Category: Authors

A 48-page Central Intelligence Agency Top Secret Report, prepared in August 1988 and made public in 2012 with some deletions, is titled “Unrest in the Caucasus and the Challenge of Nationalism.” Despite the passage of time, the Report includes an interesting analysis of the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict from the perspective of U.S. intelligence services.

The CIA analyst, in the introduction of his Report, traced the origins of the Artsakh conflict: “Enmity between Armenian and Azeri factions has existed for hundreds of years, and the 1920s settlement subordinating Nagorno-Karabakh — Armenia’s cultural and religious center — to the Azerbaijan Republic has been a continual, albeit long-muted, source of Armenian frustration and concern. Azeri animosity toward the Armenians has been intensified by political, economic, and demographic trends that have adversely affected the political status of Azeris and increased the gap in living standards between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In particular, the rapid expansion of Azerbaijan’s young adult population has put enormous strain on the Republic’s capacity to provide adequate jobs, housing, and education. Azeri frustration has found an outlet in attacks on Armenians.”

The unnamed CIA analyst reported that a split within the Politburo on how to handle the Artsakh crisis made the situation worse. Second Secretary Ligachev and KGB Chief Chebrikov were the hardliners who vehemently opposed the separation of Artsakh from Azerbaijan. They disagreed with Gorbachev’s reforms and blamed foreign powers for inciting unrest inside the Soviet Union.

When two prominent Armenian writers, Silva Kaputikyan and Zori Balayan, met with Gorbachev in Moscow in February 1988, they reported that he was well briefed and assured them that he wanted a “just solution.” He acknowledged “the peaceful nature of the [Armenian] demonstrations and emphasized his personal sympathy with the desire to reunite Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia….”

Upon the return of the Armenian envoys to Yerevan, in a radio broadcast on February 27, 1988, Kaputikyan called for Armenians to trust Gorbachev. “He knows about and understands our problem and wants to resolve it personally…. We must do our utmost to ensure that no harm” is done to him, Kaputikyan announced.

Regarding Soviet concerns about foreign, particularly Armenian-American interference in domestic Soviet turmoil, the CIA analyst reported: “The recent unrest appears to have made Soviet officials more fearful about the role of foreign actors in the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Of the approximately 5.5 million people in the world today who speak Armenian, about 60% live outside the Soviet Armenian republic, about 1.4 million elsewhere in the USSR, and 2 million abroad. So far, Armenian emigres — most of whom see Turkey much more than Russia as the historic oppressor of their nation — have not been actively involved in pushing for change in the Soviet system or in Soviet policies. Moscow worries that diaspora attitudes could turn sharply critical of the USSR and that Armenians in the United States, particularly, could grow into a powerful anti-Soviet pressure group. Soviet officials are wary of the large concentration of Armenians in California and New York, states with large electoral votes that have been closely contested in previous presidential elections.”

In a footnote at the end of the previous paragraph, the CIA analyst specified that “the United States hosts at least 600,000 Armenians. About 90 percent of America’s Soviet Armenian immigrants came to California. Los Angeles — with 100,000 — has the largest community of Armenians outside Yerevan. The New York City region has about 70,000 Armenians, mostly from Lebanon and Iran.”

The CIA analyst added: “Moscow may be concerned that foreign Armenian terrorist groups like the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) could turn against Soviet targets — although we have no evidence that this is the case. Hitherto, the USSR has figured very little in ASALA’s blending of armed struggle with Marxist ideology; the dominant faction of ASALA considers Soviet Armenia as liberated territory and the group concentrates its attacks exclusively on Turkish officials. In fact, ASALA eventually would like to see ‘the Armenian provinces’ now located in Turkey and possibly Iraq [?] reattach themselves to the Soviet Armenian core. Furthermore, ASALA is now in a quiet phase, and its leader was assassinated on 28 April [1988]. Nevertheless, ASALA in early April did send a moderately worded appeal to Gorbachev supporting the reunification of Karabakh with Armenia, while characteristically stressing that Armenia is an integral part of the USSR and seeks only to rectify the border, not to pursue claims against Moscow.”

