Category: Main Issues

  • Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths

    Bruce Fein

    Posted: June 4, 2009 06:10 PM

    On April 24, 2009–Armenian Remembrance Day– President Barack Obama issued a statement “remember[ing] the 1.5 million Armenian [deaths] in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” The President stumbled.

    To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.

    Immediately after the war, when events and memories were fresh, Armenians had no incentive to concoct high casualty figures or genocidal motivations for their deaths. Their objective was statehood. Armenians were encouraged by the self-determination concept in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, (while conveniently forgetting that they were a minority in Eastern Anatolia where they hoped to found a new nation). Armenian leaders pointed to their military contribution to defeating the Ottomans and population figures that would sustain an Armenian nation.

    Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: “The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente….” Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: “We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory.”

    When their quest for statehood shipwrecked on the Treaty of Lausanne and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1921, Armenians revised their soundtrack to endorse a contrived genocide thesis. It seeks a “pound of flesh” from the Republic of Turkey in the form of recognition, reparations, and boundary changes. To make their case more convincing, Armenians hiked the number of deaths. They also altered their story line from having died as belligerents against the Turks to having perished like unarmed helpless lambs.

    Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000.

    After statehood was lost, Armenians turned to their genocide playbook which exploited Christian bigotries and contempt for Ottoman Muslims. They remembered earlier successful anti-Ottoman propaganda. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the war, Henry Morganthau, was openly racist and devoted to propaganda. On November 26, 1917, Morgenthau confessed in a letter to President Wilson that he intended to write a book vilifying Turks and Germans to, “win a victory for the war policy of the government.” In his biography, “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story,” Morgenthau betrays his racist hatred toward Turks (“humanity and civilization never for a moment enters their mind”) and unconditional admiration for Armenians (“They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally.”).

    British Prime Minister Gladstone’s histrionic figure of 60,000 Bulgarian Christians slaughtered in 1876 captured the imagination of the west. The true figure later provided by a British Ambassador was 3,500–including Turks who were first slain by the Christians.

    From 280,000-750,000, Armenians initially raised their death count to 800,000 to test the credibility waters. It passed muster with uninformed politicians easily influenced by campaign contributions and voting clout. Armenians then jumped the number to 1.5 million, and then 1.8 million by Armenian historian Kevork Aslan. For the last decades, an Armenian majority seems to have settled on the 1.5 million death plateau–which still exceeds their contemporary estimates by 200 to 500 percent. They are now testing the waters at 2.5-3 million killed as their chances for a congressional genocide resolution recede. It speaks volumes that champions of the inflated death figures have no explanation for why Armenians on the scene would have erred. Think of the absurdity of discarding the current death count of Afghan civilians in the United States-Afghan war in favor of a number deduced in the year 2109!

    Armenians have a genuine tale of woe. It largely overlaps with the tale of tragedy and suffering that can be told by Ottoman Muslims during the war years: 2.4 million deaths in Anatolia, ethnic cleansing, starvation, malnutrition, untreated epidemics, and traumatic privations of war under a decrepit and collapsing Empire.

    Unskewed historical truth is the antechamber of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That is why the Government of Turkey has proposed an international commission of impartial and independent experts with access to all relevant archives to determine the number and characterization of World War I deaths. Armenians are balking because they are skeptical of their own figures and accusations.

  • ARMENIA’S Edward Nalbandian is weak and…”

    ARMENIA’S Edward Nalbandian is weak and…”

    ARKADY GHUKASYAN DECLINES INTERVIEW WITH PUBLISHER APPO JABARIAN THREATENS LAWSUIT AGAINST USA ARMENIAN LIFE
    By Appo Jabarian
    appo
    USA Armenian Life Magazine
    November 25, 2009
    
    On November 14, Appo Jabarian wrote an article in USA Armenian Life
    Magazine titled, "Former Pres. of Artsakh Arkady Ghukasyan Says
    Protocols were unprofessional, and contained many mistakes; He also
    Says Armenia's Foreign Minister is Weak and Unprepared."
    
    Almost immediately after the dissemination of the article, an
    avalanche of reactions came from the media in Armenia and around the
    world. Literally, dozens of various media outlets echoed the content
    of the article, including ArmeniaDiaspora.com, News.am, Aaravot.am,
    7or.am, PanArmenian.net, Lragir.am.
    
