Category: Main Issues

  • Comment: “Recommendations for the Armenian Diaspora”

    Comment: “Recommendations for the Armenian Diaspora”

    E-mail : [email protected]

    Comment:

    It takes chutzpah the size of Mt. Ararat for these hate-mongering Armenians to pontificate even as they sit on the stolen lands of the Native Americans who were the victims of the mother of all genocides. Yes, Mr. and Ms. Yan and Ian, those usurped lands include Glendale, Fresno, Watertown, Providence, Pawtucket and Hohokus, New Jersey. Before the Armenian can preach ‘holier-than-thou’, he must vacate those stolen lands he occupies. Before the Armenian can play the “eternal victim,” he must apologize and pay reparations to the Native Americans. Before the two-faced Armenian can gripe about Armenians’ lost “historical lands,” he must give back the stolen historical lands of the Amerindians. Before the Armenian plays the profitable victimhood game, he must get it through his thick skull that the lost lives and lost lands of the Native Americans are worth just as much as lost Armenian lives and lands. For that matter, the lands that the Armenian goon squads stole from Azerbaijan and the Azeri lives they snuffed out, are just as worthy as those of the Armenians.

    So when can we expect these sanctimonious Armenian colonists, settlers, usurpers/thieves to pack their bags and return the land to its rightful owners, the Native Americans? And as these slick operators leave my lands, is it too much to ask them to also pony up that 40 acres and a mule that was promised but never delivered to the freed African slaves?

    As for apologies, when can we expect the oily, loud-mouthed, victim-playing French Armenians to apologize for their participation in the genocide of the Algerian people? Some of the Algerian torture victims are still alive today – albeit mutilated and disabled. How about the pushy Glendale Armenians pushing their Parisian cohorts to apologize and compensate for the Algerian genocide?

    You can see all comments on this post here:

    https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/05/10/recommendations-for-the-armenian-diaspora/#comments

  • Capital Vanguard Committee Remembers the Victims of Armenian Political Violence

    Capital Vanguard Committee Remembers the Victims of Armenian Political Violence

    April 24th, 2009, Washington, DC -Capital Vanguard Committee formed by Turkish American leaders in Washington, DC honored victims of Armenian terrorism and the 1.1 Million Ottoman Turks, Muslims and Jews who perished in Eastern Anatolia during the Armenian Revolt 1885-1919 and Russian invasion in 1915.
    Organized by the Turkish American Leaders, 48 hours of vigil took place in front of Turkish Embassy, Washington DC starting on Thursday, April 23rd at 8:00 am.
    On Friday, April 24th 2009, Along with the Turkish American leaders, Turkish and Azerbaijani Americans, American friends and Turkish Students from the local universities, over 100 people gathered in front of the Turkish Embassy to remember victims of Armenian political violence.

    The Armenian Van Revolt of March 1915 saw the deaths of over 60,000 Muslims and the extermination of its Jewish population in a span of thirty days, as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) “cleansed” the land of all non-Armenian elements, and handed the Van Province over to the invading Russians. The Van Revolt was the last in a long series of Armenian Revolts from 1885 that caused the deaths and forced migration of over 600,000 Ottoman Muslims and Jews in eastern Anatolia. The Van Revolt caused the Ottoman security-based arrest of ARF leaders throughout the Ottoman Empire and security-based relocation of Armenian civilians from the eastern war zones.
    Armenian political violence reemerged in 1974 in the form of terrorism by the leftist Armenian Secretary Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and ultra right, ARF-supported Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG), which killed over 70 and seriously wounded over 700 civilians in more than 200 terror bombings worldwide. Armenian terror caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage from Los Angeles to Boston, from Paris to Sydney.
    Turkish American leaders in Washington, DC, formed the Capital Vanguard Committee to remember Van, and to Guard Americans of Turkish heritage and their friends from Armenian extremism, and to ensure that we remember and honor the victims of Armenian political violence.

  • Ankara’s closer ties with Muslim countries ‘EU compatible’

    Ankara’s closer ties with Muslim countries ‘EU compatible’

    VALENTINA POP

    Today @ 10:15 CET

    EUOBSERVER / ANKARA – EU accession remains Turkey’s main priority after a cabinet reshuffle, with the country’s new policy of forging stronger ties with Muslim neighbours seen as EU compatible despite concerns from the secularist oppposition.

