Category: Authors

Turkish Anti-Armenian Lobbying Extends to City of Armenia in Colombia

Harut Sassounian

The Breitbart website published an article by Frances Martel describing the Turkish lobbying efforts in the Colombian City of Armenia which was founded in 1889 and originally called Villa Holguín. According to Wikipedia, the South American city changed its name to Armenia “in memory of the Armenian people murdered by the Turkish Ottomans in the Hamidian Massacres of 1894-97 and later the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23.” Some scholars dispute this assertion, ascribing the origin of the city’s name to the Biblical reference to Armenia.

Ece Ozturk Cil, the Turkish Ambassador in Bogota, Colombia, sent two letters on December 14, 2018 and January 11, 2019 to the Mayor of Armenia, Colombia, inviting him and 10 City Councilmembers to visit Turkey as official guests of the Turkish government.

On February 3, 2019, during a special Sunday night session, Armenia’s City Council by a vote of 12 to 6 approved the visit of Mayor Oscar Castellanos and nine City Councilmembers to Turkey, between Feb. 6 and 13, 2019. During the trip, the Mayor and City Councilmembers of Armenia met with the Mayors of Istanbul and Ankara, the Chairman of the Turkish Parliament, and visited the Center of Latin American Studies at the University of Ankara. They also met with Turkish businessmen and visited the Blue Mosque and the Grand Bazaar.

The trip generated a major controversy in Colombia. Many residents of the city of Armenia objected to the visit, because of the absence of the Mayor and the nine City Councilmembers at a time when the city was in economic disarray and mismanaged. Five mayors of Armenia had been ousted in the past three years due to corruption. The citizens felt that the new Mayor should have stayed home and taken care of the business of the city. The Regional Prosecutor General opened an investigation into the Turkish trip to review the violations committed by the Mayor and the Councilmembers. They should also be investigated to establish what bribes or gifts they received from their “generous” Turkish hosts while visiting Turkey.

The local Colombian publication Semana confirmed the link between Armenia (Colombia), Turkey and genocide: “…It turns out that the [city] council of Armenia, [Colombia], decided through Agreement 08 of 2014, to recognize the Armenian Genocide and as such declare April 24 as the official commemorative date, in solidarity with the country that bears the same name as the Colombian city. Subsequently, the Council ratified these links in Minutes 075 of 2015, through which they sought to establish ties of friendship with the Republic of Armenia….”

In response to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Semana explained that “everything seems to indicate that the background of this invitation from the Turkish government is to provide the council members with the other version of a painful historical episode that points to that country as responsible for genocide.”

Semana reported: “As will be remembered, what is known today as the Armenian Genocide happened in 1915 during the First World War and although the figures are still under discussion, there is talk of a minimum of 300,000 and a maximum of 1.5 million deaths. The victims of that extermination were the Armenian people and they point as their executioner to the Ottoman Turkish Empire, today’s Turkey.”

Semana wondered if as a consequence of the city officials’ trip to Turkey they may decide to repeal the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

In the meantime, the only new development since the trip is a mural of a man wearing Ottoman-era clothing on the side of Armenia’s city council building. Breitbart reported that the mural has “no historical correlation to the city” and “is confusing and angering many residents…. The regional newspaper La Crónica de Quindío reported that locals appear baffled, and some outraged, by the expensive mural, which they find irrelevant to their heritage.”

Breitbart quoted a local woman named Maricela Montes telling La Cronica: “I don’t really understand what Armenia [the Colombian city] has to do with Turkey. I think that what they need is to pay back favors for that little trip they took…. It is not logical that something like this would be painted on such a pretty department.”

The newspaper quoted another resident as saying that he is not angry, but merely “confused.” Jorge Jaramillo told La Cronica: “We are confused because we don’t understand what a sultan has to do with Armenia [the city]. What is happening to us? Please, serious statesmen have to take the reins of this city. This is truly horrible for our capital.” City Councilman Luis Guillermo Agudelo told El Tiempo: “the mural is an absurdity…. This is a public building that has a very important connotation…. This is where our gallery was, and now they are totally changing its identity.”

El Tiempo reported that “the council is not only considering cultural favors to Turkey. They are now openly debating amending the 2014 declaration the city passed recognizing the Armenian genocide,” according to Breitbart.

