues or holding hostage the negotiations on the Artsakh conflict to the ratification of the Protocols. Armenia has steadfastly refused to link the Protocols to the Artsakh issue.
2) There is no truth to the Turkish claim that the Protocols would put an end to Armenia’s pursuit of genocide recognition and its acknowledgment by third countries. It is also untrue that the Protocols would set up a mechanism for the study of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, the Protocols have triggered renewed efforts by Armenians in recent weeks to seek acknowledgment of the Genocide by the British, Bulgarian, Israeli and Swedish Parliaments. Moreover, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has scheduled a vote on the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4. A similar resolution is pending in the U.S. Senate.
3) Contrary to Turkish assertions, the “historical commission” mentioned in the Protocols would serve not as a genocide review board, but as a platform for Armenia to present demands for restitution from Turkey.
4) The Turkish claim that the Protocols would end Armenian territorial demands is belied by the fact that no mention is made of any past treaty that requires Armenia to renounce such rights. Rather than abandoning Artsakh or Western Armenia, Pres. Sargsyan raised for the first time in his last week remarks the depopulation of the Armenian region of Nakhichevan, after Soviet authorities relinquished it to Azerbaijan.
5) Armenia and the major powers have rejected Turkish demands that the Armenian Constitutional Court “correct” its January 12, 2010 ruling which limited Turkey’s exaggerated interpretations of the Protocols. The Court insisted that the pursuit of Genocide recognition cannot be abandoned, and Artsakh’s status cannot be negotiated with Turkey due to the bilateral nature of the Protocols.
6) Turkish leaders have no reason to protest against the Armenian Court’s reference to the Preamble of the Constitution on pursuing the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This Preamble is based on Article 11 of Armenia’s Declaration of Independence which has existed since 1990, long before Turkey first opened its border with Armenia. Indeed, Turkey’s leaders were well aware of this provision before signing the Protocols in 2009.
7) Turkish officials have falsely stated that the Protocols acknowledge the Treaty of Kars of 1921, which Soviet Armenia was forced to sign. There is no reference to the Kars Treaty in the Protocols. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Armenia ruled that only those treaties that have been ratified by the present Republic of Armenia are valid.
8) Rather than achieving its lofty objective of "zero-problems with neighbors," the Turkish government, by signing the Protocols, has created a serious rift with neighboring Azerbaijan, where no problem existed before!
9) It is noteworthy that Turkish officials have not expressed any objection to Armenia’s demand that Turkey be the first to ratify the Protocols. This is a humiliating imposition on Turkey as it implies -- for good reason -- Armenia’s lack of trust in Turkey!
10) Likewise, Turkish leaders have not responded to Armenia’s threat to rescind its signature should Turkey not ratify the Protocols by the end of March -- one month before April 24! This is yet another humiliating imposition by Armenia on a country whose leaders espouse grandiose neo-Ottoman fantasies!
The foregoing 10 points demonstrate a serious credibility gap between the Turkish government and its own public as well as the international community. Ankara has tried to deceive everyone within and outside Turkey by creating the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia. Turkish officials have no one but themselves to blame for this predicament. They thought that by bluffing they could extract more concessions from Armenia! It did not work. They have now fallen in their own trap and no one is too eager to rescue them!
Publisher, The California Courier
In earlier columns, I pointed out Turkey’s deceptive designs in negotiating and signing the Protocols with Armenia on October 10, 2009.
In addition to planning to deceive Armenia and international public opinion, Turkish leaders tried to mislead their closest ally, Azerbaijan, and the Turkish public, about the potential benefits of the Protocols. Even though the Protocols were clearly in Turkey’s interest, its leaders tried to oversell the benefits of the negotiated agreement in order to overcome possible objections from critics at home and abroad, particularly Azerbaijan.
As expected, the Erdogan government did get into trouble with Azerbaijan when Pres. Ilham Aliyev complained loudly that by planning to open the border with Armenia, Turkey would be abandoning its "Little Brother" which would remove the key incentive for Armenia to negotiate the return of Karabagh (Artsakh). Azerbaijani officials, not appeased by Turkish assurances, retaliated by tripling the price of gas exported to Turkey, taking down Turkish flags from public places, banning Turkish movies and songs from Azeri TV, and shutting down Turkish-financed mosques in Baku!