    “In my term the first priority of our foreign policy will continue to be the EU,” Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a group of EU journalists in Ankara on Friday.

    Only ten days in office, after a cabinet reshuffle which saw his predecessor, Ali Babacan, take over the position of minister of economy, he dwelled on the “multidimensional” identity of Turkey – European but majority Muslim, neighbouring the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea – and said no Turkish leader could ignore any of these parts.

    In the eyes of the opposition, this shift marks a departure from the traditional secularist view that Turkey is a different culture, but part of the same Western civilisation as Europe. Common military exercises with Syria, for instance, have risen concerns in Israel, a long-time ally of Ankara.

    Mr Davutoglu, an influential conservative scholar and former advisor to the premier, was instrumental in Ankara’s strong opposition in approving Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as future Nato secretary-general. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoga cited concerns in the Muslim world over the way the Danish politician managed the cartoon crisis, but was eventually convinced by US President Barack Obama.

    “Our purpose was not to defend the Muslim world against Nato, but trying to find out a way to prevent any misperception and damage to the image of Nato. We thought only as a Nato member,” he explained, stressing that Ankara would have behaved in the same way if the concerns came from the Chinese or Africans.

    In a bid to explain the nuances of the new foreign policy, Mr Davutoglu said his country could not deny its multiple identity. “In Europe, I am looking for the future of Europe, I am speaking as a European. But if we are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, in this organisation of course we will be speaking as a member, for the future of the Muslim world,” Mr Davutoglu said.

    Asked about the relations with Iran, Mr Davutoglu emphasised that there was “mutual respect”, especially since the two countries had not changed their border since 1639. “We know each other, we respect each other. Our policy regarding nuclear issues is clear – nobody can defend nuclear weapons,” he said, while also defending Tehran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy projects.

    Another foreign policy shift that was seen with concern in Israeli circles and by the opposition was the government’s approach towards Hamas.

    “Can you envisage peace without Hamas? Like it or not, they are part of the solution. If we really want a two-state solution, we must allow Hamas to sit at the table,” Turkey’s chief EU negotiator Egemen Bagis told journalists at a separate briefing.

    EU failure fuels Muslim policy

    The ruling AK Party had a “half-hearted European policy” and a preference for Muslim countries because “EU is no successful story in the eyes of the public,” opposition leader Onur Oymen from the secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP) party said.

    Created by the founding father of Turkey’s strong separation between mosque and state – military leader Kemal Ataturk – the CHP suffered a crushing defeat in the 2007 elections that saw the AKP consolidate its power at 46.6 percent of the votes.

    The EU was wrongly backing the “so-called” reforms of the AK Party, he said, restricting the army’s role and allowing Islamic symbols – such as the head scarf – re-enter public life. The image of the army and its defenders has been seriously shaken in the past year with the emergence of a far-reaching trial case dubbed “Ergenekon.”

    Over a hundred people, including former generals, university professors, politicians and journalists have been detained or questioned since July 2008 in connection to this alleged clandestine, ultra-nationalist paramilitary organisation aimed at toppling the AKP government and assassinating prominent figures.

    Allegedly, Ergenekon was the successor or had some members who were initially part of the CIA-backed Counter-Guerilla, the covert organisation established at the beginning of the Cold War to oppose communism and later on fight the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).

    The case was started at a time when the Constitutional Court was about to give its verdict on whether the AKP was breaching the separation of mosque and state, which would have dissolved the party and thrown most of its leaders, including premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, to jail.

    The court in the end did not deem the AKP anti-constitutional, but issued a strong warning and said the AKP was undertaking “anti-secular activities.”

    EU not on citizens’ agenda

    With EU negotiations in the slow lane and being kicked around in “domestic politics football”, Turkish citizens seemed rather unimpressed by the whole process, the head of EU commission’s delegation to Ankara, Marc Pierini, said.

    “The EU agenda is not a Turkish citizens’ agenda. The aquis communautaire is about better air, safer food, equal rights. But here, there is a very strong political awareness of the citizens, even in villages, they are very educated politically. The drive towards accession is less strong,” he said.

