Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • INTRODUCE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    INTRODUCE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    ancalogo

    PRESS RELEASE
    For Immediate Release: October 21, 2009
    Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian – Tel: (202) 775-1918
    SENATORS MENENDEZ AND ENSIGN INTRODUCE
    ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
    — Renew Senate Drive for U.S. Condemnation of Crime against Humanity
    WASHINGTON, DC – The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) welcomed the introduction today of the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Senate by Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and John Ensign (R-NV).
    The measure is similar to legislation in the U.S. House, H.Res.252, introduced earlier this year by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), George Radanovich (R-CA), and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). This measure already has over 130 cosponsors.
    In introducing the measure, Sen. Menendez noted, “Only when history’s darkest hours are acknowledged and understood can we truly learn from them and build a peaceful future upon those lessons. One and a half million Armenians experienced Hell on Earth, and to sweep their plight under the rug is to insult their memories and their descendants. It is long past time that our nation help set the historical record straight and provide a foundation of understanding that helps prevent future atrocities.”
    Senator Ensign explained, “It inconceivable that after so many years the international community has yet to affirm that the deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation of the Armenian people was genocide. By joining together and affirming that genocide was committed on the Armenian people, we send a strong message to the international community that we will not turn a blind eye to the crimes of the past simply because they are in the past.”
    “On behalf of all Armenian Americans, we thank Senators Menendez and Ensign for their tireless leadership in moving America toward a full and proper commemoration and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “This legislation, in seeking to end U.S. silence in the face of Turkey’s denial of this crime, not only honors the past, but also, very powerfully, helps make Armenia and all the world safer from future genocides.”
    Earlier this month, Senator Menendez had spoken out about the importance of international affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, and condemned provisions in the Turkey-Armenia protocols, which would create a historical commission as “frankly absurd” and an “insult to the Armenian people.” He went on to note, “It is time that Turkey recognizes it [the Armenian Genocide] and accepts it. It is time that the world acknowledges this fact of history and moves on towards a viable peace that honors the true history of the Armenian people.” His complete remarks, delivered at an event supporting the efforts of the ANCA Eastern Region can be viewed at:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g7gQBeWuY8
    The resolution introduced today calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide.” The resolution includes extensive findings from past U.S. hearings, resolutions and Presidential statements on the Armenian Genocide from 1916 through the present, as well as references to statements by international bodies and organizations.
    Armenian National Committee of America
    1711 N Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    Tel. (202) 775-1918
    Fax. (202) 775-5648
    Email. [email protected]
    Internet www.anca.org
  • Turkish Foreign Minister to Meet with Azeri Counterpart, President

    Turkish Foreign Minister to Meet with Azeri Counterpart, President

    A6ANKARA (Combined Sources)—Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu will travel to Baku on Thursday for a ministerial meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) where he will also address what Turkish media is describing as growing concerns by Azerbaijan over Turkey’s push to normalize ties with Armenia, the Turkish Hurriyet Daily reported.

    Davutoglu is expected to meet with his counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov and President Ilham Aliyev on the sidelines of the meeting, Hurriyet said.

    The meeting will come a week after Aliyev threatened to derail the Western Backed Nabucco pipeline project to bring gas from the Caspian Sea to Europe via Turkey.

    Media reports in recent weeks have said the historically strong Turkish-Azeri alliance is in danger of breaking down due to Baku’s uncompromising demands for the Karabakh conflict to be linked to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.

    Although Aliyev presented his threat as a purely commercial move, analysts believe the underlying motive was to send a signal on the Turkish-Armenian deal.

    Baku’s outbursts have been seen as a tactic to force the Karabakh linkage on Armenia, which is already under heavy international pressure to quickly normalize its relations with Turkey and resolve the Karabakh conflict.

    “The timing of Aliyev’s announcement, less than a week after the accord between Yerevan and Ankara was signed, left little doubt.” Said Brian Whitmore, a senior correspondent at RFE/RL. “Baku had argued strenuously that a deal to reestablish relations between Ankara and Yerevan should not be signed while Armenia continued to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh, and it threatened to take unspecified countermeasures if one was.”

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul, meanwhile, phoned his Azeri counterpart, Ilham Aliyev on Wednesday to brief him on discussions with US President Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev on the Karabakh conflict, the Anatolian News Agency reported.

    The two leaders also discussed the recent removal of Turkish flags from a diplomatic mission in Azerbaijan a monument for Turkish soldiers who fought for Azerbaijan in the early 20th century. The move, a breach of international agreements between Azerbaijan and Turkey, was officially protested by Turkey’s ambassador to Azerbaijan.