Meanwhile, opposition forces in Turkey, seeing a golden opportunity to diminish Prime Minister Erdogan’s Parliamentary majority, immediately accused him of betraying Turkey’s national interests by siding with their perennial Armenian enemies, rather than with their Azeri brothers!
In order to counter such accusations, Turkish leaders were forced to make a series of unsubstantiated claims, exaggerating the benefits of the Protocols to both Azerbaijan and Turkey. They assured the Azeris that they would pressure Armenia into returning Artsakh to Azerbaijan before the Turkish Parliament would ratify the Protocols and normalize relations with Armenia. Furthermore, Turkish officials reassured their own public that the Protocols would put an end to "Armenian claims" of genocide and territorial demands in Eastern Turkey.
The Turkish and Azeri publics were not fooled by Ankara’s misrepresentation of the Protocols. Here are ten major reasons why the Turkish Parliament could refuse to ratify the Protocols:
1) Despite repeated announcements by Gul, Erdogan and Davutoglu that the resolution of the Artsakh conflict is a precondition for the ratification of the Protocols, the United States, Russia, the European Union as well as Armenia have repeatedly pointed out that there is no such stipulation in the Protocols. In addition, they have counseled against linking the two issues or holding hostage the negotiations on the Artsakh conflict to the ratification of the Protocols. Armenia has steadfastly refused to link the Protocols to the Artsakh issue.
2) There is no truth to the Turkish claim that the Protocols would put an end to Armenia’s pursuit of genocide recognition and its acknowledgment by third countries. It is also untrue that the Protocols would set up a mechanism for the study of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, the Protocols have triggered renewed efforts by Armenians in recent weeks to seek acknowledgment of the Genocide by the British, Bulgarian, Israeli and Swedish Parliaments. Moreover, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has scheduled a vote on the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4. A similar resolution is pending in the U.S. Senate.
3) Contrary to Turkish assertions, the “historical commission” mentioned in the Protocols would serve not as a genocide review board, but as a platform for Armenia to present demands for restitution from Turkey.
4) The Turkish claim that the Protocols would end Armenian territorial demands is belied by the fact that no mention is made of any past treaty that requires Armenia to renounce such rights. Rather than abandoning Artsakh or Western Armenia, Pres. Sargsyan raised for the first time in his last week remarks the depopulation of the Armenian region of Nakhichevan, after Soviet authorities relinquished it to Azerbaijan.
5) Armenia and the major powers have rejected Turkish demands that the Armenian Constitutional Court “correct” its January 12, 2010 ruling which limited Turkey’s exaggerated interpretations of the Protocols. The Court insisted that the pursuit of Genocide recognition cannot be abandoned, and Artsakh’s status cannot be negotiated with Turkey due to the bilateral nature of the Protocols.
6) Turkish leaders have no reason to protest against the Armenian Court’s reference to the Preamble of the Constitution on pursuing the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This Preamble is based on Article 11 of Armenia’s Declaration of Independence which has existed since 1990, long before Turkey first opened its border with Armenia. Indeed, Turkey’s leaders were well aware of this provision before signing the Protocols in 2009.
7) Turkish officials have falsely stated that the Protocols acknowledge the Treaty of Kars of 1921, which Soviet Armenia was forced to sign. There is no reference to the Kars Treaty in the Protocols. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Armenia ruled that only those treaties that have been ratified by the present Republic of Armenia are valid.
8) Rather than achieving its lofty objective of "zero-problems with neighbors," the Turkish government, by signing the Protocols, has created a serious rift with neighboring Azerbaijan, where no problem existed before!
9) It is noteworthy that Turkish officials have not expressed any objection to Armenia’s demand that Turkey be the first to ratify the Protocols. This is a humiliating imposition on Turkey as it implies -- for good reason -- Armenia’s lack of trust in Turkey!
10) Likewise, Turkish leaders have not responded to Armenia’s threat to rescind its signature should Turkey not ratify the Protocols by the end of March -- one month before April 24! This is yet another humiliating imposition by Armenia on a country whose leaders espouse grandiose neo-Ottoman fantasies!
The foregoing 10 points demonstrate a serious credibility gap between the Turkish government and its own public as well as the international community. Ankara has tried to deceive everyone within and outside Turkey by creating the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia. Turkish officials have no one but themselves to blame for this predicament. They thought that by bluffing they could extract more concessions from Armenia! It did not work. They have now fallen in their own trap and no one is too eager to rescue them!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!"