    In the five years since opening negotiations, Ankara and Brussels have finalised only one accession chapter of a total of 35, while eight remain blocked due to the ongoing dispute about Northern Cyprus. Additionally, Cyprus is now blocking the opening of the energy chapter, the only country to do so in the EU’s Council of Ministers – representing the member states.

    Ankara does not recognise EU member state Cyprus, who for its part has failed to reconcile with the northern part of the island, rejecting a UN-brokered deal that the Northern Cypriots had approved in a referendum.

    Northern Cyprus is not part of the EU and only recognised by Turkey, which invaded this part of the island in 1973 in order to prevent its annexation to Greece.

    Turkey refuses to open its airports and ports to Greek Cypriot traffic until the issue is solved.

    https://euobserver.com/eu-political/28097

  • Armenia and Turkey: “A Door Opens, Slowly”

    Armenia and Turkey: “A Door Opens, Slowly”

    Hugh Pope in Transitions Online

    28 April 2009

    Transitions Online

    These two old enemies should not get sidetracked as they look for a way to come to terms.

    After nearly a century of conflict and animosity, Turkey and Armenia are now close to a breakthrough. An agreement on the table would establish diplomatic relations, open the border, and set up a bilateral commission that will include an element to address the traumatic history of the two peoples. This is a historic opportunity for normalization that the leaders of both countries should seize.

    The stalemated Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh may yet impede progress, a situation that both sides should do their best to avoid. Plans to establish diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia have already been on hold since 1993, when ethnic Armenian forces captured most of the Armenian-majority enclave of Azerbaijan and advanced into a large surrounding area of Azerbaijan. To show solidarity with its ethnic and linguistic cousins in Baku, Ankara closed a railway line that was then the only transport link between Turkey and Armenia. Ever since, Ankara’s condition for improving bilateral relations has been based on Armenian troop withdrawals from occupied territory in Azerbaijan.

    Baku is nervous this condition may be lifted and says it may respond by restricting Turkey’s participation in the expansion of Azerbaijani energy exports and selling natural gas to Russia instead. But Azerbaijan ought to reconsider its position: bilateral détente between Turkey and Armenia could ease Yerevan’s fears of encirclement and help Baku recover its lost territory better than this current stalemate, from which nobody has gained anything for the past 16 years.

    On its side, Armenia should be aware that, even if Turkey compromises by delinking the opening of the border from Nagorno-Karabakh withdrawals, any further normalization will be unsustainable if there is no progress in its disputes with Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan should in any case adopt the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Minsk Group’s basic principles for settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which include the eventual withdrawal of Armenian forces from territories ringing Nagorno-Karabakh, the return of residents displaced during the fighting, and a referendum to determine the enclave’s status.

    A TORTURED HISTORY

    A positive trend in Turkey-Armenia relations, including a firm and public Armenian acceptance of Turkey’s territorial integrity, will also do much to encourage Turkey to be more open in its approach to the politicized debate over whether to call destruction of much of the Ottoman Armenian population in 1915 a genocide, as more than 20 countries have already done.

    Decades of Turkish denial of Ottoman large-scale massacres and forced displacement of Armenians has changed in the past decade thanks to the efforts of Turkey’s intellectual elite. Continuing to prepare public opinion for truth and reconciliation is important. Universities in Turkey and Armenia should be encouraged to pursue broader research, preferably with third-party scholars, to agree on a common set of facts and archival resources. Both sides again should modernize history books and remove all prejudice from them.

    This will help build on the progressively intense official dialogue, vigorous activity in civil society, and evolution in public opinion that have already transformed the Turkey-Armenia relationship. Turks’ and Armenians’ once uncompromising, bipolar views of history are significantly converging, showing that the deep traumas can be healed. This advance in bilateral relations demonstrates that a desire for reconciliation can overcome old enmities and closed borders. New trends are also apparent among the Armenian diaspora, where hardliners dominate the narrative, and the process has the support of outside powers such as the United States, the European Union, and Russia.