    Diplomatic sources have said Turkey and Azerbaijan are confident that the two countries will overcome “this period of strain” and will continue their cooperation for providing regional stability.

    According to the Anatolian, Gul and Aliyev agreed that “misunderstandings and misperceptions brought about by some emotional reactions” while the two countries “were passing through hard times have been cleared.” It added that the two leaders “confirmed that impressions that ties between Turkey and Azerbaijan had weakened were not good for both countries.”

    The Turkish flag was removed after Azeri flags were banned by FIFA at the Turkey-Armenia World Cup qualifying match soccer match in Bursa on October 14. The Turkish flags were replaced Tuesday, Azeri media reported, speculating that the decision to remove the flags came in response to a “Turkish ban” on Azeri flags in Bursa.

    Asbarez

  • Struggle to go on, ASALA rep states

    Struggle to go on, ASALA rep states


    18:18 / 10/20/2009

    “We want to warn everyone – from the authorities to the local criminal leaders – that we will not give up our struggle for national dignity,” Alek Yenigomshyan, member of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and of the Miatsum (Unity) initiative, told reporters.

    The statement was intended for those putting obstacles to the signature-gathering campaign against the Armenian-Turkish protocols and Madrid Principles.

    The Miatsum initiative member Armen Yeghyan said that the incident in the Nor-Nork community of Yerevan clearly demonstrated policemen’s “collaboration” with the local criminal elements.

    The film director Tigran Khzmalyan pointed out that Armenia’s special services are obviously persecuting “active citizens,” including students and Karabakh war veterans. In behalf of the Committee in Defense of Political Prisoners and Victims of Political Repressions, Khzmalyan stressed that all those subjected to repressions for pronouncing against the Armenian-Turkish protocols will be declared political prisoners.

    News from Armenia – NEWS.am

  • Sarafian Speaks On Massacre

    Sarafian Speaks On Massacre

    AraSarafian

    By Michael Hamlin Jr. | October 14, 2009, Brianna Campbell / The Collegian –

    Ara Sarafian, an archival historian who specializes in late Ottoman history, presented information to California State University, Fresno students Monday night about the Adana massacre of Armenian’s in the Ottoman Empire. . .

    The year 2009 marks the 100 year anniversary of the state led massacre that killed at least 20,000 Armenians in 1909. The massacre was entrenched in political, economical and religious differences.

    In his presentation entitled ‘Remembering Adana’, Sarafian illustrated the destruction the massacre caused through the use of vivid pictures and hauntingly descriptive text that described the devastation and tragedy that occurred in Adana.

    “The massacre was completely out of the blue,” Sarafian said during his presentation. “The devastation is breathtaking; the pictures bring the damage to life. I like to show them because if I did not, you would think I was lying or telling a story.”

    Fresno State student and audience member Lauren Beal believes Fresno State students can learn many things from Sarafian’s presentation.

    “Students can learn a lot about Armenian history,” Beal said. “If you can learn from history, it most likely will not be repeated.”
    Barlow Der Mugrdechian, director for the center for Armenian studies, agrees that history can teach many things.

    “History tells us a lot about ourselves,” Mugrdechian said after Sarafian’s lecture had concluded. “It [history] can happen again, we have to be careful of that fact and learn from our past mistakes.”

    The Turkish government disputes the history of the events in Adana in 1909. The government contends that the Adana Massacre was an Armenian attack on the Muslim majority.

    Sarafian addressed this issue while speaking about the importance of writing the correct history of the past. He said there is no place for lies or inaccuracies.
    “The Turkish government said the Armenians were rebels [speaking about the Adana massacre of 1909]. That is a flat-out lie,” said Sarafian, founding director of the Gomidas Institute in London, a leading research center which republishes English translations of Armenian texts about the Armenian Genocide. “Historical writing is up to you. History does not write itself, states do not write history, people do.”

    As well as speaking about the Adana massacre, Sarafian also had a message for Fresno State students.

    “Students should have awareness for prejudice,” Sarafian said. “We are the guardians of our own freedom. We need to take a moral stance. Maybe the real question we should ask is how to stop the violence.”

    On Oct. 10, the countries of Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement to establish diplomatic relations and open their border after one century of hostility towards each other. The issue of whether or not the killings of Armenians during the end of the Ottoman Empire is only hinted at, but none the less, the peace treaty was still signed.

    Sarafian also put a positive perspective on the tragic massacre of 1909.

    “History doesn’t always have to be negative, it can bring people together,” Sarafian said. “The legacy of Adana may not be to divide people, but to bring them together.”