    AraManoogian.blogspot.com, ArmAr.am, Nouvelles d'Armenie Magazine (in
    French), ArmToday.info (in Russian), and Novoye Vremya (in Russian).
    
    The media in Armenia presented various interpretations of the motives
    behind Mr. Ghukasyan's statement that Pres. Serge Sargsyan "must have
    acted in the wrong way, but he is a sincere and patriotic person and
    shouldered great responsibility," and that Armenia's Foreign Minister
    Edward Nalbandian "is weak and unprepared."
    
    The most notable reactions came in the form of accusations and
    disinformation that were hurled against Appo Jabarian by Ghukasyan's
    office in Yerevan which issued a denial contradicting his statements
    he had made earlier.
    
    Ghukasyan's denial was circulated by certain media outlets and
    officials of the Armenian Foreign Ministry in Yerevan along with the
    Consulate General of Armenia in Los Angeles.
    
    Armenia's Consulate General in Los Angeles has never before responded
    to Azeri or Turkish disinformation campaigns in the United States. But
    the moment this writer authored an expose of the double-talk by
    Former Pres. of Artsakh -- now turned Armenia's Ambassador-at-Large
    Arkady Ghukasyan -- Consulate officials resorted to a disinformation
    campaign against him.
    
    On November 17, Armenia's Consulate e-mailed a communique carrying
    false information against Jabarian. The communique was swiftly
    rebutted by the Managing Editor of USA Armenian Life Magazine. An
    official statement by the editor, countering the Armenian Consulate's
    misleading e-mail was expeditiously sent to various Armenian-American
    media outlets. USA Armenian Life's "Notice of Dissemination of a False
    and Libelous Statement" informed the Armenian-American editors and
    TV/Internet newscasters to "be advised that the information titled
    'Republic of Armenia's Ambassador At Large, and the Vice-President of
    the Board of Trustees of Armenia Fund Arkady Ghukasyan's assistant E.
    
    Atanessyan's interpretation on USA Armenian Life's news article'
    that you have received from the Consulate General of Armenia in
    Los Angeles is False and Libelous. Its electronic and/or print
    dissemination/broadcast by your news organization may expose your
    business entity/entities to legal liabilities."
    
    On November 18, during Mr. Ghukasyan's stay at the Hilton Hotel in
    Glendale, this writer had a telephone conversation with him. In order
    to give Amb. Ghukasyan a fair opportunity to present his rebuttal and
    views regarding this issue, at the beginning of the conversation, this
    writer proposed to have a taped interview either on the telephone or
    in person at the hotel. But he declined. And instead he demanded that
    this writer disclose the source(s) of comments that were reported in
    the article, otherwise, he threatened to take him and USA Armenian
    Life to court.
    
    When this blatant threat was hurled at Jabarian, the latter told him
    "Mr. Ghukasyan you should remember really well as to whom you have
    said the reported comments. I encourage you very much to do so." Then
    he immediately backpedaled and started to cajole this commentator by
    saying that "we are both patriotic people" and that "we shouldn't
    be
    talking in the language of lawsuits."
    
    On November 20, USA Armenian Life's managing editor had a face-to-face
    meeting with the source of the facts included in the article; and
    re-examined their validity, and they all proved as being solidly
    accurate.
    
    Below is a partial list of headlines and comments featured by various
    media outlets that followed the lead of USA Armenian Life Magazine's
    Nov. 14 article:
    
    - Nov. 16, News.am's title: "Nagorno Karabagh Republic's Former Pres.
    
    of Arkady Ghukasyan Has Labeled Armenia's Foreign Minister 'as Weak
    and Unprepared.'"
    
    - Nov. 16, 7or.am's title: "Has Nagorno Karabagh Republic's Former
    President Become Honest?"
    
    - Nov. 16, News.am title: "Arkady Ghukasyan: Edward Nalbandian 'weak
    and unprepared.'"
    
    - Nov. 16, ArmAr.am title: "Arkady Ghukasyan Has Appealed to the
    Diaspora to Continue to Be Rightful Demanders [of Justice]."
    
    - Nov. 16, Panarmenian.net title: "Arkady Ghukasyan ascribed comments
    he didn't make."
    
    - Nov. 16, Lragir.am carried Appo Jabarian's article in its entirety
    with the following title: "Ghukasyan's Sensation in the U.S."
    