Finally, the CIA analyst explained the position of Turkey on the Karabakh conflict: “Although the Turkish Government has not explicitly sided with Azerbaijan, Turkey’s fear of resurgent Armenian nationalism makes Ankara sympathetic to Baku. When the crisis broke in February [1988], Turkish Government spokesmen indicated publicly that international agreements entitle Ankara to a voice in the crisis, an apparent reference to the 1921 treaty between the USSR and Turkey that led to the shift of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. Turkey no doubt especially feared that transferring Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia would whet Armenian appetites and would lead to increased pressure to change the status of Nakhichevan and to acquire former Armenian regions in Turkey. Turkish officials probably also noted that some Armenian expansionist demands for a ‘Greater Armenia’ were based on historic claims rather than on the ethnic composition of the affected territories. Thus, some Armenians have demanded the return of Nakhichevan, even though Azeris now greatly outnumber Armenians in this region. Using such historical criteria, could give Armenians a claim even on some border parts of Turkey where only 50,000 Armenians now live.”

The CIA analyst concluded his Report by outlining five options the USSR had for the resolution of the Artsakh conflict:

1)  “Sticking with the Status Quo”

2)  “Making Further Economic Concessions” to Armenians

3)  “Enhancing Autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh Within Azerbaijan”

4)  Expanding “Extraterritorial Native Cultural Institutions”

5)  “Reconfiguration of Nagorno-Karabakh” by splitting it between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The United Nations’ General Assembly held its annual session Sept. 24-30, 2019 in New York City. The participants were heads of states and high-ranking officials of UN member countries, including Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov. Surprisingly, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev was absent — a big mistake on his part!

The first speech was delivered by Erdogan on Sept. 24, 2019. After speaking about the lofty notions of justice and equality, which are constantly violated by Turkey, Erdogan once again complained about the fact that Turkey is not represented among the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, France, China and Russia) which have a veto power. Long before Turkey is admitted to such an exclusive club, India, Brazil, and possibly Germany should have a priority over Turkey. Erdogan also misrepresented Turkey as the country that “has inflicted the first and heaviest blow” to ISIS terrorists in Syria. In reality, Turkey has been the biggest supporter of ISIS terrorists! Surprisingly, Erdogan blamed Greek Cypriots for Turkey’s continued occupation of Northern Cyprus. He also criticized Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians.

Turning to the Caucasus, Erdogan stated: “it is unacceptable that Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding areas, which are Azerbaijani territories, are still occupied despite the [UN] resolutions adopted.”

Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of Armenia, addressed the UN General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2019, condemning Azerbaijan for its unwillingness to resolve the “Nagorno Karabakh” (Artsakh) conflict. He said that the solution to the conflict must be acceptable to all three populations of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan.

Regarding Turkey, Pashinyan stated that “by refusing to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, overtly assisting Azerbaijan against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, Turkey remains a serious threat to Armenia and the Armenian people, who had experienced the deep tragedy of the genocide and continue to face the fierce denial of truth and justice.”

Speaking at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2019, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov stated that “rather than wasting time on attempts to mislead the international community and its own people, Armenia must drop its lousy attempts to prolong the unsustainable status quo and faithfully comply with its international obligations.” The sooner Armenia gives up its “aggressive and hostile policy in the region,” the better it would overcome its “serious political, economic and social burden,” Mammadyarov said.

Armenia’s UN delegate exercised his “right of reply” to Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Mammadyarov’s speech, accusing him of distorting the conflict of Nagorno Karabakh. Armenia’s representative then mentioned the Azeri massacres of Armenians in Sumgayit, Azerbaijan, in 1988. He added that Nagorno Karabakh was never a part of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan’s representative then responded with his own “right of reply.” The Armenian and Azerbaijani delegates proceeded to deliver a series of remarks replying to each other’s accusations.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu displeased with Erdogan’s criticism of Israel at the UN General Assembly, condemned him harshly according to the Jerusalem Post: “Prime Minister Netanyahu slammed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday calling him a liar and saying that ‘he who doesn’t stop lying about Israel, he who kills Kurds in his own country, he who denies the terrible crimes against the Armenians — that person should not preach to Israel.’”