    Comments

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI:

    Salahi Sonyel’s book “The Great War and the Tragedy of Anatolia”, TTK, Ankara, 2001, has an entire chapter on Adana; “Chapter 3: The Counter-Revolution” whose four sub-chapters are:

    “The Events of 13 April 1909 (31 Mart Val’asi), pages 48-52

    “The Adana Incidents”, pages 52-60

    “Who was responsible for the Adana Incidents”, pages 61-64

    “The Commission of Inquiry into the Adana Incidents”, pages 65-70.

    All of these findings squarely refute Sarafian’s claims. Here is one excerpt from page 66 where one of the most experienced American missionaries in Anatolia, Rev. Dr. Christie, gives an account to of the very origin of the Adana incident to the American diplomatic representative who, in turn, furnishes it to British ambassador in Istanbul (Lowther)

    “… that the young Armenians of Adana were nearly all revolutionaries, that arms and ammunition were on sale for months, and that both sides had been laying in store of them. He also attributed a large share in the (Adana) events to the ‘evil counsels’ of the Armenian bishop, whom (Dr. Christie) described as ‘a very bad man’…”

    These comments of Dr. Christie refute Sarafian’s claims and show that the idea of a revolutionary plot did in fact exist among many Armenians headed by their ‘evil’ bishop. The Armenians were well armed and supplied, motivated, even arrogant, and quite aggressive; attributes in stark contradiction with the Sarafian misrepresentation of innocent, unarmed Armenians.

    There is much more in this book and elsewhere to clearly demonstrate to truth-seekers that one-sided accounts of historic controversies, such as that by Sarafian of Adana incidents, do not help promote scholarship, truth, peace, or closure.

    Dr. Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist, may have put it best in1976 after all:

    “… The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the Diaspora today…”Ergun.

  • Armenia: the end of the debate?

    Armenia: the end of the debate?

    Gwynne Dyer

    By Gwynne Dyer

    Published October 21, 2009

    THE FIRST great massacre of the 20th century happened in eastern Anatolia 94 years ago. Armenians all over the world insist that their ancestors who died in those events were the victims of a deliberate genocide, and that there can be no reconciliation with the Turks until they admit their guilt. But now the Armenians back home have made a deal.

    On October 10, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed a accord in Zurich that reopens the border between the two countries, closed since 1993, and creates a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915. It is a triumph for reason and moderation, so the nationalists in both countries attacked it at once.

    The most anguished protests came from the Armenian diaspora: eight million people living mainly in the United States, France, Russia, Iran and Lebanon. There are only three million people living in Armenia itself, and remittances from the diaspora are twice as large as the country’s entire budget, so the views of overseas Armenians matter.

    Unfortunately, their views are quite different from those of the people who actually live in Armenia. For Armenians abroad, making the Turks admit that they planned and carried out a genocide is supremely important. Indeed, it has become a core part of their identity.

    For most of those who are still in Armenia, getting the Turkish border re-opened is a higher priority. Their poverty and isolation are so great that a quarter of the population has emigrated since the border was closed sixteen years ago, and trade with their relatively rich neighbour to the west would help to staunch the flow.

    Moreover, the agreement does not require Armenia to give back the Armenian-populated parts of Azerbaijan, its neighbour to the east. Armenia’s conquest of those lands in 1992-94 was why Turkey closed the border in the first place (many Turks see the Turkic-speaking Azeris as their “little brothers”), so in practical terms Armenian president Serge Sarkisian has got a very good deal.

    The communities of the diaspora, however, believe the Armenian government has sold them out on the genocide issue. Their remittances are crucial to Armenia, so President Serge Sarkisian has spent the past weeks travelling the world, trying to calm their fury. In the end, he will probably succeed, if only because they have nowhere else to go.

    But can any practical consideration justify abandoning the traditional Armenian demand that Turkey admit to a policy of genocide? Yes it can, because it is probably the wrong demand to be making.

    Long ago, when I was a budding historian, I got sidetracked for a while by the controversy over the massacres of 1915. I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year. What happened is quite clear.

    The British and the Russians planned to knock the Ottoman empire out of the war quickly by simultaneous invasions of eastern Anatolia, Russia from the north and Britain by landings on Turkey’s south coast. So they welcomed the approaches of Armenian nationalist groups and asked them to launch uprisings behind the Turkish lines to synchronise with the invasions. The usual half-promises about independence were made, and the Armenian groups fell for it.

    The British later switched their attack to the Dardanelles in an attempt to grab Istanbul, but they never warned their Armenian allies that the south-coast invasion was off. The Russians did invade, but the Turks managed to stop them. The Armenian revolutionaries launched their uprisings as promised, and the Turks took a terrible vengeance on the whole community.