So far, the Turkish invitation has backfired on Turkey because it has generated a lot of discussion about the Armenian Genocide in the Colombian media and has gotten the Mayor and the City Councilmembers in legal trouble.

It is incumbent on the Armenian Republic’s Ambassador to Brazil, who is also accredited to Colombia, to initiate an immediate action to counter the Turkish lobbying efforts. A similar action has to be undertaken by the Armenian communities in South America. They should also ensure that the City Council does not repeal its earlier decision to recognize the Armenian Genocide and gets rid of the Ottoman mural.

July 17, 2019
GMIS-2019 will drive the Fourth industrial revolution
The GMIS-2019 is about to take off on July, 9. The summit is a joint venue of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Arab Emirates. Russia provides great opportunities for the development of industry and high technology. The UNIDO head Li Yong has repeatedly given positive assessments of the close cooperation of the international organization and Russia. The cooperation includes Russia’s support of participation in large-scale industrialization programs in developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, which contribute to a positive image in these regions. Besides, Russia also provides industrial development and maintenance projects in Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The signing of a cooperation agreement with the Eurasian Economic Commission and the provision of platforms for the St. Petersburg International Forum and GMIS-2019 were also noted by the UNIDO head as appositive move. In addition, the approaches of Russia and UNIDO to the solution of the socio-economic problems today are very common. The summit provides an opportunity to use all the necessary potential of the participating countries to expand cooperation with each other. The geographical location of Ekaterinburg on the border of Europe and Asia contributes to the development of economic relations of European entrepreneurs with partners from China, Japan and other Asian countries. The examples of the World Cup games in 2018 and the international industrial exhibition INNOPROM emphasize the availability of infrastructure facilities in the city for hosting major international events and accommodate up to 40,000 tourists per day. The organizer of the summit is preparing an exhibition of 100 startups, which includes the most promising sectors – the drivers of growth of the world economy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The willingness of international representatives to take part in the summit testifies their attitude towards Russia as a reliable trade and economic partner, which fulfills its obligations, despite US attempts to isolate Russia from the system of international relations.
July 7, 2019
USAID economic cluster in Bishkek to cross with EU and China investments

US Embassy in Bishkek

A new economic cluster to support Kyrgyzstan’s light industry is to be launched in Bishkek. The project initiated by the USAID aims to enhance the country’s light industry businesses and to provide grant support to entrepreneurs, said the press-office of the US Embassy in Bishkek.
However, the US initiative confronts the interests of the EU and China in the region. Earlier in April, President of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbay Jeenbekov made his first visit to Germany after becoming President in 2017. The purpose of the visit was to expand trade and economic relations with Germany, to attract EU’s investment in the region and to reform the banking sector of the country. As a result, 11 bilateral contracts were signed between Kyrgyz and German companies. Later in April Jeenbekov met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in purpose to “open a new page of Kyrgyz-Chinese relations” and to take part in the second One Belt One Road Forum.
Jeenbekov’s aim to have tighter relations with the EU and China is explained by the country’s ambitions to play a solid role in the Eurasia integration and to become a strategic transit zone for the global One Belt One Road initiative. On the other hand, the US economic policy in the country might disturb the EU transparent business approach and will lead to Washington’s control over Kyrgyz enterprises. Stronger positions of the US in Kyrgyzstan will also stall the plans of Beijing to integrate infrastructure projects in Kyrgyzstan . The aggravation of relations with China will have a negative impact on the Kyrgyz economy, given its high dependence on Chinese investment and the Bishkek’s inclusion into One Belt One Road initiative.
The current situation puts Kyrgyzstan at the crossroads and the way the country will choose will be defining its long-term development for the next decades. According to local politicians, the political and economic compass President Jeenbekov will choose will also play a crucial role during the 2020 Kyrgyz Presidential elections campaign.

June 27, 2019
Turkey’s Membership in NATO Could be Ending Soon…

By Harut Sassounian

Patrick Shanahan, Acting Defense Secretary of the United States, sent on June 6, 2019, a harsh letter to his counterpart, Hulusi Akar, Turkey’s Minister of Defense. Shanahan threatened to end Turkey’s participation in the most advanced US air force jet F-35 program and implement sanctions should Turkey persist in acquiring S-400 missiles from Russia next month. The Russian missiles are incompatible with NATO’s weapons system and risk to compromise the F-35 jets operations, thus jeopardizing U.S. national security.