    - Nov. 17, Aravot.am title: "Is the Ambassador Disagreeable with
    the President?"
    
    - Nov. 18, Lragir.am title: "SIMPLY A BLACKMAIL? or Guys! Money is
    needed urgently!" The author, Bagrat Kheroyan, wrote: "The Ex-presiden
    
    of Artsakh, Arkady Ghukasyan, has made a couple of announcements in the
    USA, which raise some questions: In case he is 'as honest and patriotic
    as Serzh Sargsyan and values Shushi so much, why doesn't he live in
    Shushi? Wouldn't Shushi develop fast had Arkady Ghukasyan and others
    like him built their palaces and launched their businesses in Shushi?"
    
    Kheroyan further wrote: "I would suggest the Diaspora to organize
    fund-raising for changing the Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh
    and writing there that the presidents and state officials of the
    Republic of Artsakh will simply be considered betrayers in case after
    they serve, they live and establish their businesses out of Artsakh,
    especially in Armenia."
    
    - On Nov. 19, Lragir.am followed up with a second commentary titled:
    "SIMPLY A BLACKMAIL? No. 2; Or It Seems Like a New Stratagem is
    Being Formed."
    
    Lragir.am observed: "It seems like the promise of a future job is
    the obvious reason that Arkady Ghukasyan has mercilessly criticized
    and labeled ignorant ... Republic of Armenia's Foreign Minister
    Edward Nalbandian. It seems like it is not difficult to understand
    that the Republic of Armenia's Foreign Ministry post is promised to
    Arkady Ghukasyan."
    
    Whatever were his motives, Mr. Ghukasyan should not have backed
    out of the remarks he had made earlier, during his appearances in
    North America.
  • Obama Should Forfeit his Nobel Prize

    Obama Should Forfeit his Nobel Prize


    Until he Tells the Truth on Genocide

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian3
    In his letter of November 20 to Armenian American organizations, Pres. Obama once again played shameful word games with the term genocide. At this point, one has to be incredibly naïve to believe that he is going to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide during the rest of his term in office.

    During the presidential campaign, when Sen. Obama was making repeated promises to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Armenian activists were nervously following the Turkish government’s attempts to use the false pretext of dialogue with Armenia to prevent him from fulfilling his pledge after the election.

    In early April, during a press conference in Ankara, when Pres. Obama was asked about his views on the Armenian Genocide, he dodged the question by stating: “My views are on the record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul’s leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one.”

    Clearly, Presidents Obama and Gul, for their own reasons, were scheming to undermine the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by pushing forward the Armenia-Turkey negotiations. They were joined in this unholy alliance by Russia and the European Union in pressuring Armenia’s leaders, who were only too eager to comply.

    This sinister deal was sealed when on the eve of April 24, Armenia and Turkey issued a joint press release announcing a roadmap for reconciliation!

    Not surprisingly, in his first April 24 statement, Pres. Obama repeated all the euphemisms and word games for which he had strongly condemned his predecessor, President Bush! Obama used the old and all too familiar denialist terminology of past presidents, such as “atrocity,” “massacre,” “terrible events of 1915,” and most incredibly, “Meds Yeghern”!

    In that statement, Pres. Obama used the same evasive answer he gave in Ankara: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.” Yet, he adamantly persisted in refusing to state what his actual views were.

    Furthermore, Pres. Obama urged Armenians and Turks “to address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward.” He expressed his strong support for their “courageous and important dialogue…to work through this painful history…” and applauded the Armenian and Turkish governments for accepting “a framework and roadmap for normalization.”

    Consequently, Pres. Obama left no doubt that he was going to sacrifice the truth of the “Armenian Genocide” on the altar of an illusory Armenian-Turkish reconciliation, using it as a fig leaf to conceal his erstwhile pledge.