Netanyahu’s comments did not please Armenians around the world who pointed out that under his leadership Israel has rejected the veracity of the Armenian Genocide and blocked the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the Knesset (parliament). Netanyahu’s words were viewed as simply a disingenuous attempt to use the Armenian Genocide as a tool to bash Erdogan, while Israel itself has not acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. This is the height of hypocrisy by Netanyahu!

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Israeli government, as the leadership of a nation that has suffered genocide itself, should have been the first country to recognize the Armenian Genocide, not the last. At this late stage, even if Israel were to recognize the Armenian Genocide, it would be a pointless exercise as dozens of countries and international organizations have already acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. By continuing its shameless refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide, the Israeli government is simply tarnishing its own reputation in the international community.

Even the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi joined the political fray in New York by meeting with the President of Cyprus and the Prime Ministers of Armenia and Greece to indicate his displeasure at Turkish President Erdogan’s siding with Pakistan in his UN speech. Such a meeting is definitely in the interests of Armenia, Cyprus and Greece in order to counter Pakistan’s cozy relationship with Turkey and Azerbaijan. In June, the Foreign Ministers of Armenia, Cyprus and Greece met in the Cypriot capital of Nicosia to discuss an expansion of their relations. All three countries share the common goal of opposing Turkish hegemony in the region.

To end on an amusing note, Pres. Erdogan refused to sit at Pres. Trump’s table with other heads of states at a banquet given by the U.S. President at the United Nations last week, since Egyptian Pres. Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, whom the Turkish President abhors, was sitting at that table. Erdogan’s chair remained empty, depriving him of the golden opportunity to brainwash Pres. Trump during dinner!

This is part IV (final-part) of the letter exchange between the two historic

figures Armin Wegner and Franz Werfel.

Armin Wegner wrote to Franz Werfel: “Of course, I do not know your own

connection with Asia Minor, and I can be fooled by guessing it. Strangely,

I have found that the Jewish soul, in the frame of German and Prussian

characters, makes them better able to imagine than the majority of German

poets can, that this Asian soul usually stands much further away and stays

more alien to the descendant of the European crusaders. This probably has

its deep foundation in the law of antagonism.

I have no right to ask you to give up your project. That probably

wouldn’t help much either. But you will certainly not be grateful to

me if I, who from the first moment of our meeting, passionately loved

and venerated your poetic work, ask you to consider all my thoughts,

which I submit to you here. Precisely because I appreciate you, not

only as a writer, but I also know the depth of your humanity, I can do

so with a clear conscience. Perhaps it will cause you to drop an

unfinished project that has barely begun, or to go beyond to design a

shorter novelistic study, as it originally began?

I need not emphasize the immense gratitude and the deep reassurance

that would fulfill me, having the opportunity to complete and market

my work without fear of competition. Truly, I cannot give up my

project, which has become my mission from my deepest, profound

experience, for which I have sacrificed laborious years of toil under

the greatest hardships and struggles, and for the sake of it, stood in

the background for so long.”

Werfel responded on Dec. 23, 1932 from Vienna: “Let me first briefly

tell you the story of the formation of my Armenian novel. Since the

war, I have been to the Middle East twice (for several months) – the

first time in 1925, the second time in 1929. In Damascus, I had a

shocking experience with Armenian children, which, to some extent,

made an epic plan virulent in me, which already existed since I first

heard of these things; perhaps just after the war. I do not know for

exactly how long. Oftentimes, in my method of writing, the dramatic or

epic plans grow in the darkness for many years before they are strong

enough to entice me to work. (I wrote the Verdi novel part time in

1911 and completed it in 1923.) In the case of my Armenian novel, I

started studying and sketching only last year. Of course, the work

progressed rapidly during the summer, and today I have already

finished more than half of my book. (around 400 printed pages.)

