Category: Main Issues

Armenian President To Visit Syrian Site Of 1915 Tragedy

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian

March 24, 2010

PRAGUE — Armenia’s President Serzh Sarkisian is due to visit an area of Syria that was the final destination in what Armenians consider the first genocide of the 20th century, RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reports.

Sarkisian, who held talks on March 23 with Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, was scheduled to visit the northeastern city of Deir-el-Zor later today.

The desert surrounding the city proved the final destination for hundreds of thousands of Armenians forced out of their homes in the final years of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago.

Those who did not die en route met their death in camps such as Deir-el-Zor.

In 1990, the Armenian community in Syria built a memorial complex there dedicated to the victims.

For decades, survivors and descendants have been campaigning for the World War I-era mass killings to be recognized as genocide — a label Turkey rejects.

On March 23, Sarkisian suggested in a newspaper interview that Turkey’s reluctance to unconditionally normalize relations with Armenia is only facilitating a broader international recognition of the killings as genocide.

Sarkisian spoke to the Syrian daily “Al Watan” during an official visit that began on March 22.

He was asked specifically to comment on a resolution recognizing the 1915 mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide that was adopted by a U.S. congressional committee on March 4.

“One thing is obvious to me,” he replied. “The longer the process of normalizing our relations [with Turkey] lasts, the larger the number of states adopting such resolutions may become.”

Turkish leaders link the ratification of the normalization protocols with a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that would satisfy Azerbaijan.

They also say that the genocide resolutions adopted by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee as well as Sweden’s parliament this month have further complicated Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

By contrast, Yerevan has welcomed both resolutions.

In other remarks to “Al Watan,” Sarkisian said that Azerbaijani territory currently held by Armenian forces could be returned in exchange for security and self-determination for the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Sarkisian reiterated Yerevan’s long-standing policy of Armenian forces withdrawing from seven Azerbaijani districts around Nagorno-Karabakh in the event of an agreement on its final status.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Sarkisian on March 22, Assad offered Syria’s help in establishing cordial relations between Armenia and Turkey for the sake of regional security and stability.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Armenian_President_To_Visit_Syrian_Site_Of_1915_Tragedy/1992548.html

March 24, 2010
Armenia: Key Beneficiary of Russian-Georgian Border Opening

March 23, 2010

By: Emil Danielyan

Verkhny Lars checkpoint

Russia and Georgia have reopened their main land border crossing less than 18 months after fighting their brief, but bitter war and severing diplomatic relations. Armenia appears to have been the main driving force behind the development, and will likely become the key beneficiary of renewed commerce through the Kazbegi/Upper Lars narrow pass in the Caucasus Mountains.

Upper Lars is the only Russian-Georgian border crossing located beyond Georgia’s Russian-backed breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It served as Armenia’s sole overland commercial conduit to Russia and Europe until being controversially closed by Moscow in June 2006 at the height of a Russian-Georgian spy scandal. Armenian exporters of agricultural produce and other perishables were particularly reliant upon it, accounting for much of the cargo traffic through Upper Lars in the summer and fall each year. Its closure, ostensibly due to an upgrading of Russian border control facilities, forced them to re-route their supplies through the more expensive and time-consuming rail-ferry services between Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.

Hence, the Armenian government’s strong interest in seeing the border crossing re-opened as soon as possible. It has for several years pressed the Russians to complete the checkpoint repairs on their side of the frontier and repeatedly secured corresponding reassurances from them. Some pro-government Armenian lawmakers exposed Yerevan’s frustration with the apparent Russian blockade of Georgia in late 2006, when they publicly accused Moscow of disregarding the interests of Russia’s main regional ally in its escalating standoff with Tbilisi. The August 2008 war in South Ossetia served to dash Armenian hopes that the border would re-open anytime soon.

Yet, despite remaining technically at war, Moscow and Tbilisi subsequently engaged in behind-the-scenes diplomacy on Upper Lars. Armenia is known to have arranged and mediated at least one round of the Russian-Georgian proxy negotiations reportedly held in Yerevan in October 2009. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced two months later that he saw no “particular obstacles” to re-opening Upper Lars and resuming direct flight services between Russia and Georgia, despite the Kremlin’s continued refusal to do business with the Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili (Regnum, December 9). Later in December, the Russian and Georgian governments announced that they had agreed to resume passenger and cargo traffic through the mountain pass from March 1, 2010 (RIA Novosti, December 24, 2009).

