|
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
 In earlier columns, I pointed out Turkey’s deceptive designs in negotiating and signing the Protocols with Armenia on October 10, 2009.
In addition to planning to deceive Armenia and international public opinion, Turkish leaders tried to mislead their closest ally, Azerbaijan, and the Turkish public, about the potential benefits of the Protocols. Even though the Protocols were clearly in Turkey’s interest, its leaders tried to oversell the benefits of the negotiated agreement in order to overcome possible objections from critics at home and abroad, particularly Azerbaijan.
As expected, the Erdogan government did get into trouble with Azerbaijan when Pres. Ilham Aliyev complained loudly that by planning to open the border with Armenia, Turkey would be abandoning its “Little Brother” which would remove the key incentive for Armenia to negotiate the return of Karabagh (Artsakh). Azerbaijani officials, not appeased by Turkish assurances, retaliated by tripling the price of gas exported to Turkey, taking down Turkish flags from public places, banning Turkish movies and songs from Azeri TV, and shutting down Turkish-financed mosques in Baku!
Meanwhile, opposition forces in Turkey, seeing a golden opportunity to diminish Prime Minister Erdogan’s Parliamentary majority, immediately accused him of betraying Turkey’s national interests by siding with their perennial Armenian enemies, rather than with their Azeri brothers!
In order to counter such accusations, Turkish leaders were forced to make a series of unsubstantiated claims, exaggerating the benefits of the Protocols to both Azerbaijan and Turkey. They assured the Azeris that they would pressure Armenia into returning Artsakh to Azerbaijan before the Turkish Parliament would ratify the Protocols and normalize relations with Armenia. Furthermore, Turkish officials reassured their own public that the Protocols would put an end to “Armenian claims” of genocide and territorial demands in Eastern Turkey.
The Turkish and Azeri publics were not fooled by Ankara’s misrepresentation of the Protocols. Here are ten major reasons why the Turkish Parliament could refuse to ratify the Protocols:
1) Despite repeated announcements by Gul, Erdogan and Davutoglu that the resolution of the Artsakh conflict is a precondition for the ratification of the Protocols, the United States, Russia, the European Union as well as Armenia have repeatedly pointed out that there is no such stipulation in the Protocols. In addition, they have counseled against linking the two issues or holding hostage the negotiations on the Artsakh conflict to the ratification of the Protocols. Armenia has steadfastly refused to link the Protocols to the Artsakh issue.
2) There is no truth to the Turkish claim that the Protocols would put an end to Armenia’s pursuit of genocide recognition and its acknowledgment by third countries. It is also untrue that the Protocols would set up a mechanism for the study of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, the Protocols have triggered renewed efforts by Armenians in recent weeks to seek acknowledgment of the Genocide by the British, Bulgarian, Israeli and Swedish Parliaments. Moreover, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has scheduled a vote on the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4. A similar resolution is pending in the U.S. Senate.
3) Contrary to Turkish assertions, the “historical commission” mentioned in the Protocols would serve not as a genocide review board, but as a platform for Armenia to present demands for restitution from Turkey.
4) The Turkish claim that the Protocols would end Armenian territorial demands is belied by the fact that no mention is made of any past treaty that requires Armenia to renounce such rights. Rather than abandoning Artsakh or Western Armenia, Pres. Sargsyan raised for the first time in his last week remarks the depopulation of the Armenian region of Nakhichevan, after Soviet authorities relinquished it to Azerbaijan.
5) Armenia and the major powers have rejected Turkish demands that the Armenian Constitutional Court “correct” its January 12, 2010 ruling which limited Turkey’s exaggerated interpretations of the Protocols. The Court insisted that the pursuit of Genocide recognition cannot be abandoned, and Artsakh’s status cannot be negotiated with Turkey due to the bilateral nature of the Protocols.
6) Turkish leaders have no reason to protest against the Armenian Court’s reference to the Preamble of the Constitution on pursuing the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This Preamble is based on Article 11 of Armenia’s Declaration of Independence which has existed since 1990, long before Turkey first opened its border with Armenia. Indeed, Turkey’s leaders were well aware of this provision before signing the Protocols in 2009.