Turkish President Erdogan has repeatedly rejected U.S. complaints and insisted on acquisition of the Russian missiles for which Turkey has signed a $2.5 billion loan agreement with Russia. Several Turkish military officers are already in Russia learning how to operate the new missiles. In the meantime, the United States has informed Turkey that Turkish pilots who had been training on the F-35 jets in the United States for several months have to depart from the country by July 31, 2019.

Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan’s letter sent shock waves into Turkey’s foreign policy and security establishment as Turkey doesn’t yet know “how to reply,” a senior Turkish security source told Al-Monitor. In the meantime, Turkey had paid over a billion dollars to acquire 100 F-35 jets. Pres. Erdogan announced that he will demand the payment back from the United States. Furthermore, Turkey, as a partner in the F-35 program, has been producing certain parts of the jets which will no longer be sourced from Turkey.

Shanahan wrote to Turkey’s Defense Minister: “All actions taken on the F-35 are based on risks the S-400 presence in Turkey would have and they are separate from Russia-related Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) sanctions. There is strong bipartisan U.S. Congressional determination to see CAATSA sanctions imposed on Turkey if Turkey acquires the S-400. In addition to threatening the security of platforms like the F-35, Turkey’s procurement of the S-400 will hinder your nation’s ability to enhance or maintain cooperation with the United States and within NATO, lead to Turkish strategic and economic over-dependence on Russia, and undermine Turkey’s very capable defense industry and ambitious economic development goals. Pursuing this path will cause a loss in jobs, gross domestic product, and international trade. President Trump committed to boost bilateral trade from $20 billion currently to more than $75 billion, however that may be challenging if the United States imposes CAATSA sanctions.”

On June 14, 2019, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened that Turkey will retaliate to U.S. sanctions: “One country cannot give instructions to another on how to act. The US should abandon this behavior. Everyone is concerned about this. How far can it go? If the US takes steps against us, then we will be forced to take reciprocal steps,” he stated in an interview with NTV channel.

What are the next steps? Pres. Erdogan has learned from previous experiences that Pres. Trump does not always listen to his Cabinet members or to members of Congress. Erdogan has had several phone conversations to convince Trump to form a joint study group which will buy time for Turkey. In the meantime, naturally-occurring or artificially-created world events may change the present situation. The Presidents of Turkey and the United States are scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit in Tokyo at the end of June. That would be Erdogan’s last chance to persuade Trump to change his decision on the Russian missile acquisition in July.

If unable to change Trump’s mind, Erdogan will go ahead and acquire the Russian missiles in order to avoid being humiliated by the United States. However, that would only be the beginning of a larger conflict! The United States would impose sanctions on Turkey, seriously damaging its economy. Erdogan could retaliate by banning NATO from using the Incirlik air base in Turkey. The United States would then relocate its jets to Jordan (as Germany has done) or Greece (a NATO member) or Cyprus.

This vicious cycle of punches and counter punches could end up by either Turkey withdrawing from NATO or NATO deciding to expel Turkey.

The removal of Turkey from NATO is a step that has been anticipated for a long time, ever since Erdogan has been acting contrary to the letter and spirit of the NATO agreement. Even though expelling Turkey from NATO is a serious decision fraught with major consequences, Erdogan is the cause by repeatedly violating Turkey’s commitments to NATO and ignoring all its warnings.

The obvious winner in this situation will be Russia which will succeed in weakening NATO by excluding Turkey — the country with the second largest military in NATO, while earning from the sale of the missiles desperately needed income for its collapsed economy.

However, Russia’s success may be short-lived. As soon as a geo-political conflict arises between Russia and Turkey, the newly-formed love-fest will fall apart, putting an end to Turkish acrobatic moves between East and West, and getting abandoned by both!

June 24, 2019
Azerbaijan May be Expelled from Council Of Europe for Violating Court Ruling

All members of the European Council had agreed to comply with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). However, Azerbaijan has violated that commitment ever since 2014, according to the unanimous ruling of ECHR’s Grand Chamber of 17 judges, including the judge representing Azerbaijan, on May 29, 2019.