Both sides honored that agreement, drawing praise from not only Armenia, but the United States and the European Union. The US Ambassador to Georgia, John Bass, hailed the development as “a positive step that will further the improvement of international relations and the economic status of the region’s population.” For his part, Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, inspected the border crossing during his March 3 visit to Georgia (www.rferl.org, March 5).

“I can confirm that [Russian-Georgian] negotiations indeed took place in Armenia and with Armenia’s mediation,” Armenian Foreign Minister, Edward Nalbandian, told journalists on March 2. He called the resulting agreement “a big success” for all three countries involved (www.armenialiberty.org, March 2).

The deal could not have come at a better time for Armenia, whose economy has long been hamstrung by closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, and still reeling from the 2009 global financial crisis. Local entrepreneurs say that the positive impact of re-opening the Upper Lars on the domestic economy and its agricultural sector, in particular, will be felt as soon as this summer.

Arsen Ghazarian, the Chairman of the Armenian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, forecast that transportation costs incurred by exporters will fall by at least 25 percent. According to Ghazarian, who also owns a cargo shipment company, a single truck laden with Armenian agricultural products takes at least 23 days to reach Russia through a Black Sea rail-ferry link. Going through Upper Lars will reduce shipping time by almost half, he said (Kapital, March 2).

With Russian-Georgian trade having been reduced by Moscow to a trickle in recent years, the border re-opening is of lesser economic significance to Georgia, at least in the short term. The Saakashvili administration’s willingness to restore commercial links with Georgia’s arch-enemy resulted, among other things, from its warm rapport with Armenia’s current leadership. Even after the Russian-Georgian war, the two South Caucasus neighbors managed to reconcile their differing geopolitical orientations and focus instead on common interests.

Saakashvili said that the Georgian-Armenian relationship is as “cloudless” as ever, as he greeted his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan, in the Georgian port of Batumi on February 27. Their two-day informal talks reportedly centered on economic issues, with both presidents pledging to foster Georgian-Armenian economic “integration.” “We are dependent upon each other and we should use this circumstance for good,” the Georgian leader told journalists (Armenian Public Television, February 28).

The venue of the talks was also symbolic. Batumi and Georgia’s other major Black Sea port, Poti, process at least two-thirds of freight shipped to and from Armenia. Use of Georgian territory by Armenian trading companies should expand not only as a result of the Upper Lars re-opening, but also the ongoing reconstruction of roads in southern Georgia leading to the Black Sea coast. The Manila-based Asian Development Bank (ADB) agreed last September to support the project with a $500 million loan. An additional $500 million loan approved by the ADB at the time will finance the planned expansion of Armenian highways stretching from the border with Iran to southern Georgia. The funding, requested by the Armenian government, is a further indication that the landlocked country will regard Georgia and, to a lesser extent, Iran, as its most reliable supply line even in the unlikely event of the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border.

https://jamestown.org/program/armenia-key-beneficiary-of-russian-georgian-border-opening/

March 24, 2010
Andrew Dismore MP: Foreign trips and rule breaches

A BBC investigation has revealed that more than 20 MPs have breached rules in relation to registering and declaring overseas trips paid for by foreign governments.

The trips taken by Andrew Dismore, his relevant parliamentary activities and his detailed replies to the BBC are below.

Since 2001, Mr Dismore has been a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, whose role includes the scrutiny of the MPs’code of conduct.

He told the BBC that all his visits had been registered in time and in the appropriate manner, and that there was no breach of the rules on lobbying as overseas visits are excluded and his trips had been funded by the Republic of Cyprus Parliament and not the Republic of Cyprus Government.

Cyprus

Mr Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon in north London, visited Cyprus in October 2005, October 2006, September 2007, November 2008 andOctober 2009, courtesy of the Municipality of Morphou and Cyprus House of Representatives.

Within a year of registration of these trips, Mr Dismore tabled 90 questions relating to Cyprus without declaring an interest.

