Category: Main Issues

Armenia’s Roadmap to Disaster

By David Boyajian

Just days before April 24, the annual commemoration of the
Armenian genocide, Armenia and Turkey agreed on a so-called “roadmap” that from all indications is a betrayal of the Armenian people, both in the homeland and around the world. The roadmap – approved by Armenia’s president – calls for the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border between the two countries, which Turkey closed 16 years ago. But the roadmap reportedly goes much further.

A joint Turkish-Armenian historical commission would decide whether there really was, as Turkey maintains, no Armenian genocide. And Armenia would formally accept Turkey’s continued occupation of Western Armenia.

The Burden of Illegitimacy An Armenian president that has not, however, been fairly and democratically elected lacks the requisite legitimacy to negotiate roadmaps, treaties, or anything else with Turkey. Such a leader is often compelled to do what certain major Western and regional countries ask of him lest they continue to point to his illegitimacy and abuse of his citizens’ civil rights. Those countries can also threaten to stop providing Armenia economic support, much of which people close to the Armenian administration have siphoned off and become dependent upon. Neither can an illegitimate Armenian leader tell such countries that the Armenian people will not permit him to make major concessions to Turkey. After all, those countries know very well that a leader whose authority is derived through the misuse of power, rather than through the ballot box, can make concessions without the consent of the Armenian people.

The Historical Commission Farce Armenia’s president has given in – though we don’t know the precise details – to Turkey’s demand for a historical commission on 1915, as if even he questions the veracity of the genocide. As a result, the world now erroneously believes that the Armenian people are putting the genocide up for debate. No serious person would ever have fallen for the idea of establishing a joint historical commission - first proposed four years ago by Turkey. (See the author’s “The Genocide Study Trap” on Armeniapedia.org.) This year, however, Armenia’s president did. Are he and his advisors unaware, for example, that the International Association of Genocide Scholars (Genocidewatch.org) sent a letter to the Turkish prime minister explaining that “the scholarly and intellectual record” and “hundreds of independent scholars” had long ago proven the factuality of the genocide? U-Turn on “No Preconditions” Armenia has long stated that it would agree to a normalization of relations with Turkey only if there were no “preconditions.” Yet the president has now made a U-turn by agreeing to Turkey’s precondition of a historical commission. The historical commission gave the new U.S. president yet another excuse to not use the word “genocide” in his April 24 statement. Even worse, Armenia’s president recklessly undermined the decades long, and largely successful, efforts of Armenian Americans and the Diaspora for genocide acknowledgment.

It appears that the Armenian president may also agree to another Turkish precondition: formal recognition of Turkey’s borders, thereby possibly throwing away Armenian legal and historical rights and the chances of, for example, regaining much needed direct access to the Black Sea in the future.

One wonders whether Armenia will also be selling off Artsakh (Karabagh) at bargain basement prices. The Armenian president has also allowed the American president, his Secretary of State, and the international media to depict a mere border opening as “reconciliation,” as if somehow Turkey and Armenia had been “reconciled” before Turkey closed the border in 1993, and as if reopening the border would return the countries to that wonderful state of “reconciliation.” The Armenian government has done nothing to correct this absurd misperception. Taking Responsibility Armenian political parties that have long had the Diaspora’s support must also take responsibility for the Armenian president’s errors. The parties were warned many years ago that Armenia, buffeted by powerful outside forces, was headed down the road of losing its legal and historical rights. They were also repeatedly warned, even before Armenian independence, that allowing the Armenian national cause to be erroneously perceived as simply a matter of achieving genocide acknowledgment, rather than as also gaining reparations and territory, was inviting disaster. Now we see that disaster coming true via the “roadmap.” The discord that the president has sown, and the injustices that the roadmap would perpetuate, must not be allowed to continue. A strong and united response by the people of Armenia and the Diaspora is needed now to steer Armenia and its president away from the final destination of the roadmap: capitulation and yet another Armenian genocide.