The case involves Azerbaijan’s imprisonment of political activist Ilgar Mammadov who was charged with criminal offenses and placed “in pre-trial detention in 2013 without there being any reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offense. [The European] Court considered the circumstances indicated the actual purpose of those measures was to silence or punish Mammadov for criticizing the Government [of Azerbaijan],” according to a press release by ECHR.

ECHR “found in particular that the Government [of Azerbaijan] had taken only limited steps to implement the judgment, which had not amounted to Azerbaijan acting in ‘good faith’ or in a manner which was in accordance with the ‘conclusions and spirit’ of its ruling in Mammadov’s case. It concluded that Azerbaijan had failed to fulfill its obligation under the Convention to abide by the judgment,” according to ECHR’s press release.

On December 5, 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for supervising the enforcement of the ECHR’s judgments, referred Azerbaijan’s violation back to European Court to determine whether that country had failed to abide by its 2014 judgment by not releasing Mammadov unconditionally.

After ECHR’s Grand Chamber ruled on May 29, 2019 that Azerbaijan had indeed violated its 2014 judgment, ECHR referred the case back to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for consideration of further measures to be taken.

The Committee of Ministers stressed that there were fundamental flaws in the criminal proceedings against Mammadov and “called many times for Azerbaijan to release Mammadov as an essential step towards redressing the violations the [European] Court had found. However, he remained in detention for almost four years after the ECHR’s judgment had become final on 13 October 2014, until his conditional release on 13 August 2018, following the initiation of the infringement proceedings. In March 2019 [Azerbaijan’s] Supreme Court, after reducing his sentence, found he had served his time in full and set aside the probation order and other conditions on his release,” according to ECHR’s Grand Chamber.

Here is the background of Mammadov’s case as described by ECHR’s press release: He was born in 1970 and lives in Baku. He is a political blogger and activist who had also announced his intention to run as president of Azerbaijan in 2013. He was placed in pre-trial detention in February 2013 after writing on his blog about disturbances in Ismayilli. Mammadov said, among other things, that people there had been reacting to the “corruption and insolence” of public officials. He was subsequently charged with organizing or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order, and later he was accused of stirring mass disorder and resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health.

Mammadov applied to ECHR on February 25, 2013, alleging that he had been arrested and detained without a “reasonable suspicion” of a criminal offence; that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached; and that he had been prosecuted for his political views and the threat he had presented to the regime as a potential presidential candidate. In March 2014, Azerbaijan’s court convicted and sentenced him to seven years in prison.

In the Grand Chamber’s judgment of May 22, 2014 (the first Mammadov judgment) ECHR found violations of his right to liberty and security, right to judicial review of detention, presumption of innocence, and limitation on use of restrictions on rights. The ECHR also ordered the government of Azerbaijan to pay him 20,000 euros in compensation.

The Committee of Ministers first examined the case in December 2014. It took numerous decisions and interim resolutions, highlighting the State’s obligation under the Convention to adopt individual measures to put an end to any violations that had been established and to erase their consequences so as to put Mammadov in the position he would have been in if his rights had not been violated.

In October 2017, the Committee put Azerbaijan on formal notice that, in its view, it had failed to fulfill its obligation under the Convention, the first step in an infringement procedure. The Committee of Ministers in December 2017 also referred a question to ECHR on Azerbaijan’s fulfillment of its obligation.

Mammadov was freed on probation in August 2018. In March 2019, Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court reduced his sentence, found he had served his time in full and set aside the conditions on his release. In November 2017, ECHR found that Mammadov’s trial on the same criminal charges as those criticized in its 2014 judgment had also violated his rights (the second Mammadov judgment).

If Azerbaijan continues not to comply with ECHR’s judgments, it may eventually be expelled from the Council of Europe.

June 6, 2019
Mkhitaryan`s Case: While Sport is Politicized

Azer HASRET

By Azer HASRET, [email protected]

Henrikh Mkhitaryan is a player. And it seems not only football player. He arises as a political manipulator at the hands of those people or circles which use any opportunity to blackmail Azerbaijan – a host country, which is hosting Europa League Final on May 29, 2019.