They were: 31080, 48898, 72084, 95204, 95205, 96907 to 96915, 96917 to 96920, 96939 to 96941, 96958 to 96961, 96969, 96970, 96974, 96977 to 96979, 136661, 162758, 162759, 162769 to 162771, 162773, 162812, 162819 to 162822, 163110 to 163118, 163121 to 163134, 163213 to 163221, 163284, 163627, 163793 to 163798, 180049, 180051, 180052, 180056, 245049, 252915 and 293708.

Mr Dismore also asked a further 112 questions relating to Cyprus where an interest was declared.

They were: 245029, 245050 to 245061, 245158 to 245174, 245180 to 245182, 245190 to 245199, 245217 to 245224, 252877 to 252881, 252884, 293650, 293696 to 293707, 293709 to 293744, 295162, 312737 to 312739, and 312838 to 312840.

The BBC put to Mr Dismore that asking ministers a total of 202 questions following visits to Cyprus – whether an interest was declared or not – might be perceived as lobbying on behalf of an overseas power from whom hospitality has recently been received. This would constitute a very serious breach of parliamentary rules.

In addition to those questions, Mr Dismore tabled a debate on Cyprus on 8 November 2005. Records of the summary agenda, the order paper and weekly bulletin indicate that he did not declare an interest. Whenever an interest is declared, the symbol “[R]” appears on the relevant notice or order papers.

However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

During the debate, Mr Dismoresaid: “What is to be done immediately? Some things are relatively easy. Earlier, I mentioned the need to find finance to deal with the issue of missing persons.

“Two million Cyprus pounds is not too much for the UK to find, either on its own or with its partners.”

Similarly, Mr Dismore tabled adebate on Cyprus on 10 January 2007. Records of the summary agenda, the order paper and weekly bulletin indicate that he did not declare an interest. However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

Mr Dismore secured a third debate about Cyprus on 15 January 2009. Again, no declaration of interest is recorded in the weekly bulletin,the summary agenda or the order paper. However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

During the debate, Mr Dismore said: “The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is working well and is not politicised by either side. I visited the laboratory for the second time and was very impressed by the progress that is being made.

“There have been 466 exhumations so far and 110 sets of remains have been returned – 78 to Greek Cypriots and 32 to Turkish Cypriots. The annual budget for the committee and its work is $3m a year.

“In the three years from 2004 to 2007, we donated £160,000. We ought to consider further payments because the committee needs those extra bilateral donations.

“Demining is also important for confidence building. The United Nations Development Programme has cleared 51 minefields. That has largely been funded by the EU but there is a 5m euro shortfall.

“That money will be needed to clear the rest of the zone, and the UN says that it could do it if it had the money. We could help by making a donation towards that. The buffer zone occupies 3% of the land.

“If that land could be liberated from the mines and from that part of the process, it would be available for civilian use, which could help towards a settlement.”

Mr Dismore secured a further debate about Cyprus on 10 November 2009 but again did not declare an interest on the weekly bulletin, thesummary agenda or the order paper. However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

During the debate, Mr Dismore said: “The UN Committee on Missing Persons continues its work, although there is a significant backlog in its anthropological laboratory on the piecing together of the various remains.

“Nonetheless, the committee told us that it was not really practical to expand the operation. Altogether the bicommunal teams have exhumed 570 sets of remains from both sides of the green line and returned the remains of 179 people to their families – 135 Greek Cypriots and 44 Turkish Cypriots.

“They are perennially in the hunt for money, requiring between 2.2m euro and 2.4m euro a year to function. The EU has just given the teams 2m euro for the next two years, but they are still 1m euro short for next year.

“Since the committee started its work many years ago, the UK has given it $159,000, but it is a long time since we last gave it a grant, and it is time that we gave it another one.”

Later in the debate, he said: “I hope that the minister will be able to find a little cash in the Foreign Office budget to provide the initiatives that I mentioned with at least token support, if not more substantive support.”

Further to these debates, on 18 December 2008, during a debate on Human Rights Mr Dismore spoke about Cyprus.

After declaring an interest, he said: “On a positive note, the Committee on Missing Persons, which is part of the United Nations – my Hon Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred to the United Nations in his opening remarks – is functioning well, but it cannot look at the cause of death or attribute responsibility.