    Last month, in a letter to Armenian American organizations, Pres. Obama reconfirmed that his view on “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century” had not changed. Once again, he failed to detail his views! The President was responding to a letter from the AGBU, Armenian Assembly, and Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. The three Armenian organizations had expressed their support for the Armenia-Turkey Protocols and appealed to the White House to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. In his response, Pres. Obama cleverly exploited the expression of support by the Armenian organizations for the reconciliation process, and downplayed his campaign pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. He reiterated that “the best way to advance…the just acknowledgment of the facts” is for Armenians and Turks to address the past “as part of their efforts to move forward.” He pledged “to continue to vigorously support the normalization effort in the months ahead.” The President was thus using the Protocols to undermine all efforts to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

    Keeping his pledge on the Armenian Genocide is in Pres. Obama’s own interest, as it would help rehabilitate his moral and political credibility by joining Pres. Reagan and scores of national parliaments, international organizations, and Holocaust and genocide scholars who are already on record confirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

    Pres. Obama should not be surprised if Armenian-Americans no longer trust him, and do not support him for re-election. Those who play games with genocide should not be rewarded.

    Anyone who lacks the courage to stand up for the truth does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize!
  • European Council conclusions on Turkey

    European Council conclusions on Turkey

    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

    Council conclusions on enlargement/stabilisation and association process
    2984th GENERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting

    Brussels, 7 and 8 December 2009

    The Council adopted the following conclusions:

    “ENLARGEMENT STRATEGY

    1. In line with the renewed consensus on enlargement approved by the European Council on 14 and 15 December 2006, and the conclusions of 8 December 2008, the Council welcomes the Commission communication dated 14 October 2009 on Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010, and takes due note of the conclusions and recommendations therein. The enlargement process gives strong encouragement to political and economic reform in the enlargement countries and reinforces peace, democracy and stability in Europe.

    2. The enlargement countries have been affected, to different degrees, by the global economic recession. The Council confirms that the EU will continue to help them to alleviate the impact of the crisis and prepare for sound recovery. The implementation of EU-related reforms underpins the efforts of the enlargement countries in this regard.

    3. Coherent implementation of the renewed consensus on enlargement which is based on consolidation of commitments, fair and rigorous conditionality, better communication and the EU’s capacity to integrate new members, continues to form the basis for EU action at all stages of the enlargement process, with each country being assessed on its own merits. The rule of law, in particular the fight against corruption and organised crime, as well as strengthening administrative capacity, remains a major challenge which the enlargement countries need to address from an early stage of the process. The Council underlines that problems affecting the freedom of expression and the media need to be tackled as a matter of urgency. The Council continues to attach importance to the quality of the enlargement process and invites the Commission to make use of all instruments of the enlargement process, in particular benchmarks and impact studies.

    4. The Council points out that the negotiating chapters for which technical preparations have been concluded will be opened or closed provisionally in line with the rules of an Inter-Governmental Conference, according to established procedures and in line with the Negotiating Framework.

    5. The Council welcomes the support provided to the enlargement process through financial assistance, in particular in the form of the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA), and emphasises the essential link between enlargement policy priorities and financial assistance, in line with the results from the recent conferences designed to improve aid effectiveness, and welcomes the efforts by the Commission to closely align IPA annual programmes with the priorities identified in the Progress Reports.

    Turkey

    6. The Council welcomes Turkey’s continued commitment to the negotiation process. Positive steps have been registered in the areas of the judiciary, civil-military relations and cultural rights. The Council now expects that the implementation of the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis, as well as the appointment of a full-time Chief Negotiator, will further focus the Turkish government’s reform efforts.

    7. Furthermore, the Council is encouraged by the government’s democratic initiative, including on the Kurdish issue. This should lead to concrete measures guaranteeing all Turkish citizens full rights and freedoms and should significantly improve the situation in the South-East. The Council welcomes the government’s efforts towards building of a national consensus, which will also be beneficial to the reform process, including the work on a constitutional reform.

    8. The Council invites Turkey to step up the pace of reforms and to implement measures which have been started. Further efforts to ensure that Turkey fully meets the Copenhagen criteria are required in a number of areas, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion in law and in practice for all religious communities, respect for property rights, trade union rights, rights of persons belonging to minorities, civilian oversight of the military and women’s and children’s rights, anti-discrimination and gender equality. The Council welcomes the declared intention of the government to step up its efforts in the fight against torture and ill-treatment, including on the issue of impunity.

    9. The Council notes that the negotiations have reached a more demanding stage requiring Turkey to step up its efforts in meeting established conditions. By advancing in the fulfilment of opening and closing benchmarks and of the requirements specified in the Negotiating Framework, which cover inter alia implementation of the Accession Partnership and compliance with the obligations stemming from the Association Agreement, Turkey will be able to accelerate the pace of the negotiations.