### The author is an Armenian American freelance writer. Several of his articles are archived at Armeniapedia.org.

April 30, 2009
Turkey and Its Neo-Con U.S. Accomplices Conspire To Force Armenia Into Capitulation

By Appo Jabarian
Executive Publisher / Managing Editor USA Armenian Life Magazine

Friday, May 1, 2009
The April 24 presidential statement by Pres. Obama caused a major controversy in the American media. Even though he used the words “Meds Yeghern” twice in his presidential statement, a very large segment of the Armenian American community felt betrayed for his failure to fulfill his campaign promise of using the proper word, genocide. According to a scorecard of more than 500 campaign pledges collated on the Pulitzer Prize-winning website, PolitiFact.com, Obama has kept 27 promises and broken six. Topping the list of presidential campaign promises that are broken by Pres. Obama is “US recognition of the Ottoman Empire’s genocide during World War I against Armenians.” Obama avoided the word during his stay in Turkey and in a message on Armenian Remembrance Day. Obama was criticized for following the Anti-Defamation League line on the Armenian Genocide. Ciaran Dubhuidhe of cleveland.indymedia.org wrote on Apr. 24, 2009: “One day after vowing to battle Holocaust Denial, Pres. Obama publicly denied the Armenian Holocaust . In an exhibit of hypocrisy matched only by the ‘Anti-Defamation’ League’s Abraham Foxman’s denial of the Armenian Holocaust, Pres. Obama has dishonored anniversary of the start of the genocide by releasing a statement describing the Armenian Holocaust as an ‘atrocity.’” Harry Koundakjian reported on April 25: “Ambassador John Marshall Evans spoke at our commemoration last night. … Having read the actual text of Pres. Obama’s statement, Evans indicated that although it was a compromise statement, it was still more hopeful than previous U.S. presidents have made. To him it was clear that this statement was made by a committee, and not the heartfelt words of Obama. Using a term that only Armenians know (“Medz Yeghern”), and twice at that, seemed a bit out of place, even condescending, when the purpose of the proclamation is to let those who don’t know about the history become informed. He feels that Rahm Emanuel — AIPAC’s (America Israel Political Action Committee’s) ‘Man in the White House’ — probably had a strong hand in altering the language of the statement to eliminate the word genocide.” Several members of the community questioned as to why Mr. Obama did not properly use the word genocide. It was the so-called Armenian-Turkish “rapproachement.” The Wall Street Journal featured an article on April 25 titled “In Armenian Enclave, Turkish Deal Arouses Suspicion — Ethnic Leaders in Glendale, Calif., See Detente Announcement as a Ploy on Day Commemorating” the 1915 genocide.” The Wall Street’s NICHOLAS CASEY reported: “Andrew Kzirian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee’s Western region sees the latest development not so much as a detente between the countries, but as another public-relations effort by the Turks to deflect attention” from the genocide. Casey continued: “At the Armenian cafe Urartu off Broadway, Appo Jabarian, managing editor of USA Armenian Life, scans his email inbox for news of what he dubs the recent ‘secret agreement.’ … For Mr. Jabarian ‘Turkey is always trying to shortchange the Armenians.’” In a strong rebuke of the the so-called “Roadmap,” Aram I the Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia stated on Saturday, April 25: “Roadmaps and reopening of borders cannot and will not compromise the Armenian people’s demand for the recognition of the 1915 Armenian Genocide, and the claim for restorative justice.” His Holiness continued: “Turkey wanted to eliminate us as a country and people. We are grateful to all those countries that recognized the Armenian Genocide of 1915. However, we want to tell them that recognition is not enough, we want justice. We are not asking for mercy from the world; we are demanding justice. This is our right. The Armenian nation is a victim of injustice; its human rights are violated. We cannot remain silent in view of this prevailing injustice. Our collective memory will not heal unless justice is victorious. Neither roadmaps, nor reciprocal visits will restore justice.” In an open letter, Harut Sassounian, Publisher of The California Courier, criticized Pres. Obama: “You must have also known that Turkey would not open its border with Armenia in the foreseeable future, unless the Karabagh conflict was resolved to Azerbaijan’s satisfaction. Using various carrots and sticks, with the connivance of Russia, which pursues its own economic and political interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, U.S. officials succeeded in pressuring Armenia into agreeing to issue a joint declaration with Turkey and Switzerland as mediator on the eve of April 24. This declaration was a convenient cover for you to duck the genocide issue in order to appease Turkey.” Mr. Sassounian stated: “Mr. President, by compelling Armenia to sign such a declaration, you have managed to pit the Armenian Diaspora, as well as the people in Armenia against the government in Yerevan. As a direct result of that action, the ARF, one of Armenia’s influential political parties, quit the ruling coalition this week. The ARF did not wish to associate itself with a government, still reeling from last year’s contentious presidential elections, which is negotiating an agreement with Turkey that could compromise the country’s national interests and historic rights. The ARF also vehemently opposes Armenia’s announced intention to participate in a bilateral historical commission that Turkey would use to question the facts of the Armenian Genocide.” Sassounian foresaw: “Mr. President, in the coming days, as your administration invites Armenia’s leaders to Washington in order to squeeze more concessions from them, please realize that they can only be pressured so much before they lose their authority. As was the case with Armenia’s first president, crossing the red lines on the Genocide and Karabagh issues could well jeopardize the tenuous hold on power of the remaining ruling coalition, regardless of how many promises are made and carrots extended to them by Washington.” Turkey’s continuous threats to Armenia’s existence as a viable state and its persistent ploys to strip Armenia of its historic rights for territorial claims from Turkey; to put the veracity of the Armenian genocide to debate through the so-called joint historic commission; to stop pursuing the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide; to return the liberated Armenian territories of Artsakh make the Armenian people in Armenia and the Diaspora further distrust Turkey. By helping Turkey carry out its conniving machinations against Armenia, the United States and Russia have re-fueled the Armenian political will to resort to: 1) An international campaign to divest from Turkey; and 2) Counterbalancing and even neutralizing the U.S.-based Neo-cons’ efforts to shove Turkey’s EU membership at all cost down the throat of Europeans.