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
The title of this article, taken from Walter Scott’s epic poem, the Marmion, aptly describes the web of deceit weaved by Turkey’s leaders in seeking to create the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia.
Under the guise of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia, Turkish officials actually intended to: 1) extract concessions from Armenia – returning Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan, forming a historical commission to review the facts of the Genocide, and blocking territorial demands from Turkey; 2) prevent the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, particularly the United States; and 3) generate a positive image in order to facilitate Turkey’s entry into the European Union.
If Turkey was sincere in its expressed desire to open the border with Armenia, it could have done so just as easily and quickly as it did when closing it in 1993. There was no need for lengthy negotiations, convoluted protocols, and parliamentary ratification. Furthermore, rather than demanding concessions, Turks should have offered inducements to Armenia for agreeing to open the border, because with closed borders, Turkey cannot join the EU.
Ever since April 22, 2009, when the first concrete step was taken by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey by issuing a roadmap for normalizing their relations, Turkish leaders continued to state that they won’t open the border with Armenia without first resolving the Artsakh conflict. Even after signing the Protocols on October 10, 2009 and submitting them to Parliament eleven days later, the Turkish government still insisted that the border would remain closed until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.
Since none of the major powers supported the precondition on Artsakh, Turkey’s leaders used the January 12, 2010 verdict of Armenia’s Constitutional Court as a new excuse for not ratifying the Protocols in the last four months. Even though the Court ruled that the obligations stipulated by the Protocols complied with the constitution, the Ankara leadership expressed dissatisfaction in order to cover up its intent not to ratify the Protocols. Turkey demanded that the Court "correct" its decision, just because it had blocked the unwarranted interpretations and preconditions of the Turkish side.
Unable to convince Armenia to meet their demands, Turkish officials approached Russia, the United States, and Switzerland (the mediator on the Protocols) to apply pressure on Armenia “to correct” the Constitutional Court’s decision. Once again, the Turks were rebuffed.
Last week, Turkey stumbled on a new excuse not to ratify the Protocols -- the announcement by Cong. Howard Berman (Dem.-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that his panel would take up the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4.
Even though the genocide resolution is unrelated to the Protocols, a few days before Cong. Berman’s announcement, Turkey’s new Ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, warned the U.S. Congress against such a move and boldly predicted that such a resolution would not come up for a vote "this year or anytime in the future." Amb. Tan’s warning clearly exposed Turkey’s hidden agenda to bury the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide at every opportunity.
Now that the genocide resolution is scheduled for a vote, what would the Turks do? They are caught in their own web of deceit! If they rush to ratify the Protocols in order to prevent the adoption of the resolution, they would antagonize their Azeri ally and create internal political turmoil. On the other hand, If they does not ratify the Protocols very soon, there is a high probability that the genocide resolution would receive congressional approval this year.
Meanwhile, Washington is losing patience with Turkey’s repeated excuses for dragging its feet on the Protocols. In retaliation, the Obama administration could use the genocide resolution as a stick to prod Turkey into ratifying the Protocols. Moreover, Turkey cannot count on much political support from Israel or American-Jewish organizations in order to block the genocide resolution, due to the incessant insults hurled by Prime Minister Erdogan at Israeli leaders over the past year.
By refusing to ratify the Protocols, Turkey has taken away from the Obama administration its excuse for not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Despite his repeated campaign promises, Pres. Obama refrained from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24, 2009 statement. He had unwisely adopted the duplicitous Turkish line that third countries should not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, while Armenia and Turkey were trying to normalize their relations.
It is noteworthy that when Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State, was asked last week to comment on the likely impact of the Armenian Genocide resolution on the Protocols, he insisted that they be ratified without preconditions. Significantly, he did not use the occasion to express any opposition to the resolution.
Any attempt by the administration to block the congressional resolution would be highly embarrassing for Pres. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since all three as Senators and presidential candidates had issued strong statements in support of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
Since Obama administration officials have repeatedly stated that the Protocols have no preconditions, then there should be no reason for them to object to the adoption of the genocide resolution.
It should be stated that in normal circumstances there would be no need for further action by the President or Congress on recognition of the Armenian Genocide which is already an acknowledged fact. In 1975 and 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted resolutions recognizing the Genocide and Pres. Reagan acknowledged it in his Presidential Proclamation of 1981. However, in view of Turkey’s devious designs to roll back the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, it is imperative that the United States government reaffirm its acknowledgment. This would also be an appropriate response to the deceptive Turkish tactics of using the Protocols to extract concessions, under the false pretense of opening the border with Armenia.