“It is working on a bicommunal basis, which is one of the positive things in Cyprus. It has exhumed 450 bodies so far, out of a total of 1,996 missing people on both sides.

“It has been able to identify and return 107 sets of remains – 31 Turkish Cypriots and 76 Greek Cypriots – and investigated 224 sites. It needs $3m to run, and is funded year by year only.

“Does my Hon Friend the Minister think that the Government will consider putting their hand in their pocket to ensure that such vital work continues, because it has at least another two years’ worth of work to do?

“In relation to demining, to which both reports referred, another 4m euro is needed to clear the rest of the buffer zone. Both communities and the UN have put money into demining, but it remains a significant problem to conclude. I hope that the minister can respond to those important human rights points.”

The MPs’ code of conduct states that: “Members may not, for example, advocate in debate increased United Kingdom financial assistance to a government from which they have recently received hospitality.

“Nor may any Member advocate any other measure for the exclusive benefit of the host government.”

The BBC has put to Mr Dismore that some of his statements might be perceived as lobbying on behalf of an overseas power from whom hospitality has recently been received – a very serious breach of parliamentary rules.

Following visits to Cyprus, Mr Dismore also have signed 24 early day motions relating to the island. In the following three cases he did not declare an interest:

1. MR GEORGE IACOVOU / 12.12.2006 / EDM 474

2. SOTERIS GEORGALLIS / 16.04.2007 / EDM 1273 (of which he was the Primary Sponsor)

3. ILLEGAL SONGBIRD MARKET IN CYPRUS / 12.01.2010 / EDM 567

Reply

In response to the points put to him by the BBC Mr Dismore said he had declared an interest before debates and added: “There is no question of my having broken any rule in relation to lobbying, as overseas visits are excluded and I did not lobby for funding for the Cyprus government or Cyprus parliament.”

Mr Dismore said the hosts of his visits to Cyprus were the Cyprus House of Representatives and the Municipality of Morphou, and not the government of Cyrpus.

Mr Dismore denied that advocating increased financial assistance to the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons in Cyprus could be perceived as lobbying or amount to a breach of the rules.

Reply on early day motions

Mr Dismore said that the issue with EDMs (early day motions) was one of relevance. “As you rightly report, I declared an interest in relation to 24 early day motions. The other three were so remote, I did not believe that I had an interest warranting declaration.”

Reply on the written questions

Mr Dismore said that it was not possible for him to check if he had registered an interest in respect of the written questions, due to the way records are kept in Parliament.

“Accordingly, although I cannot confirm or deny that I registered an interest in relation to those questions, I do not believe that there was an interest to register in relation to them. ”

Responding to the large number of questions asked, 200 over a five-year period, Mr Dismore said an average of 40 to 50 questions a year was not excessive on an issue in which an MP has a speciality.

He added: “I normally ask several hundred questions a year on many different issues in which I take an interest relevant to my parliamentary work and constituency, and to that extent the number of questions over five years relating to Cyprus should be seen in that context.”

Mr Dismore also said that he had declared an interest at the start of each adjournment debate.

BBC

March 24, 2010
MPs’ foreign visit rules breached

Hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments have been uncovered by a BBC investigation.

More than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar.

The MPs – from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems – breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions.

One former standards watchdog says it shows MPs cannot regulate themselves.

Some MPs dismissed the breaches as technical errors or oversights.

However, the former Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, told the BBC repeated rule breaches threatened to “undermine the integrity” of the democratic system.

He said it “demonstrated the failure of the self-regulating system”, adding: “This is a very worrying situation which will further demean the standing of Parliament.”

Conservative leader David Cameron said: “The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner must get to the bottom of what’s happened in every case and we must look at the penalties that apply when rules like this are broken.”

He said the self-regulating system was “at the heart of the problem” and that it might be necessary to change its structure.

Mr Cameron added that a system of imposing automatic fixed penalties on MPs who break rules might be appropriate.

The rules on overseas visits are there to ensure that no-one can accuse MPs of accepting foreign hospitality in return for political favours, for example pressing the UK government for financial assistance.

They require MPs to register such visits and then declare relevant trips in questions, motions or debates.

One of those who appears to have fallen foul of the code of conduct is Labour’s Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee – the very body which polices MPs’ behaviour.