April 30, 2009
Hopes Dashed as Obama Avoids Calling Mass Killings of Armenians ‘Genocide’

By Rebecca Spence

Published April 29, 2009, issue of May 08, 2009.

Los Angeles – This year, on Armenian Remembrance Day – when the mass killing of more than 1 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire is commemorated – Armenian-American activists had high hopes that a president who ran on a message of change would indeed change the pattern of previous administrations. That is, they hoped President Obama would use the term “genocide” to describe the human tragedy that occurred nearly a century ago.

But on April 24, their hopes were dashed. When Obama – who, during the campaign season and as a senator in the United States, pledged to describe the events of 1915 as a “genocide” – released his statement in acknowledgement of the tragedy, the term was nowhere to be found.

Equally ambivalent are many Jewish organizations. While some groups see this as a human rights issue related to the Holocaust, others have stayed silent or even actively opposed the “genocide” designation.

At issue is how to describe the killing of roughly 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I. Turkey staunchly denies that the massacres and deportations that began in 1915 constitute a “genocide,” while Armenians have long lobbied to gain international recognition of the events as exactly that. The debate has presented a challenge for successive American governments, given Turkey’s position as a key ally to the United States in the Middle East, and past American presidents have been reluctant to anger the predominantly Muslim nation.

Southern California is home to some 500,000 ethnic Armenians and constitutes the largest Armenian population outside of Armenia. On April 24, about 10,000 Armenian-Americans protested outside the Turkish Consulate in Los Angeles, following an annual commemorative march through the “Little Armenia” section of Hollywood.

During the presidential campaign, Obama made it clear that he would take up the thorny issue. His Web site stated, “As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

But Obama’s April 24 statement instead used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghem,” which translates roughly to “the great calamity.” A spokesman for Obama did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

Every year, in the U.S. Congress, a resolution to use the controversial term is introduced in the spring and then beaten back. A handful of powerful Jewish advocacy groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has declined to support the resolutions in past years, and some Jewish groups have even worked against them.