Publisher, The California Courier
The title of this article, taken from Walter Scott’s epic poem, the Marmion, aptly describes the web of deceit weaved by Turkey’s leaders in seeking to create the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia.
Under the guise of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia, Turkish officials actually intended to: 1) extract concessions from Armenia – returning Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan, forming a historical commission to review the facts of the Genocide, and blocking territorial demands from Turkey; 2) prevent the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, particularly the United States; and 3) generate a positive image in order to facilitate Turkey’s entry into the European Union.
If Turkey was sincere in its expressed desire to open the border with Armenia, it could have done so just as easily and quickly as it did when closing it in 1993. There was no need for lengthy negotiations, convoluted protocols, and parliamentary ratification. Furthermore, rather than demanding concessions, Turks should have offered inducements to Armenia for agreeing to open the border, because with closed borders, Turkey cannot join the EU.
Ever since April 22, 2009, when the first concrete step was taken by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey by issuing a roadmap for normalizing their relations, Turkish leaders continued to state that they won’t open the border with Armenia without first resolving the Artsakh conflict. Even after signing the Protocols on October 10, 2009 and submitting them to Parliament eleven days later, the Turkish government still insisted that the border would remain closed until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.
Since none of the major powers supported the precondition on Artsakh, Turkey’s leaders used the January 12, 2010 verdict of Armenia’s Constitutional Court as a new excuse for not ratifying the Protocols in the last four months. Even though the Court ruled that the obligations stipulated by the Protocols complied with the constitution, the Ankara leadership expressed dissatisfaction in order to cover up its intent not to ratify the Protocols. Turkey demanded that the Court "correct" its decision, just because it had blocked the unwarranted interpretations and preconditions of the Turkish side.
Unable to convince Armenia to meet their demands, Turkish officials approached Russia, the United States, and Switzerland (the mediator on the Protocols) to apply pressure on Armenia “to correct” the Constitutional Court’s decision. Once again, the Turks were rebuffed.
Last week, Turkey stumbled on a new excuse not to ratify the Protocols -- the announcement by Cong. Howard Berman (Dem.-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that his panel would take up the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4.
Even though the genocide resolution is unrelated to the Protocols, a few days before Cong. Berman’s announcement, Turkey’s new Ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, warned the U.S. Congress against such a move and boldly predicted that such a resolution would not come up for a vote "this year or anytime in the future." Amb. Tan’s warning clearly exposed Turkey’s hidden agenda to bury the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide at every opportunity.
Now that the genocide resolution is scheduled for a vote, what would the Turks do? They are caught in their own web of deceit! If they rush to ratify the Protocols in order to prevent the adoption of the resolution, they would antagonize their Azeri ally and create internal political turmoil. On the other hand, If they does not ratify the Protocols very soon, there is a high probability that the genocide resolution would receive congressional approval this year.
Meanwhile, Washington is losing patience with Turkey’s repeated excuses for dragging its feet on the Protocols. In retaliation, the Obama administration could use the genocide resolution as a stick to prod Turkey into ratifying the Protocols. Moreover, Turkey cannot count on much political support from Israel or American-Jewish organizations in order to block the genocide resolution, due to the incessant insults hurled by Prime Minister Erdogan at Israeli leaders over the past year.
By refusing to ratify the Protocols, Turkey has taken away from the Obama administration its excuse for not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Despite his repeated campaign promises, Pres. Obama refrained from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24, 2009 statement. He had unwisely adopted the duplicitous Turkish line that third countries should not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, while Armenia and Turkey were trying to normalize their relations.
It is noteworthy that when Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State, was asked last week to comment on the likely impact of the Armenian Genocide resolution on the Protocols, he insisted that they be ratified without preconditions. Significantly, he did not use the occasion to express any opposition to the resolution.
Any attempt by the administration to block the congressional resolution would be highly embarrassing for Pres. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since all three as Senators and presidential candidates had issued strong statements in support of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
Since Obama administration officials have repeatedly stated that the Protocols have no preconditions, then there should be no reason for them to object to the adoption of the genocide resolution.