7) Turkish officials have falsely stated that the Protocols acknowledge the Treaty of Kars of 1921, which Soviet Armenia was forced to sign. There is no reference to the Kars Treaty in the Protocols. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Armenia ruled that only those treaties that have been ratified by the present Republic of Armenia are valid.
8) Rather than achieving its lofty objective of “zero-problems with neighbors,” the Turkish government, by signing the Protocols, has created a serious rift with neighboring Azerbaijan, where no problem existed before!
9) It is noteworthy that Turkish officials have not expressed any objection to Armenia’s demand that Turkey be the first to ratify the Protocols. This is a humiliating imposition on Turkey as it implies — for good reason — Armenia’s lack of trust in Turkey!
10) Likewise, Turkish leaders have not responded to Armenia’s threat to rescind its signature should Turkey not ratify the Protocols by the end of March — one month before April 24! This is yet another humiliating imposition by Armenia on a country whose leaders espouse grandiose neo-Ottoman fantasies!
The foregoing 10 points demonstrate a serious credibility gap between the Turkish government and its own public as well as the international community. Ankara has tried to deceive everyone within and outside Turkey by creating the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia. Turkish officials have no one but themselves to blame for this predicament. They thought that by bluffing they could extract more concessions from Armenia! It did not work. They have now fallen in their own trap and no one is too eager to rescue them!
|
Category: Main Issues
-
Ten Reasons Why Turks Won’t Allow Their Leaders to Ratify the Protocols
-
CYPRUS: EGEMEN BAGIS’DAN AN EXCELLENT MOVE
EUROPARLIAMENT CALLS ON TURKEY TO PROMPTLY WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM CYPRUS
2010-02-11
European lawmakers on Wednesday endorsed a resolution that
called on Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus.As the Turkish media report, the authorities of this country urged
to take specific measures for successful completion of negotiations
on Cyprus settlement, otherwise, it may have serious consequences for
negotiations on Turkey’s joining EU. However, Turkish State Minister
& Chief Negotiator for EU talks Egemen Bagis said this resolution is
unacceptable for Turkey. “Turkey does not have a plan or opinion to
withdraw troops from the island. Turkish troops in the island assume
a very important task to restore peace there. EU process is important
for Turkey, however, it is not so important to sacrifice Cyprus”,
the minister said. -
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DISCUSSED IN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CONTEXT
Wednesday February 10, 2010
Experts from Ireland, Turkey, UK and US confer in Minnesota
Minneapolis – The University of St. Thomas School of Law, as part of
its “unique mission of integrating faith and reason in the search for
truth through a focus on morality and social justice,” co-organized
an international conference, in partnership with the International
Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A Division of the
Zoryan Institute), to examine “The Armenian Genocide within the
Framework of National and International Law.”The conference took place on February 5th, 2010, in Minneapolis, in
conjunction with the Cafesjian Family Foundation and the Ohanessian
Endowment Fund for Justice and Peace Studies of the Minneapolis
Foundation.John M. Sandy, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law and Public Policy
of the University of St. Thomas, stated, “When I first heard about the
Armenian Genocide from a fellow passenger on a flight to Los Angeles,
and learned the enormity of it, I was shocked that I had not come
across this major historical event in my education up to that time. I
embarked on research on this subject, and the more I learned, the
more astonished I became that this was not taught as part of American
history in WWI, and the more I felt there was a great deal still to
be researched, especially from a legal perspective. Thus, the idea
of holding a conference for the purpose of preparing a special issue
of the university’s Journal of Law and Public Policy came to be.”Prof. Robert J. Delahunty of the Law School, who served as moderator,
reaffirmed the university’s position that the conference proceeds from
the understanding that the Armenian Genocide is an established fact.One of the reasons for this position is that the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, the world’s foremost body of
researchers in the field of genocide studies, has unanimously affirmed
that “it is indisputable that the Armenian Genocide is proven history.”Mark L. Movsesian, Professor of Contract Law at St. John’s University,
described how the reform movement (Tanzimat) intended to provide
equality for the non-Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire in the
19th century, failed. This was because the ruling elite and society
at large could not accept it. The resentment was twofold, a) the
reforms broke the covenant between the superior protector group,
Muslims, and the subservient, protected groups, non-Muslim; and b)
they felt the reforms were imposed by the European Powers and were
considered outside interference. This helped make the mass violence
of the Hamidian massacres possible, in which some 200,000 Armenians