Still, a host of other Jewish groups, including American Jewish World Service; the Progressive Jewish Alliance, a California-based activist group, and Jewish World Watch, which mobilizes synagogues around human rights issues, have supported efforts to recognize the mass killings of Armenians as a genocide.

While some in the Jewish community argue that the memory of the Holocaust compels Jews to recognize other genocides, others argue that maintaining the strategic alliance between Israel and Turkey, as well as the American-Turkish relationship, trumps other concerns.

Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel’s existence, and it has long been a key Muslim ally in an otherwise hostile region. But in the wake of Turkey’s criticism of Israel’s recent military operation in Gaza, relations between the two countries have soured. Nonetheless, some American Jewish groups that have not supported the genocide resolutions in the past are sticking to their positions. AJC spokesman Kenneth Bandler said that his group’s position has not changed. “Our position was, and remains, that the best way to address this issue is between Turkey and Armenia,” he said.

In 2007, the ADL became embroiled in a controversy that played out in the local Boston media after its New England regional director was fired for breaking ranks with the national office and saying that the ADL should recognize the events of 1915 as a genocide. The regional director, Andrew Tarsy, was ultimately rehired, and then he resigned of his own volition. That same year, the ADL released a statement clarifying its position and stating that it had, in fact, referred to the massacres of Armenians as genocide.

Still, the ADL does not support a congressional resolution to that effect. In an e-mail, an ADL spokesman wrote, “… our position is that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians, who should work out the issue between themselves.”

At the same time that Israeli-Turkish relations have been strained, relations between Turkey and Armenia actually have seen improvement over the past year. The two countries have been negotiating to open the Turkish-Armenian border, and just days before the April 24 commemoration they announced a “road map” to restoring relations, which was negotiated with the help of U.S. officials.

Charles King, a professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University, said that Obama’s backtracking on the use of the term “genocide” could be seen as more of an adjustment to new political realities on the ground. As Turkey and Armenia make real strides toward normalizing relations, King said, Obama would be hard-pressed to isolate the Turks by using the controversial term at such a delicate moment.

“The Obama administration doesn’t want to push farther on this at this point, for fear of destroying the very important progress that’s been made on Armenian-Turkish relations,” King said. “Inevitably, once a politician gets into office, they realize that issues are far more complicated than they were on the campaign trail, but secondly, things really have changed.”

That’s no consolation for some Armenian-American activists. Allen Yekikan, a 24-year-old spokesman for the Armenian Youth Federation, said that he had campaigned for Obama, even canvassing for him in the Armenian-American community. “When he released his statement,” Yekikan said, “my heart broke.”
Comments

K. Fermanian Thu. Apr 30, 2009

It is a shame that some people are still on the fence on the Armenian Genocide issue. Perhaps this excerpt from Aaron Aaronsohn’s report titled PRO ARMENIA might concentrate some minds. Aaronsohn was a scientist and spy master from Zikron Yaakov and Athlit, who founded the NILI spy group and paved the way for General Allenby to throw out Ottoman forces out of the Middle East in 1918. He wrote: “Morally and economically the Armenian race in Turkey is totally ruined – the few private fortunes which by clean or unclean ways have been spared destruction make no difference. From one of the most thrifty and most industrious elements of the Turkish Empire, if not the most thrifty and most industrious – mind it is a Jew who gives this certificate – the Armenian race is now a race of starving down trodden beggars, the purity of its family life destroyed, its manhood killed, its children, boys and girls enslaved in the Turkish private homes for vice and dabauchery, that is what the Armenian race has become in Turkey.” I call this Genocide. The rest is just noise to me. K. Fermanian

tony Thu. Apr 30, 2009

have u ever been to turkey u dickhaed

April 30, 2009
TURKEY: ANKARA-YEREVAN RAPPROCHEMENT INITIATIVE FACES PUBLIC SKEPTICISM

Yigal Schleifer 4/28/09

Turkey and Armenia have announced they are close to reaching an agreement to restore ties and reopen their borders. But observers caution that getting to a final deal will require both Turkey and Armenia to navigate through difficult domestic and external challenges.