It should be stated that in normal circumstances there would be no need for further action by the President or Congress on recognition of the Armenian Genocide which is already an acknowledged fact. In 1975 and 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted resolutions recognizing the Genocide and Pres. Reagan acknowledged it in his Presidential Proclamation of 1981. However, in view of Turkey’s devious designs to roll back the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, it is imperative that the United States government reaffirm its acknowledgment. This would also be an appropriate response to the deceptive Turkish tactics of using the Protocols to extract concessions, under the false pretense of opening the border with Armenia.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
Ordinary Genocide. Baku, January 1990
This is the first film in series of Ordinary Genocide telling the truth about the events of 1988-1992, during which the Armenian population of Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh was repeatedly subjected to ethnic cleansing and genocide. Based on eyewitnesses' facts, documents and publication in the press, this film tells about the bloody week organized on January 13-19, 1990 in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, which resulted inhuman killing of hundreds and forced deportation of more than ten thousands of people...
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Armenia-Diaspora Unity Must be Preserved at all Cost
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
In recent months, as heated debates raged on the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Diaspora Armenians reacted with frustration and anger at the damage these agreements would have caused to Armenian national interests.
While Armenia’s leaders have the right to take decisions on behalf of the country’s 3 million inhabitants, they also have an obligation to take into account the interests of all 10 million Armenians worldwide on pan-Armenian issues, such as the Genocide, the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, demands from Turkey.
In negotiating the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Armenian officials should have shown more sensitivity to critical national issues. By signing the contested agreements with Turkey, they alarmed and deeply hurt Armenians worldwide. Thousands of angry demonstrators reacted by hurling vitriolic epithets at Pres. Sargsyan, during his October tour of the Diaspora to promote the Protocols. Such confrontations, unprecedented during earlier presidential visits, reflected negatively on the authorities as well as the protesting public.
A small land-locked state faced with blockade, war, economic hardships and enemies on both sides, can ill afford internal divisions and conflicts with its Diaspora. Such discord can only please Turkish leaders who have made no secret of their scheme to split Armenia from "the radical Diaspora," thus making it easier for them to extract concessions on Artsakh, Genocide recognition, and demands for restitution.
What lessons Armenians must now draw from the disheartening experience of infighting over the Protocols?
1) Armenia’s leaders should exercise greater caution and sensitivity by engaging in private consultations with Diasporan leaders prior to conducting negotiations and signing agreements on issues that impact the entire Armenian nation.
2) A Diaspora-wide leadership must be elected to reflect properly the views of the majority of Armenians on crucial issues. Such a mechanism would facilitate the transmission of credible feedback from the Diaspora to Armenia’s leaders and to governments and international organizations. Further details will be presented on this important topic in a future column.
3) Diaspora Armenians should not let disagreements with Armenia’s leadership discourage them from extending aid to the needy, making investments in the country’s economy, and visiting the homeland.
4) In addition to avoiding a split between the Diaspora and Armenia, it is equally important to prevent serious divisions among Diaspora organizations, without stifling the healthy exchange of views and disagreements.
5) The Armenian President needs to receive expert advice on critical economic and political issues which necessitates the creation of a Council of Economic Advisors and a Council on Foreign Relations, consisting of internationally recognized experts. Furthermore, a team of international lawyers should be assembled to advise the President prior to signing international agreements in order to avoid fundamental mistakes which subsequently may have to be corrected by the Constitutional Court.
6) The Armenian government should have assigned the Diaspora Ministry to serve as an unfettered channel of communication between Armenia and the Diaspora during the debates on the Protocols. The Ministry could have been the mechanism through which the concerns and complaints of Armenians worldwide would have been relayed to the Foreign Ministry and the President’s office. After all, the Diaspora Ministry is supposed to be a bridge between the two segments of the Armenian nation. While it is true that the Diaspora Minister accompanied the President during his tour of several countries last October, the Ministry would have gained far more credibility had it been allowed to play a more independent role.
7) Armenian officials must realize that Turkey, given its size and strategic location, has a greater opportunity to get its views publicized through the international media than it is possible for Armenia. Therefore, any issue on which Armenians and Turks have conflicting interpretations, the Turkish version will prevail by being more widely disseminated than the Armenian point of view. That is one of the reasons why agreeing to establish a “historical commission” was not a good idea. According to Turkish officials, the commission was to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide, while the Armenian leaders stated that its objective was to assess the consequences of the Genocide. Had the Protocols been ratified, the Turks would have proceeded to deny the facts of the Genocide and would have succeeded in blaming Armenians for undermining “the good work” of the commission.