He broke rules more than 90 times, following annual visits to Cyprus, by failing to declare the hospitality when raising issues about the island in Parliament.

In total, he has tabled more than 200 Commons questions about Cyprus since the last election in 2005, on topics such as missing persons from the island and its victims of past conflict between Turkey and Greece.

The Commons information office estimates it costs on average £149 to answer a written question.

Mr Dismore has also signed motions and led debates about Cyprus. However, he denies any wrongdoing and claims his questions about Cyprus were not sufficiently relevant to his trips to require a declaration.

Conservative David Amess has admitted failing to register a free trip to the Maldives – regarded as a “very serious” breach of the rules by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, according to the MPs’ code of conduct.

He also accepts he did not register a second trip for almost a year, blaming an administrative error by his office staff.

‘Paradise’

During a debate he tabled about the Maldives in 2007, Mr Amess told the Commons how his “splendid visit” had given him “an early taste of paradise”.

“No words can describe adequately just how beautiful the islands are,” he added, before suggesting the UK Government “could be encouraged to do a little more than is being done at the moment” for the islands in the Indian Ocean.

Despite leading two debates about UK support for the Maldives and asking 15 questions about the islands, he failed to declare an interest. Referring to the MPs’ code of conduct, Mr Amess told the BBC: “It is for the member to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant.”

Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who has been actively calling for a clean-up of Parliament following the expenses scandal, has admitted breaching the rules on 37 occasions.

In a statement to the BBC, Mr Baker accepts he failed to declare an interest when leading debates and tabling questions about topics such as human rights in Tibet. He has travelled to India twice, courtesy of the Tibet Society and the Tibet government-in-exile.

“I should have then declared a relevant interest in respect of the parliamentary activities you list,” he said. “It is an unintended oversight that I did not.”

The MP who heads the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Tony Wright, told the BBC that such rule-breaking was “unacceptable” and that the system should be more transparent.

“Declarations should be the norm. It is quite proper for MPs to go on visits. Some of those visits will be financed by foreign governments. But… if they’re lobbying on behalf of governments who have paid for their visits, then clearly we need to know about it.”

The rules are enforced by MPs themselves. Breaches are only investigated if a formal complaint is made and there is no independent body to ensure that members stick to the regulations.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox has admitted breaking the rules on two occasions, having visited Sri Lanka five times in the past three years courtesy of its government. He failed to declare the hospitality when asking ministers how much UK aid had been given to Sri Lanka.

In a statement, Mr Fox said: “I should have noted an interest and will be writing to the registrar to make this clear.” He blamed a “changeover of staffing responsibilities” for registering one of his visits more than two months late.

During the current Parliament, Gibraltar’s government has funded 31 trips for MPs to attend an annual street party on the territory.

Street party

Labour’s Lindsay Hoyle has been a guest at these National Day Celebrations three times. Following his visits he has asked 30 questions, tabled three early day motions and signed a further seven, all without declaring his interest.

Mr Hoyle also broke the rules by failing to declare an interest following registered trips to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

“I have never received or sought any financial benefit,” he told the BBC.

Conservative Andrew Rosindell has been a guest of Gibraltar’s government twice in recent years. He subsequently asked 48 questions and signed or sponsored nine motions related to the territory without declaring an interest.

Thirteen of his questions about Gibraltar were before a visit had been registered. The BBC put the matters to Mr Rosindell but has yet to receive a response.

The BBC has identified a further 10 MPs from all three major parties who have been guests of Gibraltar’s government and shortly afterwards breached rules when signing motions or tabling questions about the territory.

The investigation has also identified three more Labour MPs and another Conservative who failed to declare an interest following visits to Cyprus.

BBC

March 23, 2010
ATAA sends letter to US President Obama regarding Armenian resolution

Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA) has sent a letter to United States President Barack Obama requesting that Obama make a public statement to that a resolution supporting Armenian allegations regarding the incidents of 1915 is not brought to the floor of the General Assembly of the House of Representatives.

“As a leading voice of over a half million proud Americans of Turkish heritage and many more Americans who support the US-Turkish model partnership, the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA) urges that you continue to discourage a Congressional vote on House Resolution 252, which narrowly passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 23-22 on March 4, 2010,” the ATAA said.