“There’s no going back now, that’s for sure. Everybody wants to solve this problem now. Both countries are very committed and being very careful,” said Noyan Soyak, the Istanbul-based vice-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council, referring to the April 22 joint announcement that Ankara and Yerevan had agreed on a “road map” to normalize relations.

“Now it’s a question of timing and the implementation and how it’s going to be presented to the public. That’s very important,” Soyak added.

Turkey severed ties and closed its border with Armenia in 1993, in protest of Yerevan’s war with Turkish ally Azerbaijan in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In recent years, diplomatic and civil society traffic between Turkey and Armenia has increased, capped off by last September’s visit to Yerevan by Turkish president Abdullah Gul to watch a football game between the two countries’ national teams. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In their April 22 communiquÃ©, Armenian and Turkish leaders said that, with the help of Swiss mediation, “the two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalization of their bilateral relations in a mutually satisfactory manner. In this context, a road map has been identified.” The brief, 95-word statement was released only two days before Armenian commemoration of the mass slaughter of 1915 that Yerevan is striving to gain international recognition as genocide.

Although the statement was thin on details, observers familiar with the negotiations said the basic parameters of the deal involve establishing diplomatic relations, opening borders and creating a bilateral commission that will have subcommittees that address the two countries’ outstanding issues, including historical matters.

Both countries hope that opening their borders and engaging in a dialogue will boost trade, improve regional stability and help them move beyond the genocide debate.

Sorting out the differences between Turkey and Armenia might be the easy part, experts say. It’s the other actors involved in the issue that may prove to be difficult, says Semih Idiz, a foreign affairs columnist with Milliyet, a Turkish daily. “There are more factors that are lining up to spoil this than to bolster this. These factors have to play themselves out in the coming weeks and months and we’ll see where we go,” said Idiz.

One significant hurdle to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement is Azerbaijan, which insists that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem must be resolved before Ankara restores its ties with Yerevan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The Azeris have reacted angrily to the April 22 announcement, signaling that if Turkey proceeds unilaterally, then Baku may respond by strengthening ties with Moscow. The clear implication is that Azerbaijan may be willing to reorient its energy focus, and make Russia, not Turkey its main energy-export option.

“I don’t think Turkey expected the strong Azeri reaction. At the moment there is anger on both sides,” Idiz says. “Turkey is not going to lose Azerbaijan — there are pipelines and trade that connect the countries, whether they like it or not — but it will cool relations for a while.”

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other officials have tried to placate Baku by saying no final deal with be signed with Armenia until there is an agreement on Karabakh. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in slow moving negotiations over the territory’s fate as part of the Minsk Group process, which is overseen by the United States, Russia and France. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Hugh Pope, a Turkey analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, says linking the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border with the fate of the Karabakh issue is a mistake. “Ankara would be ill-advised to hold up rapprochement with Yerevan because of protests from its ally, Azerbaijan,” Pope said. “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 way the Azeris are dealing with it now is that they are telling their people that they didn’t lose the war and they are talking about military reconquest and that’s completely unrealistic,” Pope continued. “Turkey obviously has a lot of work to do to convince the Azeris that their current concept is not working and that your only way to get their land back is through the Minsk Group process.”

Turkish and Armenian leaders, meanwhile, are also facing rising domestic anger about the possibility of a deal. In Armenia, the hard-line nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party on April 27 quit the country’s governing coalition. In Turkey, the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) have criticized the government for its overtures to Armenia, claiming it has sold out Azerbaijan.

“This demonstrates the fragility of the agreement, in that neither Turkey, nor Armenia nor Azerbaijan has done anything to prepare their societies or shape public opinion to prepare for an agreement,” said Richard Giragosian, director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, a Yerevan-based think tank.

“The same can be said for Nagorno-Karabakh, where neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has done anything to prepare society for an agreement,” Giragosian added. “I would also stress that right now we are only talking about normalization. Normalization infers open borders and even historical commissions. But the second step is reconciliation and for that to happen we need civil society and public opinion involved, especially for reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, because that means dealing with the genocide issue.”

“If the public isn’t on board, we can’t sustain normalization or transform it into a deeper reconciliation,” Giragosian emphasized.