    Istanbul ordered the Armenian minority to be removed from eastern Anatolia on the grounds that their presence behind the lines posed a danger to Turkish defences. Wealthy Armenians were allowed to travel south to Syria by train or ship, but for the impoverished masses it was columns marching over the mountains in the dead of winter. They faced rape and murder at the hands of their guards, there was little or no food, and many hundreds of thousands died.

    If genocide just means killing a lot of people, then this certainly was one. If genocide means a policy that aims to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group, then it wasn’t. Armenians who made it alive to Syria, then also part of the Ottoman empire, were not sent to death camps. Indeed, they became the ancestors of today’s huge Armenian diaspora. Armenians living elsewhere in the empire, notably in Istanbul, faced abuse but no mass killings.

    It was a dreadful crime, and only recently has the public debate in Turkey even begun to acknowledge it. It was not a genocide if your standard of comparison is what happened to the European Jews, but diaspora Armenians will find it very hard to give up their claim that it was. Nevertheless, the grown-ups are now in charge both in Armenia and in Turkey, and amazing progress is being made.

    n Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

    =======================================================

    Latest Articles :: Gallery :: Books :: Directory :: Contact

    Coming Soon – Selected Book Chapters

    Podcasts   Ideas1 Ideas2 Ideas3 TVO

    The Climate Wars

    © 2000-2009 all rights reserved

    .

    GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries.

    His first television series, the 7-part documentary ‘War’, was aired in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, ‘The Profession of Arms’, was nominated for an Academy Award.  His more recent television work includes the 1994 series ‘The Human Race’, and ‘Protection Force’, a three-part series on peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards.  His award-winning radio documentaries include ‘The Gorbachev Revolution’, a seven-part series based on Dyer’s experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1987-90, and ‘Millenium’, a six-hour series on the
    emerging global culture.

    Dyer’s major study “War”, first published in the 1980s, was completely revised and re-published in 2004. During this decade he has also written a trio of more contemporary books dealing with the politics and strategy of the post-9/11 world: ‘Ignorant Armies’ (2003), ‘Future: Tense’ (2004), and ‘The Mess They Made’ (2006).  The latter was also published as ‘After Iraq’ in the US and the UK and as ‘Nach Iraq und Afghanistan’ inGermany.

    His most recent projects are a book and a radio series called ‘Climate Wars’, dealing with the geopolitics of climate change. They have already been published and aired in some places, and will appear in most other major markets in the course of 2009.

    Many thanks to those who have expressed the wish to be able to submit a donation to the site. ( $20 USD via Pay Pal is now an option)

    ::: gwynnedyer.net/ca/com is the official website of journalist and historian Dr. Gwynne Dyer. :::

    The information is posted free of charge for personal use. Articles are the sole property of Dr. Gwynne Dyer. Communication or submissions to this site become the property of gwynnedyer.com and may be published at our sole discretion

    =========================================================================

    DYER, GWYNNE

    Canadian Journalist/Producer

    Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military analyst. He is best known for his documentary television series, War which echoed the peace movement’s growing concern over the threat of nuclear war in the early 1980s. Nominated for an Oscar in 1985, it was based on his own military experience and extensive study.

    After serving in the naval reserves of Canada, the United States, and Britain, Dyer completed his doctoral studies in Military History at King’s College, University of London in 1973. He lectured on military studies for the next four years at the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England before producing a seven-part radio series, Seven Faces of Communism for the CBC and ABC in 1978. This quickly led to another radio series, War, in six-parts, 1981. Based on this series, he was invited by the National Film Board of Canada, the country’s public film producer to enlarge it into a seven-part film series in 1983. Upon release to critical acclaim, the series was broadcast in forty-five countries.

    War was a reflection of Dyer’s own growing concern about the proliferation of new technology, its impact on the changing nature of warfare and the growing threat of nuclear annihilation. Filmed in ten countries and with the participation of six national armies, it examined the nature, evolution and consequences of warfare. It featured interviews with top level NATO and Warsaw Pact military leaders and strategists, many of whom spoke to the Western media for the first time. The series argued that in an era of total war, professional armies were no longer able to fulfill their traditional roles. The growth of nationalism, conscript armies and nuclear technology had brought the world perilously close to Armageddon. War offered the unique perspective of the soldier from the rigorous training of young U.S. marine recruits at the Parris Island Training Depot in South Carolina, to the field exercises conducted by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe. It presented military officers from both sides talking frankly about how nuclear technology had changed their profession and follows them as they vividly describe how any superpower conflict would inevitably lead to an all out nuclear war. Dyer argued that the danger posed by the explosive mix of ideology and nuclear technology could only be mitigated by a total elimination of nuclear arsenals.