were killed. It can also be seen as a precursor to the Genocide,
because the mass killings went unpunished.Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian, Director of Genocide Research at the Zoryan
Institute, an expert in history and international law, described
the significance of the Allied Powers’ declaration on May 24, 1915,
that they would punish those responsible for “these new crimes of
Turkey against humanity and civilization.” This set a precedent in the
development of international law on crimes against humanity. He then
described how the national law of the Ottoman Empire, particularly
the Military Tribunals, dealt with the Armenian mass killings by
prosecuting those crimes immediately after WWI.William A. Schabas, Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at
the National University of Ireland, Galway, and currently President
of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, addressed
the subject of “The Retroactive Applicability of the UN Genocide
Convention to the Armenian Genocide.” He affirmed that what happened
to the Armenians in 1915 can properly be termed genocide, and that the
actions of the Ottoman Government constituted the crime of genocide.Prosecution for this crime is not likely, however, as there are no
longer individuals alive to prosecute. There is evidence that crimes
against humanity were already recognized under international law in
1915, and by logical extension this should also apply to genocide. The
Turkish State, as the inheritor of the Ottoman regime, might also be
held responsible for the atrocities perpetrated in 1915, provided a
suitable forum can be found for such litigation.Geoffrey Robertson, QC, one of Britain’s leading human rights lawyers,
submitted a video recording of his speech, “Politics, Government, and
the Armenian Genocide in the United Kingdom.” Robertson discussed in
particular his expose of how the British Foreign Office suppressed
information and misled Parliament on the truth of the Armenian
Genocide, affecting British foreign policy greatly and resulting in
Britain’s stance of not recognizing the Genocide, but merely calling it
a tragedy. This position is at odds with the position of the British
government at the time of the Armenian Genocide, when they called
it a crime against humanity and civilization. Robertson’s research
into this discrepancy shows that the current position of the British
government is driven by political and commercial interests.Eren Keskin, an award-winning Turkish human rights attorney,
participated by telephone from Turkey. She spoke forcefully about the
Armenian Genocide and the importance of Turkey’s apologizing for it.She explained the militaristic foundation of the Turkish Republic,
the continuity of the military mindset of 1915 and that of the Turkish
State today. This militaristic mindset causes the Turkish state to
suppress dissent and punish what it considers insults to Turkishness.Ms. Keskin spoke movingly about the threats and abuse she has endured
personally as an advocate for human rights in Turkey.Mark C. Fleming is a partner in the Boston office of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. He prepared an amicus curiae brief on the
appeal in the Griswold v. Driscoll case, in which the Massachusetts
Board of Education was being sued, based on the First Amendment, to
allow “contra-genocide” materials on a list of suggested educational
resources for teaching the Armenian Genocide. Initially the case was
dismissed and Massachusetts was free to list the resources of its
choosing, but the case is now under appeal.Roger W. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Government at the College of
William and Mary, spoke on the legal and philosophical aspects of laws
penalizing genocide denial. While genocide denial is dangerous and
continues the victimization of the target group, he said, preventing
free speech in such cases has its own, serious, negative consequences.Ziya Meral, a Turkish researcher, writer, and Ph.D. candidate in
Political Science at Cambridge University, as discussant for the
conference, masterfully commented on numerous issues that were raised
by the other speakers. He spoke about the need for the people of
Turkey to accept the reality of the Armenian Genocide and said that
only Turkish society had the power to change Turkey’s policy of denial.The papers from this conference will be published in the summer issue
of the university’s Journal of Law and Public Policy. Through this
publication, it is hoped that awareness among policymakers will be
raised to strengthen the legal framework, so that all cases of genocide
are treated with justice and that politics or economic interest do
not obstruct the application of the law nationally or internationally.The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
(A Division of the Zoryan Institute) is dedicated to the study and
dissemination of knowledge regarding the phenomenon of genocide in
all of its aspects to create an awareness of it as an ongoing scourge
and promote the necessity of preventing it. -
We should thank Armenian lobby for making Turkish diaspora stronger”
Saturday, 13 February 2010“Statements by the Armenian lobby and plans of the Committee on Foreign Relations of U.S. House of Representatives are not surprising. Even if the protocols are ratified by the parliaments of Turkey and Armenia, the Armenian lobby will still be forcing some members of Congress to put some sort of resolution to a vote in subcommittees, committees and plenary sessions.