Editor’s Note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.

April 29, 2009
The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy

CAUCASUS UPDATE

In this new section, we publish the weekly analysis of the major events taking place in the Caucasus. The Caucasus Update is written by our Editorial Assistant Alexander Jackson.

On April 20 the US State Department announced that Richard J. Morningstar had been appointed special envoy on Eurasian energy issues to Secretary Clinton (State Department, April 20). Morningstar will “provide the Secretary with strategic advice on policy issues relating to development, transit, and distribution of energy resources in Eurasia”. He is certainly well qualified for the job – he served as special advisor on Caspian basin energy diplomacy in 1998-1999, prior to which he served as a special advisor on assistance to the former Soviet Union.

The appointment of the special envoy suggests that the Obama Administration’s policy on the Caspian region is finally beginning to take shape. This should come as no surprise – the area does, after all, lie between two of President Obama’s biggest foreign-policy challenges, Russia and Iran, as well as Turkey, which has been highlighted as a key US ally in the drive to rebuild America’s image in the Muslim world.

But even in these critical areas the delay in appointing officials – which is so clear elsewhere in the US government, particularly the Treasury – is also visible. As of April 23, the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine was still vacant. Although most of the headline-grabbing policies towards Moscow so far have been initiated by President Obama or Secretary Clinton, the lack of a dedicated high-level official for Russia is alarming.

The profile of the Administration’s other Eurasia specialists suggests that the Obama Administration does not intend to make a radical break with the Bush era. Heading the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs as a replacement to Daniel Fried will be Philip H. Gordon, a Europe and Turkey specialist (Joshua Kucera over at Eurasianet wrote an excellent profile of Gordon on March 18). However, Gordon’s confirmation has been held up in the Senate by John Ensign, a Republican with links to the Armenian lobby. Ensign has allegedly blocked the confirmation in response to Gordon’s refusal, in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to classify the tragic events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire as ‘genocide’. This is not something new. Similar “refusals” prevented several other key appointments in the past including the appointment of an ambassador to Armenia for a couple of years up until 2008.

Gordon’s argument, which appears to be echoed by President Obama, is that use of the term would inflame Turkish public opinion and embolden hardliners, ruining the new Administration’s attempts to rebuild ties with Ankara. This suggests a new emphasis on pragmatism, a trend also clearly visible in efforts to rebuild relations with Russia even if this means toning down support for Georgia.

However, a change in tone does not reflect a wholesale change in policy. This is to be expected. The parameters of US involvement in the Caspian region – energy, counter-terrorism, peaceful conflict resolution, containing Iran and providing a bridgehead for operational support in Central Asia, are not likely to change. It was therefore logical that Matthew Bryza, the State Department’s top official for the South Caucasus and co-chair from the US in the OSCE Minsk Group, remained at his post. He has built up a solid reputation in the region and possesses extensive experience of its problems.

As noted above, any shifts in the new Administration’s policy towards the Caspian and the South Caucasus are likely to come through changing policies towards Russia, Iran, or Turkey. President Obama’s desire to reset relations with Russia has had mixed results so far, with agreements, for instance on strategic arms reductions, alternating with aggressive rhetoric against continued cooperation between NATO and Georgia (BBC News, April 16). The US so far has shown rhetorical restraint, and has made little fuss about the retrial of the ex-Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

This pragmatism is also visible in the Caucasus: the Obama Administration has held back from the unequivocal declarations of support for Georgia’s President Saakashvili that he received during the Bush Administration. Seeing him replaced with someone less bombastic towards Russia would probably be a quiet relief for Washington. As for Georgia’s NATO aspirations, the Obama administration will probably stick to the line agreed at the December 2008 summit – Georgia will be a member of NATO, but not yet.