Be that as it may, I naturally like to acknowledge your primary

concern and bow to you for being an eyewitness. However, I am almost

reluctant to point out that there is no material legitimacy in the

field of poetry [creative writing]. You indicate it several times in

your letter. There are, perhaps, ‘personal’ substances that may belong

to the peculiarity of a particular writer – the World War, with all

its chapters, of which the Armenian tragedy is one, may by no means

count on these substances. Fairly considered, you have in your great

experience and your fateful connectedness, a tremendous advantage over

me, who cannot create his work based on experience, direct exposure,

grasp of senses, but only from imagination, inventiveness and thus

some historical documents. With such a competition, therefore, the

worry should be far more on my side.

But I believe, dear Wegner, that we can both be very calm, because our

works will certainly be completely different. Mine uses documented

facts of only one single episode that covers a few pages in the Alster

collection of Lepsius. The episode serves me as the framework for a

universal human happening, for a symbolic development, for figures

purely invented, it is not an end in itself but only an occasion. Nor

will there be much talk of atrocities and massacres in my book. I will

set aside all the documentary stuff. The human destiny of the invented

characters alone will be important. The scene I am referring to, the

contents of which have become known to you through the newspapers, has

very little to do with the actual novel. The scene I am referring to,

the contents of which have become known to you through the newspapers,

has very little to do with the actual novel. A multi-volume work like

yours will project a gigantic and magnificent painting of the Armenian

destiny, with ten thousand details. While mine, I hope, will be a

story limited to a certain region and a small fragment of people. The

emphasis will be more on the mythical-human side rather than the

Armenian cause.

Lastly, I am surprised about the muffled suspicion that sounds from

certain lines of your letter.

You are suggesting that I had heard of your correspondence with the

Prussian Academy and Paul Zsolnay Publishing House, and might have

been inspired to write my Armenian novel. In fact, I entered the

meeting room of the Poets Academy for the first time in my life

fourteen days ago, and, as far as publishing correspondence is

concerned, my own stuff is already annoying enough.

But is it possible that you seriously believe that the facts of your

work could stimulate my choice of substance and put you off your work?

You are a poet and, therefore, you know that it is not us who choose

the substance, but the substance chooses us. Nothing is more sensible

to me than that everything I write is essential, i.e., dictated from

within.

Until yesterday, from your books I had only the beautiful volume ‘The

Face of the Cities,’ which I admire and love very much. Unfortunately,

I haven’t read any of your prose. Since I work a lot, I read almost no

novels or short stories. I just got the mail with your open letter to

Wilson. The real glow of your words deeply moved me.

Please do not overestimate the rivalry of our works. They go different ways.

For me, and globally, you are a great authority on the Armenian cause,

through knowledge, experience, and connectedness. This was shown to me

in just the few pages I went through yesterday. The glow of these

pages, however, also suggests that your publisher cannot be unhappy,

even when another, be it a layman or artist, tries to serve the same

mission.”

Fortunately, Franz Werfel was not dissuaded by Wegner to give up his

plans to write “The Forty Days of Musa Dagh.” On the other hand,

Wegner published only the first volume of his planned four-volume

book, depriving the world of his precious eyewitness accounts of the

Armenian Genocide.

The California Courier will publish in a four-part series the exchange
between the two historic figures Armin Wegner and Franz Werfel

Armin Wegner wrote to Franz Werfel: “Radio and press continued to

feed on me. In the end, a severe illness knocked me down, which I

haven’t overcome to this day. I was commissioned by a book club to

write an in-depth work on Jewish Palestine. It stole laborious hours

from my great Armenian novel, which would have been finished long

ago, under other circumstances. Nevertheless, I have finished the

first volume, although it still needs a revision. The draft of the second

volume is about half way done, as well as parts of the fourth volume,

which I had started previously.

When I returned from a sanatorium in Meran on December 12 (fairly

recovered), and ready to go back to work again, I heard that you had

read a chapter from a proposed Armenian novel in Berlin. By the way,

the public oration of some sections of my Armenian novel took place on

an evening in the Herrenhause, which the Association of German

Narrators organized for me in November 1930, and which was reported to

the press at that time.

Dear and honored Franz Werfel, you may now ask with certain rights,
why I am writing all this to you? Isn’t it always charming to see
different poets use the same material as they shape it according to
their temperament, personality and creativity? How many various
Madonna paintings do we appreciate based on this artistic impulse,
directed to the same motives in the times of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance? And, has this somehow affected the fame, success and
creativity of the artists? Didn’t it strengthen it, on the contrary?