What is going? Why the world media is paying such a great attention to the personality of Mkhitaryan and his decision to come or not to Baku for the Final? Is he really just that player without whom the well-known English soccer team Arsenal would fail?

Or is really Arsenal so weak as a soccer team having missing just midsize player like Mkhitaryan can`t play a good game?

Probably, sport journalists have very clear answers to these very simple questions. But I believe that not all of them would know answers to the question why Mkhitaryan is so manipulating around this very peaceful and friendly football game…

We know answer. This very football player is using his Armenian origin as a tool to attack Azerbaijan.

Let`s see step by step development of the issue.

In 2017 UEFA reviews applications by Seville of Spain, Istanbul of Turkey and Baku of Azerbaijan. All three cities were competing for Europa League Final 2019 and Baku has won.

In those days no one, including UEFA officials and this very Mkhitaryan, who played with Manchester United did not and could not know which teams are going to get through to the final destination.

And Azerbaijan while competing to host the Final agreed and took obligations to host any team and its members instead of their nationality.

This means that Azerbaijan and UEFA both knew if any team will come with Armenian players the doors will be open with no any obstacle.

Now Great Britain`s Arsenal is one of the Final players and has one player of Armenian origin. Henrikh Mkhitaryan, who is a member of Armenian National Team and plays for Arsenal, claims that his security will be under question if he arrives to Azerbaijan to play. As we have enough detailed information, we are more than sure, that no threat for the player of Armenian origin is presence.

According to football and state officials of Azerbaijan while Arsenal raised an issue of security for its player of Armenian origin, the host country guaranteed in written form that Mkhitaryan will not suffer any kind of discrimination, intimidation and so on…

But instead of continues assurances from Azerbaijan side, Mkhitaryan campaigners launched very wide campaign to blame Azerbaijan for “racism”, which is very surprising for the most tolerant and multicultural Muslim country of the world.

Azerbaijan, if compare with Mkhitaryan`s Armenia, is multicultural and multinational country with dozens of national-ethnic minorities. In contrary, Armenia is mono-ethnic country of the world with 98% of the total population being of Armenian origin. If think a bit deeper Armenia is a country, which does not like to tolerate nationalities other than Armenians on its soil. The last ethnic cleansing in Armenia happened at the end of 1980s while around 250 thousands Muslim Azerbaijanis were forcefully expelled from the country.

Now someone – named Henrikh Mkhitaryan – a soccer player from Armenia, who was born on 1989 – while his ancestors were killing and forcing out Azerbaijanis from his country – claims, that Azerbaijan is not secure place for him to come.

Is that real? Is that really dangerous for Armenians to come to Azerbaijan? If to remember previous international events, including sporty ones, we see contrary. Even we remember The 1st European Games held in Azerbaijan in the summer of 2015, while an Armenian sportsman was among winners, the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev himself presented his medallion and the sportsman was very happy. BTW he was representing not any other country than Armenia. He came directly from Armenia to represent Armenia which is still keeping under occupation a part of Azerbaijan killing more than 20 thousands and expelling around 1 million Azerbaijanis.

Armenian campaigners and their supporters are accusing Azerbaijan for being “racist”. One must be surprised to hear this as there can`t be a sign of racism in regard to Mkhitaryan – an Armenian. Because Mkhitaryan and Armenians are not of other race. They are the same white Caucasians like the people of host country – Azerbaijan. But Armenian propaganda machine still is accusing Azerbaijan for being “racist” in regard to an Armenian…

Just in order to be more clear we`d like to add some quotes from the UEFA Europa League final Organizing Committee statement in regard to the issue.

“Whilst we recognize the right to make a personal decision not to travel, we would like to reiterate that as the host country Azerbaijan has provided all the necessary guarantees required by UEFA to ensure the personal safety of Mr. Mkhitaryan. There is no reason whatsoever to put in question the seriousness of these guarantees provided by Azerbaijan.”

The statement further says: “Over the past decade a large number of Armenian athletes have taken part in various international sports events in Azerbaijan without any issues”.

We believe that there is no need for further comment. Everything is quite clear. Azerbaijan is not blocking Mkhitaryan`s voyage, in contrary, the host country is assuring safety and full of joy sporty event. But still some people are trying to politicize the sport in order to achieve dirty goals which are not in line with peaceful and friendly contest…

May 28, 2019