    This award-winning series was soon followed by another production for the National Film Board of Canada in 1986, The Defence of Canada, an examination of Canada’s military role on the international scene. Following similar arguments postulated in War, Dyer called for Canada to set an example by rethinking its position in NATO and NORAD. He maintained his ties in the Soviet Union and in 1988-90 produced a six-part radio series The Gorbachev Revolution which followed the thunderous changes occurring in Eastern Europe. He served as a military commentator in Canada during the Gulf War and in 1994 his series The Human Race was broadcast nationally on the CBC. It was a personal enquiry into the roots, nature and future of human politics and the threat posed by tribalism, nationalism and technology to the world’s environment. He continues to publish his syndicated column on international affairs which is published on over 300 papers in some 30 countries.

    -Manon Lamontagne


    Gwynne Dyer

    GWYNNE DYER. Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 17 April 1943. Educated at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, B.A. in History, 1963; Rice University in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., M.A. in Military History, 1966; King’s College, University of London, Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History, 1973. Served as Reserve Naval Officer in Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, 1956-64, 1966-68; U.S. Naval Reserve, 1964-66; British Royal Navy Reserve, 1968-73. Employed as a lecturer in military history, Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Ontario; senior lecturer in war studies, Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, England, 1973-77; producer of various radio and television special series from 1978; syndicated columnist, international affairs from 1973. Recipient: International Film Festival Awards; International Film Festival Awards, 1984; Best Writing Gemini for The Space Between, 1986.

    TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY SERIES

    1983 War (co-writer/host)
    1986 Defence of Canada
    1994 The Human Race (host)

    FILMS

    The Space Between, 1986 (co-writer/host); Harder Than It Looks, 1987; Escaping from History, 1994 (writer); The Gods of Our Fathers, 1994 (writer); The Tribal Mind, 1994 (writer); The Bomb Under the World, 1994 (writer).

    RADIO

    Seven Faces of Communism, 1978; Goodbye War, 1979 (writer/narrator); War, 1981; The Gorbachev Revolution, 1988-90; Millennium, 1996.

    FURTHER READING

    “Dyer’s Contrived Truth Doesn’t Tackle the Real Consequences.” Vancouver (Canada) Sun, 3 September 1994.

    Dodds, Carolyn. “Too Close for Comfort.” Saturday Night (Toronto, Canada), August 1988

    “Recording a Global Culture.” Maclean’s (Toronto, Canada), 25 March, 1996.

    See also Canadian Programming in English

  • Houston: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol

    Houston: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol

    Written by Administrator
    Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:00

    Turkey closed its Armenian Border and suspended the relations between Turkey and Armenia as a consequence of the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, in 1992.  Recently a protocol between the Turkish and the Armenian governments has been signed, which may lead to the opening of Borders and normalizations of relations between the two nations, if approved by both nations’ parliaments.

    To the best of our knowledge, the protocol agreed by the two sides does not have any provisions that indicate that Armenia has promised to meet any of the conditions Turkey has put forth for opening of the Armenian Border and normalization of the relations between the two nations. Quite the contrary, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has recently stated that normalization of the relations between the two states should have no preconditions, and that Turkey and Armenia have a mutual understanding to that end.

    TurkishPAC firmly opposes normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations without preconditions. It believes that normalization should depend on Armenia’s agreeing to certain conditions. In particular, Armenia should:

    • Comply with the UN resolution to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, which it illegally occupies,
    • Drop false “genocide” claims against Turkey that go back almost 100 years and agree to the establishment of a joint committee of historians, as proposed by Turkey, to study and judge the 1915 events. As Turkey has declared it would do so, Armenia should declare that it would consider the findings of such a committee binding.
    • Withdraw its support to the Armenian Diaspora on the latter’s campaign to disseminate “genocide” propaganda, and,
    • Remove indirect reference to a Greater Armenia in its Constitution by amending Article 13 of Chapter 1 that describes its national coat of arms.

    With regard to items 3 and 4, note should also be made that in its Declaration of Independence in 1990, Armenia declared its support to false “genocide” claims against Turkey and has referred to Eastern Anatolia as “Western Armenia,” and as such, considers this area as part of Armenia. That is not a friendly posture toward a neighbor.

    TurkishPAC continues to view with apprehension the Turkish Government’s signing a protocol with Armenia, which will lead to opening the border and normalization of the relations between the two countries without any preconditions.

    TurkishPAC Board of Directors