“That H.Res. 252 so narrowly passed out of HFAC indicates that Congress remains deeply divided on this measure and its underpinnings. By asking Chairman Berman not to promote the resolution, you have signaled your understanding that the resolution is misguided and incriminates a key ally, Turkey, and a key heritage community, the Turkish Americans. As has been demonstrated by the recall of the Turkish Ambassador, the mere commencement of a consideration of this matter by the US legislature is likely to severely disrupt US-Turkish relations, as well as derail the ratification of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols in which you have so wisely invested,” the ATAA underlined.

“The United States and Turkey enjoy a model partnership, whose pillars include the fight against global terrorism, efforts for peace and stability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and the broader Balkans and Middle East, and democratic and economic development from Africa to Central Asia. The United States and Turkey are also important trade partners, as US exports to Turkey are more than 10 billion USD and create thousands of American jobs,” the ATAA emphasized.

“The United States must speak with one voice on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. We can not simultaneously encourage ratification of the Protocols while prejudicing the outcomes of one of their elements – the envisaged joint historical commission. Rather, your assessment offered to the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009 ought to remain the basis for US policy on this matter:

The best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive,” the ATAA indicated.

“The Turkish people will now be interested to see whether your Administration will restore America’s credibility as a neutral party and supporter of the Protocols, or permit further deterioration by Congress action or in an April 24 statement,” the ATAA underlined.

“The ATAA respectfully submits that you please:

1. Make a public statement that H.Res. 252 should not be submitted to a floor vote;

2. Openly and unambiguously support the delicate rapprochment that is currently underway between Turkey and Armenia, while standing firmly against any action by other parts of the United States government that might pose an obstacle.

The ATAA further submits respectfully that any statement or proclamation you may offer on April 24, continue United States policy not to characterize the Armenian case in terms of a crime, as well as initiate a new United States policy to remember and honor the more than one million Ottoman Muslims who perished in eastern Anatolia during the Armenian Revolt (1880-1919) under identical conditions of war that affected Ottoman Armenians,” the ATAA stressed.

TURKEY’S POSITION ON ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS

Turkey has long been facing a systematic campaign of defamation carried out by Armenian lobbying groups. The Armenian diaspora has lately increased its organized activities throughout the world for the recognition of their unfounded allegations in regard to the events of 1915 as “genocide” by national and local parliaments.

Armenian groups living in various countries try to get the publication of many books on their allegations concerning the events of 1915 and articles written by authors close to Armenian views in well-known magazines and newspapers. Armenian organizations also orchestrate many meetings, conferences and symposia in order to garner support and to give them as much publicity as possible. Armenian groups make sure that researchers and authors close to the Armenian views take part in these meetings so that the issue always remains on the agenda. Armenian circles, similarly, sponsor the making of documentary films that advocate Armenian claims. They also encourage the broadcasting of these films in many television channels. Public opinion especially in Western countries is affected by these films, books and articles published every year and their Parliaments are left under constant pressure to recognize the Armenian allegations as “undeniable historical truth”. The activities of diaspora organizations are also supported by the Armenian state. It is known that Armenian diplomatic missions abroad carry out certain activities so that their allegations are recognized in national legislatures.

Until today the parliaments of Argentina, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Canada, Lebanon, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Uruguay, Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration, Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Chile, Venezuela and the European Parliament passed either resolutions or issued statements. In addition, some local parliaments in the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, Argentina and Switzerland passed similar resolutions.

Turkey is of the view that parliaments and other political institutions are not the appropriate fora to debate and pass judgments on disputed periods of history. Past events and controversial periods of history should be left to the historians for their dispassionate study and evaluation. In order to shed light on such a disputed historical issue, the Turkish Government has opened all its archives, including military records to all researchers. Furthermore, Turkey encourages historians, scholars and researchers to freely examine and discuss this historical issue in every platform. In order to have an objective and complete analysis of the Turkish-Armenian relations, the Armenian archives should also be opened and made available to the public and researchers. For reaching the truth, historians must have access to all related archives.