8) The Protocols, rather than helping to normalize relations between Armenia and Turkey, have in fact greatly damaged the prospects of such reconciliation. Future attempts must begin with the preliminary steps of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations rather than cramming dozens of unrelated issues and preconditions into a single agreement. True reconciliation has to be based on truth and justice, not lies and cover ups!
Publisher, The California Courier
In recent months, as heated debates raged on the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Diaspora Armenians reacted with frustration and anger at the damage these agreements would have caused to Armenian national interests.
While Armenia’s leaders have the right to take decisions on behalf of the country’s 3 million inhabitants, they also have an obligation to take into account the interests of all 10 million Armenians worldwide on pan-Armenian issues, such as the Genocide, the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, demands from Turkey.
In negotiating the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Armenian officials should have shown more sensitivity to critical national issues. By signing the contested agreements with Turkey, they alarmed and deeply hurt Armenians worldwide. Thousands of angry demonstrators reacted by hurling vitriolic epithets at Pres. Sargsyan, during his October tour of the Diaspora to promote the Protocols. Such confrontations, unprecedented during earlier presidential visits, reflected negatively on the authorities as well as the protesting public.
A small land-locked state faced with blockade, war, economic hardships and enemies on both sides, can ill afford internal divisions and conflicts with its Diaspora. Such discord can only please Turkish leaders who have made no secret of their scheme to split Armenia from "the radical Diaspora," thus making it easier for them to extract concessions on Artsakh, Genocide recognition, and demands for restitution.
What lessons Armenians must now draw from the disheartening experience of infighting over the Protocols?
1) Armenia’s leaders should exercise greater caution and sensitivity by engaging in private consultations with Diasporan leaders prior to conducting negotiations and signing agreements on issues that impact the entire Armenian nation.
2) A Diaspora-wide leadership must be elected to reflect properly the views of the majority of Armenians on crucial issues. Such a mechanism would facilitate the transmission of credible feedback from the Diaspora to Armenia’s leaders and to governments and international organizations. Further details will be presented on this important topic in a future column.
3) Diaspora Armenians should not let disagreements with Armenia’s leadership discourage them from extending aid to the needy, making investments in the country’s economy, and visiting the homeland.
4) In addition to avoiding a split between the Diaspora and Armenia, it is equally important to prevent serious divisions among Diaspora organizations, without stifling the healthy exchange of views and disagreements.
5) The Armenian President needs to receive expert advice on critical economic and political issues which necessitates the creation of a Council of Economic Advisors and a Council on Foreign Relations, consisting of internationally recognized experts. Furthermore, a team of international lawyers should be assembled to advise the President prior to signing international agreements in order to avoid fundamental mistakes which subsequently may have to be corrected by the Constitutional Court.
6) The Armenian government should have assigned the Diaspora Ministry to serve as an unfettered channel of communication between Armenia and the Diaspora during the debates on the Protocols. The Ministry could have been the mechanism through which the concerns and complaints of Armenians worldwide would have been relayed to the Foreign Ministry and the President’s office. After all, the Diaspora Ministry is supposed to be a bridge between the two segments of the Armenian nation. While it is true that the Diaspora Minister accompanied the President during his tour of several countries last October, the Ministry would have gained far more credibility had it been allowed to play a more independent role.
7) Armenian officials must realize that Turkey, given its size and strategic location, has a greater opportunity to get its views publicized through the international media than it is possible for Armenia. Therefore, any issue on which Armenians and Turks have conflicting interpretations, the Turkish version will prevail by being more widely disseminated than the Armenian point of view. That is one of the reasons why agreeing to establish a “historical commission” was not a good idea. According to Turkish officials, the commission was to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide, while the Armenian leaders stated that its objective was to assess the consequences of the Genocide. Had the Protocols been ratified, the Turks would have proceeded to deny the facts of the Genocide and would have succeeded in blaming Armenians for undermining “the good work” of the commission.
8) The Protocols, rather than helping to normalize relations between Armenia and Turkey, have in fact greatly damaged the prospects of such reconciliation. Future attempts must begin with the preliminary steps of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations rather than cramming dozens of unrelated issues and preconditions into a single agreement. True reconciliation has to be based on truth and justice, not lies and cover ups!
Monday, February 01, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
p--cmYrAD_e345B