Unfortunately, we live in other times today, not in an age of cultic
community as we did then. In our case, we also deal with a work in
which documents from the years of the Armenian deportation are a
necessity. Documents which I, despite my own personal experiences,
used heavily, as well. I must necessarily draw a parallel, where in
some places, the content – in isolated cases, even in the exact
wording – completely match. I see this when I have the newspaper
reports of your last lecture in which all of those facts are listed,
which Johannes Lepsius so vividly left in his journal in his own
written judgment about his interview with Enver Pasha.

I hope you don’t misunderstand me! It is not only the right, but the
duty of a writer to use such documents. Nevertheless, it is not
pleasant to see such parallels revealed in the eyes of the public. In
every poetic work, it’s not only the invention, but all the facts
operate with and for the work, which the poet draws from the events
and intellectual currents of his or her time. Contemporary history,
even many literary works of their contemporaries, becomes a quarry for
the significant artist, from which he or she breaks the building
materials for their work. Emerson recognized this very well when he
called Shakespeare a “library” of his time.

The moment I explain this to you, you will also understand the concern
that has come my way, since I heard of your new project. Deep down,
internally, such concern is certainly not the case. The characters of
each poet are necessarily filled with his own flesh and blood, no
matter how much he takes them from history, just as a good portrait at
the same time shows the features of the master who painted it. But
outwardly and economically, this concern is bigger; because your
message forces me, at least regarding my first volume, which I would
like to postpone until the completion of the second one, to publish it
sooner than I intended.

I cannot stay indifferent if a genius, a much more famous and
successful poet, like Franz Werfel, should come out with a novel that
echoes with the conclusion of my own theme. Because with that he will
take away from the public the punchline stuff that my work amounts to,
and for which it was actually written. Obviously, I cannot finish the
last volume and publish it, before completing the other volumes.
Perhaps my fear, caused only by the newspaper notes about your
lecture, is unfounded, but imagining your book published makes me feel
like a North Pole explorer, who after months of life-threatening
hardships, arrives at the pole, realizing that someone else had
arrived before him a few days earlier.

If I make this presentation so detailed to you, it will first of all
be to prove to you the extensive background of my work, with regard to
the shaping of the destiny of Armenia. But there is also another
reason that moves me – I am told by members of the Academy, and by
friends who attended your last lecture, that you had said that the
whole thing would initially be an indeterminate plan, and you did not
even know if you were going to execute it at all. If this is correct,
then my message should probably not be without influence on your
decision.

It is possible that you, as a member of the Academy of the Arts, had
heard of my plans, and the honorary award bestowed to me two years
ago. Or, perhaps, my offer to the publisher Zsolnay, who is so close
to you, or at least through literary circles in general? I suppose
this is not the case, since, as a rule, writers knowingly do not
cultivate the same materials at the same time, especially not when a
project is in an advanced stage.

On the other hand, it proves once again the genius of your poetic
vision, to devote your time and talents to the same formidable event.
And yet, I was not only fighting for my own life’s work here, but I
also would have to warn you against continuing it.

Despite the equality of all primal humanity, Asia, the Asiatic
characters, and Turks as well as Armenians, are so utterly remote from
us that the design of Asia for any European poet, if he really wants
to penetrate into the interior, remains an enticing as well as
dangerous mystery. Although I have lived in the country for many years
in close relationship with Armenians and Turks, although my Armenian
and Turkish friends have provided me with rich personal, unpublished
material, and although my own records of the Armenian people and their
deportation fill out numerous booklets, documents which I have left,
with the consideration of my planned work, to my dear friend Johannes
Lepsius, yet I know the infinite psychological difficulty of the task.

Even for you, it is possible, that this dangerous labyrinth, once it
gets you, will lure you deeper and deeper. I do not know. If I had
known beforehand to what extent my Armenian novel and the work on it
would expand with the years, would I have had the courage to dare to
get involved with it? My participation in this human tragedy has
probably been the deepest and most central shock of my entire human
experience.”

Article to be continued next week.