The Armenian lobby cannot stop doing it because this kind of resolution is culmination of all their efforts,” Adil Bagirov, candidate of political sciences, the U.S. Azeris Network Executive Director said.
“Of course, the Committee on Foreign Relations may adopt this resolution. The Committee adopted a similar resolution in Oct. 2007. The U.S. will hold midterm elections next November. The Armenian diaspora promises its vote, financial input for the congressmen who would back their resolution. The chairman of a committee from the State of California also helps the Armenian lobby. If Armenians try hard, the resolution may even pass one chamber of Congress, as the Jewish lobby will not try to stop the Armenian lobby because of the known problems with the ruling AKP in Turkey and the ruling coalition in Israel which worsened last year.”“However, over the past year, Turkish-Americans, as well as the Turkish government, were able to strengthen its lobby both through developig its diaspora and by hiring more powerful lobbying firms. It’s no secret that success in the U.S. political arena requires several instruments, including the hiring of professional lobbyists which is much cheaper. It is not surprising that almost all “favorites” countries of the of the Congress such as Taiwan, India, Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Japan, the Netherlands, even Canada, the United Kingdom and the EU spend millions annually on lobbying the U.S. Congress,” Bagirov added.
“Apart from historical and moral reasons for which Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis do not agree with the view of the Armenian lobby, one should not forget about economic and geostrategic ones. The more the Armenian lobby is engaged in unsuccessful promoting such resolution, the less money, time and energy it will have for other more important issues and projects. It would be difficult to Azerbaijan and Turkey if the Armenian lobby would not be spending a mere 70 percent of its resources on the resolution, but on something else. Also, if it had not been for such resolutions, there would be less interest in the history of Turkey and Azerbaijan,” Bagirov noted.
“Armenia succeeds to maintain good relations with Russia, the U.S., Iran Israel, India,China, Arab countries and Europe, the Turkic states of Central Asia and even with Turkey to some degree. If it were not for these resolutions, Turkey still would not have broadcasts of public radio and TV soon in Eastern Armenian language (official language of Armenia), there would be no chairs in Armenian language and history in Turkish universities, there would be no historical research and publications, as well as consolidation of the Turkic diaspora and joint resistance against the Armenian propaganda. So, one should thank the Armenian lobby for such unforeseen and unintended effect of strengthening, professionalizing and consolidation of the Turkic peoples, communities, diaspora and lobby,” Bagirov said.
-
Armenia Should Return Occupied Territories to Azerbaijan
TURKEY:
Armenia Should Return Occupied Territories to AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Today’s interview with Pulat Tacar, Retired Ambassador; Vice Chairperson of the Turkish National Commission for UNESCO between 1996-2007Biography:
Born in 1931; graduated from the Political Science Faculty of Ankara in 1954. After post graduate studies at the Sorbonne University in Paris, he joined the Ministyry of Foreign Affairs. He was Ambassador of Turkey in Jakarta (1981-1984), Permanent Representative, Ambassador of Turkey to the European Communities (1984-1987) in Bruxelles and to UNESCO (1989-1995) in Paris; he was Director General for Cultural Affairs of the MFA ,HE IS A MEMBER OF TURKISH FORUM ADVISORY BOARD(2006-),(1987-1989) He published several books : “Cultural rights in the world and the proposal of a model for Turkey” ; “Terror and democracy”, which was awarded the Yunus Nadi Social Sciences Research Prize in 1999; “ The Control of nuclear weapons”; “Financing of the politics” “ UNESCO, is she useless like Mozart?” ; and many essays in several periodicals on the topics of: cultural rights; the good governance of multiculturalim; relations between Turkey and the European Union; and the crime of genocide.AT: On 10 October, Turkey and Armenia signed protocols in Switzerland on normalization of relations. How important are these protocols for Turkey?