    10. Turkey is an important regional player, inter alia for the security in the Middle East and the Southern Caucasus and plays a key role in energy supply and the promotion of dialogue between civilisations. The Council thus welcomes the significant diplomatic efforts made to normalise relations with Armenia, resulting in the historic signature of protocols for the normalisation of relations in October 2009. It looks forward to the ratification and implementation of the protocols as soon as possible. The Council welcomes that in July 2009 Turkey signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Nabucco gas pipeline and underlines that the timely completion of the Southern corridor remains one of the EU’s highest energy security priorities.

    11. The Council further welcomes the beginning of the reinforced dialogue on migration with Turkey and calls for concrete steps to be taken rapidly, in particular as regards readmission and border control, in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council of June and October 2009. The Council welcomes the start of a new round of talks on an EU-Turkey readmission agreement and stresses that adequate implementation of already existing bilateral readmission agreements remains a priority.

    12. In line with the Negotiating Framework and previous European Council and Council conclusions, the Council underlines that Turkey needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, having recourse, if necessary, to the International Court of Justice. In this context, the Union urges the avoidance of any kind of threat, source of friction or actions which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, the EU stresses again all the sovereign rights of EU Member States which include, inter alia, entering into bilateral agreements, in accordance with the EU acquis and international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    13. Recalling its conclusions of 11 December 2006 and the declaration of 21 September 2005, the Council notes with deep regret that Turkey, despite repeated calls, continues refusing to fulfil its obligation of full non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement. In the absence of progress on this issue the Council will maintain its measures from 2006, which will have a continuous effect on the overall progress in the negotiations. Furthermore, Turkey has not made progress towards normalisation of its relations with the Republic of Cyprus. The Council invites the Commission to monitor closely and specifically report on all issues covered by the declaration of the European Community and its Member States of 21 September 2005 in its forthcoming annual report. On this basis, the Council will continue to closely follow and review progress made, in accordance with its conclusions of 11 December 2006. Progress is now expected without further delay.

    14.As emphasised by the Negotiating Framework, the Council also expects Turkey to actively support the ongoing negotiations aimed at a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. Turkey’s commitment and contribution in concrete terms to such a comprehensive settlement is crucial.

    1For Turkey the opening and provisional closing of chapters is made subject to the Council conclusions of 11 December 2006.

  • Turkey-Armenia Ties Connected to Karabakh

    Turkey-Armenia Ties Connected to Karabakh

    After White House Meeting, Erdogan Says Turkey-Armenia Ties Connected to Karabakh

    By Asbarez Staff on Dec 7th, 2009


    Read the Press Conference Transcript

    WASHINGTON (Combined Sources)—Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters after his meeting with President Obama that the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations was contingent on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

    According to Erdogan, the US and Turkish leaders discussed relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

    “This is important in the context of relations between Turkey and Armenia,” he said, adding that the two also discussed the Karabakh conflict within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

    On the issue of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, Obama said Erdogan had been “courageous” in his efforts to normalize the decades-old resentment and bitterness.

    Obama and Erdogan were also reported to have discussed Iran. According to Reuters, Obama said on Monday that Turkey could be an “important player” in efforts to resolve the long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

    The US President made the statement during a White House meeting with Erdogan, who said his country stands ready to do whatever it can to achieve a diplomatic solution to the issue.

    Obama said he had stressed the importance of resolving the dispute “in a way that allows Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, but provides assurances that it will abide by international rules and norms.”

    “I believe that Turkey can be an important player in trying to move Iran in that direction,” the president was quoted as saying by AFP.

    Obama also praised Turkey for its role in Afghanistan, where it has some 1,700 troops.

  • BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS,

    BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS,

    AZERBAIJAN: BAKU UPSET OVER LACK OF KARABAKH PROGRESS, STEPS UP ANTI-WESTERN RHETORIC
    Shahin Abbasov 12/04/09

    Azerbaijani officials have taken aim at the West in recent weeks, in what some analysts believe could be an attempt to secure Russia’s support for a Baku-friendly settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

    The most surprising proposal in recent days to come out of Baku was a call for Russia to reestablish a military presence in Azerbaijan; Russian troops departed the country in 1993, and no mention had been made, until now, about their possible return.