    For Turkey, there are many other benefits to opening the Armenian border. Eastern Turkish towns are looking forward to trading directly with Armenian counterparts, and to welcoming a new generation of Armenian tourists to the many Armenian heritage sites in eastern Turkey. Turkey’s image in Europe will improve and give it better arguments when it comes to the painful issue of genocide recognition resolutions in the United States and elsewhere. For Armenia, the benefits are considerable as well. Its railroads and electricity networks will have profitable new partners, trade routes will become less vulnerable, and, strategically, Yerevan will have to worry less about a threat from Turkey.

    Despite its risks and possible pitfalls, the prospects for normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations are better than they have been for decades. Most importantly, both sides see the advantages of this process. If borders are opened and trade restarts, all will gain – chiefly Armenia and Turkey but potentially Azerbaijan as well – in terms of economic strength and national security. For healthy progress on overcoming historic divisions, the focus needs to be on joint work in the present and the future.

    Hugh Pope is the Turkey/Cyprus project director of the International Crisis Group.

    Transitions Online

    Source:  www.crisisgroup.org

    [Hugh Pope is author of “Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey,” and also “Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World” -HD]

  • “We Are All Armenians”

    “We Are All Armenians”

    Hugh Pope in The Wall Street Journal

    27 April 2009

    The Wall Street Journal

    Obama was right not to jeopardize reconciliation between Ankara and Yerevan.

    President Barack Obama trod a fine moral line this month between his past campaign promises to use the word genocide to describe the World War I massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and his present opportunity to nurture normalization between Armenia and Turkey. But his compromise was no capitulation to the realpolitik of U.S.-Turkish strategic interests, as some Armenians may suspect and some Turks may hope. It is actually a challenge to both parties to move beyond the stalemates of history.

    The opportunity could hardly be better. After a decade of civil society outreach and growing official engagement, Armenia and Turkey jointly announced on Wednesday a Swiss-mediated deal to establish diplomatic relations and open borders. The two sides will also set up a bilateral commission to study what Armenians commemorate each April 24 as the beginning of a genocide against their people by the Ottoman Turks in 1915, and what Turkey says were forced relocations, uprisings and massacres during the chaos of World War I.

    Before implementing the deal, however, Turkey is now seeking an Armenian commitment to withdraw from territory in Azerbaijan that ethnic Armenian forces occupied in the 1992-94 Nagorno-Karabakh war. But Ankara would be ill-advised to hold up rapprochement with Yerevan because of protests from its ally, Azerbaijan. In fact, normalizing relations with Armenia is the best way for Turkey to help its ethnic and linguistic Azerbaijani cousins. It would make Armenia feel more secure, making it perhaps also more open to a compromise over Nagorno-Karabakh.

    The border closure these past 16 years has done nothing to force a settlement over the contested region. The fragility of the 1994 cease-fire truce suggests that a new way forward is imperative. Armenian normalization with Turkey will not be sustainable in the long run, though, unless Yerevan and Baku agree to the ongoing international Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, leading to Armenian troop withdrawals.

    It is this complex situation that explains Mr. Obama’s diplomatic language. In this year’s April 24 memorial statement, the U.S. president chose not to use the word “genocide” to describe the events of 1915. The Turks resent this term partly because they want their view of the events to be taken into account and partly because the term genocide has potential legal implications involving possible demands for reparations and compensation. The Swiss-brokered deal will include an Armenian recognition of Turkey’s borders, banishing the shadow of long-lingering territorial claims.

    Instead, President Obama chose the Armenian term for the atrocities, “Mets Yeghern,” meaning “Great Man-Made Catastrophe.” The U.S. Congress, where a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide was introduced on March 17, may want to follow the president’s lead and avoid confrontation in order to give the current Turkey-Armenia normalization process a chance.

    Armenians have a point when they argue that the past decade of international resolutions and statements recognizing the Armenian genocide have forced Turkey to end its blanket denial of Ottoman wrongdoing. But such outside pressures have got no closer to making Turkey accept the term genocide itself, especially when the bills before Congress and other parliaments are clearly the result of domestic political calculations rather than high-minded deliberation.

    On the Armenian question, many Turks, including government officials now publicly express regret over the loss of Armenian life. After more than eight decades of silence, when any open discussion of what happened in 1915 was considered taboo, the Turkish public is digesting an onrush of new facts and opinions about those past events.