P.T.: The signing of the protocols with Armenia reflects a change of direction with regard the Turkish position on relations with Armenia : The main issues may be summarized as follows : the opening of the territorial borders , the establishment of regular diplomatic missions , the creation of expert groups to discuss common problems including the historical aspects.
The new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Professor Davutoglu tried to explain the background of this new approach with the words “ zero conflicts with the neighbours” . Most probably this step is put forward by the Turkish Government after a new evaluation of the situation in the South Caucasus . One can guess that the concerns with regard the stability of the region prevailed. Especially after the Russian intervention in Georgia and the new de facto created in Abhazia and South Ossetia the Turkish Government positioned itself taking into account the facts of the “realpolitik” there. This includes of course the security of the oil and gas pipelines. One should add that the position of the new President of the United States as well as the pressures of the US legislative bodies with regard the Armenian genocide allegations played also a certain role .
The Turkish Government made it clear more then once its concerns about and the priority it attaches to the stability in the region and decided to try an alternative path to find solutions to the conflicts between Armenia and Turkey Having also in mind the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This new and conciliatory approach is supported by almost all the actors of the international areana.
On the other hand, -as far as I am informed – Turkish Government members and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey briefed the Azeri authorities on the negotiations of the Protocols with Armenia. Let me add that the same openness can not be claimed with regard the sharing of information concerning the going on Azerbaijan-Armenia negotiations.
Finally , Turkey always underlined that the Azeri territories occupied by Armenia should be returned back to Azerbaijan . The actual Government of Turkey do believe that the Protocols will help to find a peaceful solution to the conflicts not only between Turkey and Armenia but also between Azerbaijan and Armenia .
AT: There has been some change in the US policy in the South Caucasus and the Middle East under the new administration. How could this change influence the strategic partnership between the United States and Azerbaijan, and also the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
P.T.: United States policy in the South Caucasus is directed -among others- to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. – The aim of this policy is to create a just and sustainable balance between Armenian and Azerbaijan interests as well as to secure energy transportation lines. The role of Russia and the relations between Russia and Azerbaijan as well as with Armenia, are other important factors of this simultaneous equation.
I guess that the final solution of Nagorno-Karabakh will take some more years and a step by step approach must be expected. Probably the returning of the five rayons will be the first step which will be followed by others. The solution there will most probably take into account the de facto situation in South Caucasus and the vital interests and the compromise willingness of the parties concerned.
Moreover I think that relations called “ partnership, alliances and strategic partnerships” are closely attached to the interests of the States in question. The “strategic partnership between The United States and Azerbaijan” you refer in your question will abide to the necessities of “mutual interests”.
AT: Do you think that Armenia will give up its efforts to secure international recognition of the genocide if it normalizes relations with Turkey?
P.T.: In the short term, the Armenian diaspora will not give up its efforts to secure international recognition of the genocide allegations. On the other hand, the Armenian Governments will most probably continue to underline that the events of 1915 should be considered as a crime of genocide. For , “to be the victim of genocide” has become a part of their created identity. The word “genocide” is a taboo for them and the “ Armenian genocide” “ a historical truth which can not be denied, nor can be discussed” . According to the Armenians, those who qualify the tragic events of 1915-1916 with other words then genocide, should change their position and accept the genocide accusation without any discussion or argument . Even the word “Metz jegern” -which means “the great tragedy” in the Armenian language and which the Armenians themselves use to name the tragic events of 1915, if pronounced by some apologists in Turkey and the President Obama becomes a deviation of the Armenian “holy war” and is rejected.
But, the Armenians know that as long as this question is on the agenda of a mixed commission of historians , experts and/or jurists foreseen by the Zurich Protocols their chance to convince new governments and/or parliaments to recognize the genocide allegations will decrease. That is the reason why the diaspora Armenians reject the protocols signed in Zurich. The Armenian side also will try everything in its power to delay the meeting of the so called historian commission by not agreeing on the terms of its agenda. The weak side of the protocols (for Turkey) is that the creation of the said commission is foreseen only after the normalization of the relations including the opening of the borders.