    On November 26, MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev proposed that Azerbaijan should join the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Moscow-dominated military pact, and allow Russia to establish a military base in Azerbaijan. Hasanguliyev, a leader of the United Popular Front of Azerbaijan Party, presented the idea as a trade-off for Russian recognition of “Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh.”

    Although Baku’s national security strategy, approved in 2007, clearly defines “pursuing Euro-Atlantic integration” as a diplomatic priority for Azerbaijan, Hasanguliyev and others now complain that Baku has received little from the West in exchange for its interest in closer ties. Georgia’s own experience with the Atlantic Alliance suggests that Azerbaijan would never gain NATO membership, Hasanguliyev contended. Baku has not applied to join the Brussels-based military alliance.

    Representatives of the government and the governing Yeni Azerbaijan Party have not disavowed Hasanguliyev’s statement. Moreover, the statement appears to be part of a trend. At a November 20 conference in Baku organized by the presidential administration’s Center for Strategic Research, the United States and European Union came in for heavy criticism for their alleged failure to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Russia, which mediates the talks along with France and the United States, escaped censure. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    The pressure recently put on Armenia and Turkey to sign protocols on rapprochement “has never happened on the Karabakh issue,” charged Novruz Mammadov, head of the presidential administration’s Foreign Policy Department. Such an imbalance could lead to changes in Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, he suggested. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    Mammadov went on to accuse the West of ingratitude for Azerbaijan’s cooperation with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The lack of economic assistance for the $1 billion Mammadov says Azerbaijan lost from the 2008 economic crisis shows that “the West forgot us and helped Armenia,” he said.

    Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Ziyafet Askerov went a step further: Since force has been shown to be more effective than international law — a reference to the 2008 Georgia-Russia war and recognition of Kosovo — “the Karabakh conflict [could] be solved by the Azerbaijani army,” he threatened. “US foreign policy has become a hostage of the Armenian lobby,” he added.

    Discontent over Western criticism of the trial of two Azerbaijani bloggers – “Western media wrote more about the bloggers’ trial than about the Karabakh conflict since it began,” Novruz Mammadov claimed – and perceived NATO ingratitude for the 90 Azerbaijani peacekeepers serving in Afghanistan has added to the chill.

    Baku analysts are divided over the cause of this rhetoric.

    Azerbaijan’s irritation that more progress has been made on rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey than with the Karabakh peace process, now in its 15th year, could be driving Baku’s criticism of the West, believes Elhan Shahingolu, director of the Atlas Center for Political Research. “After the Turkish-Armenian protocols, Azerbaijan feels itself isolated and needs fast progress on the Karabakh issue,” Shahinoglu said.

    Russia’s absence from the criticism of the Karabakh mediators indicates that Baku hopes that “increased volumes of gas supplies and wider economic cooperation” mean that “Moscow would help in the Karabakh conflict,” Shahinoglu added. Annual trade turnover between Azerbaijan and Russia currently stands at $2.5 billion.

    After a November 24 meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at which the Karabakh conflict was discussed, an upbeat Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev declared that “if every country would have such relations as exist between Russia and Azerbaijan, there would be no problems in the world,” news agencies reported.

    Another political analyst, Zafar Guliyev, believes that more than the Karabakh conflict stands behind Baku’s anti-Western statements. An uptick in Western criticism of Azerbaijan’s democratization and human rights record – particularly the recent sentencing of two youth activists to prison terms — could play a role, too, he said. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    As Baku sees the West start to stick its neck out on such issues, the Azerbaijani government feels obliged to nudge it back into place, Guliyev noted. “In 2009, the Western powers and Turkey undertook efforts to reinforce their positions in the South Caucasus, and it is likely that some forces in the Azerbaijani government are concerned that the balance between the West and Russia [in the region], which always helped Baku to maneuver, could be broken,” Guliyev said.

    Both experts, however, believe that the rhetoric does not signal an official foreign policy line. The comments “so far” are “more muddled and emotional statements than a defined concept,” noted Guliyev.

    Shahinoglu, who opposes closer ties with Moscow, also believes that Baku is unlikely to change horses in mid-stream. “Azerbaijan has been pursuing Euro-Atlantic integration for more than 15 years and such abrupt changes now would not deliver anything positive,” he said.

    Editor’s Note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance correspondent based in Baku. He is also a board member of the Open Society Institute-Azerbaijan.

    Posted December 4, 2009 © Eurasianet