In this respect, in 2005, Turkey has officially proposed to the Government of Armenia the establishment of a joint commission of history composed of historians and other experts from both sides to study together the events of 1915 not only in the archives of Turkey and Armenia but also in the archives of all relevant third countries and to share their findings with the public. Unfortunately, Armenia has not responded positively to this initiative, yet. Turkey’s proposal is still on the table.

If accepted by Armenia, Turkey;s proposal for setting up a Joint Commission of History would also serve as a confidence-building measure paving the way for a dialogue towards normalization of relations between the two countries.

Turkey and Armenia signed protocols in 2009 to normalize relations.

Dozens of Turkish diplomats and family members as well as Turkish citizens have either been assassinated or wounded in attacks perpetrated by Armenian terrorists during the 1970s and 1980s.

DECLARATION BY TURKISH PARLIAMENT

It is the belief of the Turkish Parliament, that both Turkey’s and Armenia’s interests lie in reconciling Turkish and Armenian nations who have lived for centuries on the same territory in mutual tolerance and peace, in setting them free from being hostage to deep prejudices emanating from the war years, and in creating an environment which will enable them to share a common future based on tolerance, friendship and cooperation.

To this end, the Governing and the Main Opposition Parties have made a proposal which aims to shed light on historical facts through scientific research and to free history from being a burden for these two nations. This proposal envisages the establishment of a joint commission composed of historians from Turkey and Armenia, to open without any restriction their national archives, to disclose the findings of their research, which will also cover the archives of related countries, to the international public and determination between two countries the establishment and working methods of the said commission.

The Turkish Parliament approves and fully supports this historical proposal.

The cooperation of the Government of Armenia is essential for implementing this initiative. In this respect, if Turkey and Armenia can not look at history from a common perspective, the legacy that both parties would leave to their children and future generations will be nothing but feelings of prejudice, animosity and revenge.

Wisdom and logic command Turkey and Armenia not to be afraid of breaking the taboos by working jointly, and to face their history by uncovering all aspects of the human calamity they together experienced. This is the way to prevent the past from casting a shadow over our present and future.

The Turkish Parliament underlines the fact that this proposal by the Republic of Turkey should be considered, in essence, as a peace initiative. If Armenia wishes to establish good neighborly relations with Turkey and develop a basis for cooperation, it should not hesitate to accept Turkey;s proposal for a joint evaluation of history.

The Turkish Parliament would also like to emphasize that all states and statesmen who wish to contribute to world peace and stability should leave aside domestic political considerations and look positively at Turkey’s proposal based on reconciliation and commonsense. In this respect, those states which sincerely want the normalization of Turkish–Armenian relations and desire the establishment of peace and stability in the Caucasus, are expected to support this initiative, and, to refrain, in particular, from activities that can weaken it.

On this connection, the responsibility primarily falls upon the countries which took decisions regarding the Armenian allegations in their Parliaments. If these countries attach importance, as they claim, to the improvement of the relations between Turkey and Armenia, they should demonstrate their good will and support our proposal to set-up a joint commission of history between the two countries.

The Turkish Parliament considers the adoption, for political purposes, of decisions by foreign Parliaments regarding certain pages of Ottoman Armenians history which are still subject to discussion among world historians and to pass judgment, through legislation, on the veracity of a specific version of a still disputed historical issue, as inappropriate, pointless, arbitrary and unjust acts and condemns them.

The Turkish Parliament stresses that those who think it is possible to impose on Turkey to rebuild its history on one-sided and misleading assessment of propaganda material through a campaign of intense international pressure and those who make their calculations on this presumption are totally mistaken, and declares that this, under no circumstances, will ever happen.

The above mentioned declaration by the Turkish Parliament was originally made on April 13, 2005.

23 March 2010, Tuesday

THE ANATOLIA NEWS AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C.

March 23, 2010
Armenian Genocide Resolution

Recently, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 23-22 in favor of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (“Genocide Vote Riles Turkey,” U.S. News, March 4). The committee’s passage of this nonbinding resolution caused the Republic of Turkey to immediately recall its ambassador.

Supporters of the resolution are trying to bring it to a full vote in the next few weeks, when the full House will have to decide whether to support this dangerous and poorly conceived resolution that seeks to pass judgment on a disputed series of events nearly 100 years in the past. I urge every member, including New York’s state delegation, to unite in opposition to this resolution.