The great majority of the Turks are convinced that the tragic events of 1915 can not be qualified as genocide. Ottoman Turks, Kurds and Armenians suffered great losses at the beginning of the XX century. But the accusation that the Ottoman Turks destroyed the Ottoman Armenians on racial and/or religious ground,which means because they were Armenians is not reflecting the truth and this dolus specialis is not supported by evidence.
Personally I insisted and underlined the fact that genocide is an international crime clearly described by the 1948 Convention and that this legal issue can only be solved by the competent tribunal foreseen by the Article VI of UN Convention. on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Politicians, parliaments and other instances – even national tribunals without competence- have no authority to decide or to declare that a crime constitutes genocide.
But let me add another important and humanitarian aspect of the Protocols signed in Zurich. I consider this as an important step towards the reconciliation of the Armenian and Turkish peoples. It focuses the problematic of collective memory Thr collective memory does not necessarily tell the truthful history of the past, is tendentious, provides a story that is very often distorted; it tries a selective reading of the past; it presents the own group as being the victim of the opponent. It is true that some of these beliefs are formed over a long period of sufferings and losses. . Selective memory focus especially on violence, atrocities, cruelty, lack of concern for human life and viciousness of the other side,
How this vicious cycle can be broken?
I admit that this is not easy. Generally it takes long years. Because, years of indoctrination cause internalization of the beliefs. They are held with great confidence and considered as central. Any progress requires an emphatic approach and a change of the beliefs which support the continuation of the conflict.
But the beliefs, attitudes, created images anchored in the memory do not change overnight. Usually they continue to inhibit the development of peaceful relations and may even create obstacles to the mutual understanding.
The overcoming of the difficulties depends on formal and informal conciliatory acts by both parties. The determination of leaders involved in peace making is crucial. Their moves are often met with opposition within their own group in the form of pressure, public mobilization, sometimes smear campaigns and violence. The success of the process depends on the activism and strength of those who support it.
Reconciliation requires changing the psychological repertoire which dominated society members for many years. Peace between States depends on peace between people. That is the reason why I consider the move of the Zurich protocols as an important attempt towards reconciliation
AT: Members of the OSCE Minsk Group are making a lot effort to get the Turkish-Armenian border reopened. What kind of impact would the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border have on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Turkish closed its border with Armenia after the occupation of Azerbaijan’s Kalbajar District by Armenian forces in 1993. How would you assess reopening of the border before the resolution of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
P.T.: The closing of the border between Turkey and Armenia is described by some as an embargo. This is wrong. The air border between Armenia and Turkey is open . Iran and Georgia borders with Armenia are open as well. Under these conditions one can not describe the closing of the eastern Turkish borders to Armenia as an embargo. This has been a protest act and a political step taken by Turkey because of the occupation of Azerbaijan’s Kalbajar District. But this political act did not pressured Armenia with regard the resolution of the conflict of Karabakh and the handing over of the occupied territories to Azerbaijan.
Now, I sincerely hope that the signing of the protocols between Turkey and Armenia may help the creation of an atmosphere of peace and trust . It may also indirectly help the conclusion of the negotiations within the Minsk Group.
The Turkish Prime Minister and other Turkish officials clearly declared that the opening of the eastern border of Turkey to Armenia will depend on the improvement of the Nagorny Karabakh issue, which means the return of the occupied territories to Azerbaijan.
My interpretation of these statements is that the Turkish Government will not request its Parliament to give green light for the ratification of the protocols between Turkey and Armenia before a settlement with regard the occupied territories is agreed upon between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
If there is no improvement on the question of N.K., the protocols will continue to stay on the agenda of the Turkish Parliament and their ratification will be delayed . This delay of course will trigger new international pressures on Turkey and Armenia.AT: The Azerbaijani authorities are very concerned about the prospect of the Turkish-Armenian border being reopened. They think that this would toughen Armenia’s position on the Karabakh issue. Do you share this concern?