    The past decade has seen much convergence between Turks and Armenians in understanding the history of 1915 as academic exchanges have grown and information become widely available. A 2005 conference on the Armenian issue by the front ranks of the Turkish intelligentsia demonstrated that the country’s academic and cultural elite wants to do away with the old nationalist defensiveness. In the east of Turkey, efforts have begun to preserve the surviving Armenian heritage. Far from worsening Turkish-Armenian relations, the murder of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink in 2007 by a shadowy nationalist gang triggered a march of 100,000 people in Istanbul carrying signs saying “We Are All Armenians.”

    Opinion polls show two-thirds of Turks supported President Abdullah Gül’s decision in September to accept his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian’s invitation for a World Cup qualifier soccer match and to become the first Turkish head of state to visit Armenia. Then in December, 200 leading Turkish intellectuals began a signature campaign to apologize for what they called the “Great Catastrophe” of the Armenians. Nearly 30,000 people have signed it so far.

    Overall, Turkey’s efforts with Armenia also fit into decade-long efforts to improve ties with other neighboring countries. Ankara has successfully normalized its once tense relations with Syria, Greece and Iraqi Kurdistan. Ankara also tried its best to bring about a reconciliation between Turkish and Greek Cypriots.

    New trends are visible in Armenia too. As pride and security in the new Armenian statehood grows, genocide recognition no longer overrides all other national interests. Issues such as the need for more economic opportunities, a broader-based regional strategy and an open Turkish border that can be a direct gateway to the West are taking center stage. Armenians increasingly spend their vacation in Turkish resorts.

    Change is also evident in the diaspora, which outnumbers the population in Armenia and has a strong influence on Yerevan. The Armenian community in France led an international campaign, joined by Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan and more than 100 public intellectuals, to say “Thank You” for the Turkish apology efforts. Armenian-French intellectuals are increasingly seeking to reconnect with their heritage by cultivating their links to Turkey and Turks and visiting Istanbul.

    As President Obama has recognized, it is this trend of convergence that offers the best chance in decades to open the borders between these two states, moving beyond nearly a century in which Turks and Armenians have been held hostage to frozen conflicts, nationalist confrontation and the ghosts of the past.

    Hugh Pope, author of “Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey,” is the Istanbul representative of International Crisis Group.

    The Wall Street Journal

    Source:  www.crisisgroup.org

    [Hugh Pope is also author of “Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World” -HD]

  • Azeri diaspora to counter Armenian-American influence

    Azeri diaspora to counter Armenian-American influence

    AZERBAIJAN: DIASPORA ORGANIZATION TRIES TO COUNTER ARMENIAN-AMERICAN INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON
    Jessica Powley Hayden 5/08/09

    A new front has opened in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and it is centered in Washington, DC. Frustrated by the effectiveness of Armenian-American advocacy groups to shape debates in the United States, Baku is now looking to its diaspora for a little public-relations support.

    Last year, a group of Azeri-Americans founded the US-Azeri Network (USAN), which advertises itself as a grassroots advocacy organization. The new, Washington, DC-based group hopes to connect Azeri-American voters to promote a pro-Azerbaijan agenda in the United States.

    That agenda is a point-by-point refutation of policies sought by the Armenian-American advocacy groups: increased aid to Azerbaijan; decreased aid to Armenia; the elimination of humanitarian aid to the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh; the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from Karabakh; and recognition of massacres perpetrated against Azerbaijanis by ethnic Armenians in 1918, marked in Azerbaijan as the “Day of the Azerbaijani Genocide.”

    USAN casts itself in the role of the underdog. “[Azeri-Americans] see that political activism can go a long way… [W]e can achieve a lot and ’compete’ with the big boys like the Armenian diaspora and its lobby,” commented USAN Executive Director Adil Baguirov.

    It will be an uphill challenge. If garnering aid from the United States were a competition, Armenia would clearly be winning. From 1992 to 2007, Armenia received almost $2 billion worth of assistance from the United States ($1,745,930), while Azerbaijan came away with about a billion less: $743,400,000.

    In addition to lobbying for limits on aid to Azerbaijan, Armenia has invested substantial resources into lobbying US legislators and the president to recognize as genocide the Ottoman Turks’ slaughter of an estimated 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in 1915.