The committee vote has harmed the ongoing efforts by Turkey and Armenia to overcome their long-standing disputes. Late last year, Turkey and Armenia signed a series of protocols that are the blueprint for rapprochement, including the establishment of an independent historical commission. They are on the path to working out their disputes, and Congress should not be a barrier.

Turkey is a key ally in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 90% of all supplies that go to our troops in Iraq go through Turkey. Also, Turkey is in charge of the logistics for NATO operations in Afghanistan. Now is the time when the U.S. needs its allies in this region, and the votes of members who may not have spent much time considering the consequences of this issue will help decide the fate of this relationship.

We strongly encourage members who did not participate in the March 4 committee vote to oppose the “Armenian Genocide Resolution” and vote instead to work with their colleagues in the House to build policies that promote both peace and U.S. interests around the globe.

G. Lincoln McCurdy

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

It’s not up to Congress to write history of Turkey and Armenia

By NJ Voices Guest Blogger/For NJ.com

March 03, 2010, 12:30PM

By G. Lincoln McCurdy/NJVoices Guest Blogger

The United States is currently confronted with a daunting number of challenges in our nation’s foreign relations. America is managing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to find ways to bring our troops back safely and without compromising our national security. We are working to maintain a nuclear-free Iran, secure our energy sources and prevent the growth and spread of international terrorist networks.

In all these and many other areas affecting Americans and millions of others around the world, we have an ally in Turkey. Our trade with Turkey topped $10 billion in 2009, leaving the United States with a $3.5 billion trade surplus, supporting thousands of valuable jobs in critical industries.

In a bizarre move during such turbulent times members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, including Representative Donald Payne, are preparing to vote on March 4 on House Resolution 252, which will recognize as “genocide” tragic events that took place nearly 100 years ago in the now defunct Ottoman Empire, despite many holes in the historical argument.

This begs the question: why are the 48 members of the committee, at a time when we are dealing with pressing international and domestic issues, all of which require Turkey’s support and active participation, squandering their time on an issue that has no relevance to America’s foreign relations and interests?

The answer is simple: Lobbying.

Despite much bravado about limiting the influence of special interests, groups with money and manpower still control Washington’s agenda. In the United States there are nearly one million Armenian Americans, concentrated in a number of congressional districts, who support a lobby that spends an estimated $40 million annually on furthering its agenda, which revolves around recognition of an “Armenian Genocide.”
Their efforts have also made Armenia, a small landlocked country, the second largest per-capita recipient of US foreign aid.

Proponents of the Resolution frequently admonish its opponents by pointing to a moral obligation of Congress to pronounce that the now-defunct Ottoman Empire, committed “genocide” against Armenians. In doing so, they choose to ignore the many well-regarded historians who dispute this claim. Still, Armenian resolutions persist year after year due to the efforts of a well organized Armenian lobby that has turned hating Turkey into an existential cause.

To roaring cheers at a 2005 Armenian rally in New York, Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Co-Chair of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, proclaimed: “The Turkish envoy said that not only did the Genocide never occur, but he suggested that the reason why Armenians want to recognize the Armenian Genocide today – want the Congress and the other countries to be on record – is because they wanted restitution and they wanted reparations. And I say to that ‘Yes, we do!’ It is important not only to recognize the genocide but we have to make it clear that those who committed it pay restitution … There must be recognition, there must be restitution, there must be reparations for the Armenian Genocide.”

The resolution comes up for a vote at a particularly strange time. Armenia and Turkey are trying to work through a diplomatic process, with the active backing of the United States, which lays out a road map to normalizing relations. This effort includes the establishment of a joint historical commission of scholars and experts. Turkey’s leadership time and again has stated that it will accept the findings of such a commission. It is telling that the Armenian lobby and its supporters in Congress not only oppose the normalization process, but, with even greater zeal, the establishment of this commission.

This issue, ultimately, should not be on the docket of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congress is neither the “conscience” of the world, nor its revisionist historian. It’s time to put an end to an dangerous game, played year after year when Congress is taken for a ride by a single-issue lobby at the expense of America’s national interests. This is that time, but it will only end when Americans pay attention and raise their voice and tell Representative Payne to oppose this resolution on March 4, and every time it comes up in the future.

Washington

March 23, 2010