P.T.: The signing of the protocols caused a certain disappointment in Azerbaijan and in Turkey. I have an understanding for it, because it was interpreted as a policy change by some. But, personally I consider this as emotional reactions rather than reactions attached to solid reasoning. I hope that the leaders as well as the public opinion will not forget that the ties fastening our countries are stronger than ever. The only factor which can toughen the Armenian position is the image of an existing conflict, tension and misunderstanding between Turkey and Azerbaijan. So I believe it is high time to join our efforts and present an unified and stronger image.
Turkey wants more than any other the return of the occupied Azerbaijan territories to their owners and the diplomatic steps foreseen by the protocols as well as the statements by the Turkish Government members with regard the entering into force of the Protocols do aim to attend this objective. Finally let me underline again that stability in our region will improve the security and the living standards of all of us.
Turkish PM Erdogan, U.S. President Obama Discuss Azerbaijan-Armenia Relations With Protocols Signed, What Lies Ahead? Turkish PM Erdogan,
U.S. President Obama
Discuss Azerbaijan-
Armenia RelationsCompeting Interest
Influencing Policy
in Karabagh
Azerbaijan Today’s
interview with
Efruz Muduroglu,
Managing Director of the
Hazar Investment LTD
“Mosazervinzavod” Dealing with the Other
Side of Oil Boom
Azerbaijan Today’s
interview with
Mr. Mukhtar Babayev,
vice-president of the
State Oil Company of the
Azerbaijan RepublicNorthern Europe
Greenlights Nord StreamUS State Department: ”
Azerbaijani Government
Actively Encourages
Religious Tolerance” -
Think Again: Be resolute on genocide issue
By Zanku Armenian
In October, Turkey and Armenia signed a document called the “protocols,” which were intended to pave the way for the countries to begin a reconciliation process that would open their borders, establish diplomatic relations and perhaps tackle the biggest obstacle between them, the issue of the Armenian Genocide of 1915.Many Armenian Americans expressed outrage at this proposed agreement because it calls for a “historical commission” that would likely examine the Armenian Genocide, which they feel is a ruse by Turkey to deflect growing international pressure for recognition and further their decades-old campaign to distort and deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
The fear of the Armenian American community began coming true in April, when President Obama used the potential of the protocols as a way to avoid his campaign promise of January 2008. In that pledge, Obama said, “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president.” Sure enough, in his first year in office, Obama caved in to hollow threats from Turkey, avoiding the word “genocide” in the White House’s annual commemoration message.
Often, we see our leaders compromise the nation’s core values for the sake of relations with another country. We seem to do this for a fleeting gain with regimes that run counter to our principles. Our history is riddled with situations that have backfired, forcing us to ultimately clean up the mess because of shortsighted policies — Iraq and Afghanistan being the latest examples.
With the efforts of Rep.. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and many members from the California congressional delegation, including bipartisan support, once again there is a resolution before our lawmakers that seeks to be truthful about our own American history by recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Valley Village), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has scheduled a committee vote on House Resolution 252 for March 4. If passed by committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be poised to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote.
Viewing this resolution as an issue for the Armenian American community would be a mistake. While the resolution recognizes the horrific experiences of the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide, it also honors American values and how ordinary Americans stand up to help the greater good. Just like we’ve sent help to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake there, in the early 20th century, Americans stood up and sent needed help to survivors of the Armenian Genocide, without which the devastation would have been far worse.
Among the details recognized in HR 252 is that on Feb. 9, 1916, 94 years ago this week, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution resolving that “the president of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians.” President Wilson concurred and encouraged the formation of the organization called Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which ultimately contributed $116 million from 1915 to 1930 to aid survivors, including 132,000 orphans.
While HR 252 pays tribute to these important American contributions, it also sends a clear message to the president: The change we want is for our country’s policies to have integrity by reflecting the truth. If, for the sake of having relations, we have complicity with a country like Turkey, which has made political sport out of lying about and denying genocides, we will have forsaken every American and human principle. And that is unacceptable. Among the messages being sent to Washington with recent special elections around the nation, this needs to be one of them.