    Armenian advocacy and lobby groups also have a long history of promoting Armenian policies among American lawmakers. Armenian political action committees (PACs) contributed nearly $200,000 to various races across the US in the 2008 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission documents.

    Rough estimates put the size of the Armenian-American population at nearly 1 million.

    Azeri-Americans are less organized, young, far fewer in estimated number (some 400,000, according to USAN), and have not had as much success in getting their agenda before US policymakers.

    In meetings on Capitol Hill last summer, Azerbaijani parliamentarians were told: “Look, Armenians are my constituents and I am accountable to them,” recounted Petro Morgos who runs the parliamentary program at DAI (Development Alternatives, Inc.), an international civil-society development organization, and attended the meetings.

    USAN believes that American politicians are not getting the whole story. In addressing the American public, USAN’s Baguirov states that his organization covers what it terms “crimes against humanity and genocidal acts perpetrated by Armenians against Azerbaijani, Turkish, Kurdish, Jewish, and other civilians in the Caucasus and East Anatolia since the 19th century, culminating more recently with the Khojaly Massacre in 1992.”

    Hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians were killed – according to Baku, by Armenian forces – trying to escape from the village of Khojaly in Karabakh during the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory. The Armenian government blames Azerbaijani forces for their deaths.

    Azerbaijan’s emphasis on informing foreigners about alleged acts of Armenian aggression can also be seen in Baku. In April, Fazil Mustafa, a member of the Milli Majlis, proposed creating a genocide museum in Baku, emphasizing its value in educating foreign guests. A museum already exists in Yerevan that chronicles the events of 1915.

    The recent push to energize Azeri-Americans to promote Azerbaijan’s interests appears to be the result of frustration within Azerbaijan itself. In 2006, President Ilham Aliyev accused Armenian-American groups in the United States for distorting Azerbaijani history. Aliyev, at the time, suggested that Azerbaijan would cultivate its own diaspora.

    Since Aliyev’s speech, an Azerbaijani consulate has been opened in Los Angeles. Consul General Elin Suleymanov explained that Los Angeles was chosen in part because of the large Armenian Diaspora located in California. “We wanted Azerbaijan’s voice to be heard on the West Coast and for public opinion not to be shaped by the Armenian side alone,” he told EurasiaNet.

    Another diaspora-based organization, the Azerbaijan-American Council, was opened in California in 2006 with the “primary purpose of facilitating active integration of Azerbaijani-Americans into U.S. public life and strengthening Azerbaijani-American identity.”

    Suleymanov, however, cautions that focusing too heavily on “narrow ethnicity-based ideology” is counterproductive to achieving peace in the region. “Unfortunately, some in the Armenian community still focus on the past and see our region in simplified, confrontational terms,” he said.

    “I think focusing on the future, not that past – without, of course, either forgetting or ignoring the latter – is the best way forward for our part of the world,” Suleymanov said.

    USAN’s public relations campaign to bring attention to the past, though, is beginning to pay dividends. Several members of the US House of Representatives have made official remarks in the Congressional Record commemorating the Khojaly massacre. Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons released a proclamation recognizing March 31 as “Azerbaijani Remembrance Day.”

    The Nevada proclamation sparked a firestorm in the Armenian-American community, which objected to the proclamation’s definition of Azerbaijan as including Nagorno-Karabakh. “The Armenian-American community throughout the state of Nevada is shocked that Governor Gibbons was so easily misled and manipulated by foreign interest groups representing the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey and their high-priced lobbyists,” stated Razmik Ablo, spokesman for the Armenian National Committee.

    The “high-priced lobbyist” tag is one that is commonly used against USAN. But Baguirov claims his organization has a “very modest operating budget which is fully raised from our grassroots.” He declined to give an exact figure. Combined with its sister organization, the US Turkic Network, USAN claims it has 15,000 members.

    While Baguirov is optimistic that USAN’s influence over American policy will increase with time, it concedes that, as a numbers game, diaspora Armenians will continue to exert greater influence in American politics. “Obviously, we are the David in this story, but we are very content with what we were able to achieve in such a short time-span,” Baguirov said.

     

    Editor’s Note: Jessica Powley Hayden is a freelance reporter based in Baku.