There are three big questions with regard to Georgia. Firstly, how much military assistance is the US willing to offer to rebuild the country’s shattered armed forces? The cost of irritating Russia is likely to outweigh the benefits of re-equipping the Georgian military with American kit. Secondly, how would the US treat a revolution in Georgia? Its reaction to 2003’s Rose Revolution was generally supportive: it strongly criticised the falsified election which triggered the protests and was quick to congratulate President Saakashvili. His replacement by a Russia hawk would provoke grave concern in Washington. Thirdly, what would the new Administration do in a new Russia-Georgia war? Speculating on such a chaotic event is of course fanciful, but the US would certainly not go any further than the Bush Administration did in last August’s war. If John McCain – a noted Russia hawk and supporter of President Saakashvili – had won the election, things might be different.

The second big issue is Nagorno-Karabakh. Matters are largely out of Washington’s hands here. Although it co-chairs the OSCE Minsk Group tasked with resolving the conflict, Russia is far more dominant in this framework and the US has been increasingly hedged out of the peace process by Moscow and, to an extent, Ankara. Turkey’s Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform, which is apparently already operating despite a lack of fanfare (RFE/RL, April 20), was specifically designed to minimise the impact of outside powers on the Karabakh process.

Nonetheless, Ankara remains Washington’s main way of leveraging the conflict, partly through its rapprochement with Armenia. President Obama’s high-profile visit to Turkey in March was an explicit attempt to enlist the assistance of Washington’s main Muslim partner in Eurasia and a key NATO member to improve the US’s standing in the Islamic world. The appointment of Gordon indicates the new importance of Turkey, as well as a clear-headed desire to solve the Armenian issue.

Finally, Caspian energy, Morningstar’s new portfolio. His appointment suggests that the Obama Administration is hoping for the Nabucco project to be a repeat of the successful BTC pipeline, whose inception was overseen by Morningstar in 1999. This is optimistic, but there are few people with a better chance. His European expertise (he was ambassador to the EU 1999-2001) may help to nudge Europe into more active support of Nabucco, but once again there is only so much that Washington can do here. At an energy conference in Bulgaria on April 25, Morningstar bluntly stated that Nabucco is not a panacea for Europe’s energy problems.

Although it is still early days, the outlines of Obama’s Caucasus policy are becoming clear. A renewed partnership with Turkey and a willingness to work with Russia are the core elements. The Armenian diaspora in the US will be a clear loser from this, but Washington’s support of the Turkish-Armenian thaw will certainly benefit Armenia itself. Georgia, or more specifically President Saakashvili, may also lose out. Azerbaijan may gain if the Administration invests more energy in the Karabakh conflict, notwithstanding its limited influence there. In any case, the big question mark remains the new period of détente with Russia: if ‘pressing the reset button’ fails, the Bush-era cycle of confrontation in the Caucasus could easily resume.

April 29, 2009
Turkey Uneasy Over Obama’s Statement on Armenia

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 81

April 28, 2009

By Saban Kardas

President Barack Obama’s long awaited statement on the Armenian Remembrance Day caused mixed reactions on both sides of the dispute. Although Obama refrained from referring to the killing of Armenians as “genocide,” which reflected well on Turkish diplomacy, his clear expression of support for the Armenian position caused anger in Turkey. In his statement, Obama said:

“Ninety four years ago, one of the great atrocities of the twentieth century began. Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The ‘Meds Yeghern’ must live on in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian people” (www.whitehouse.gov, April 24).

Obama came under criticism by the supporters of the Armenian genocide claims for stopping short of using the word “genocide” to describe the events of 1915 -a pledge which he made during his election campaign. Like other presidents before him, Obama apparently prioritized realpolitik and did not want to harm the strategic relationship with Turkey by risking a negative Turkish reaction over the controversial issue. Moreover, there is a more immediate reason for him to avoid the term: Obama does not want to jeopardize the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. His carefully worded statement is yet another indication of his support for the bilateral talks, to which Turkey and Armenia responded positively by announcing a roadmap to work toward the normalization of their relations.

Nonetheless, this prudent act on Obama’s part did not entirely satisfy Turkish expectations. Ankara focused on the aspects of Obama’s description of the events of 1915 which are regarded as unacceptable from the Turkish perspective. In spite of this, the phrases Obama chose to depict the Armenian suffering were a serious blow for Turkish diplomacy, which had done its utmost to exclude the word “genocide” from the White House statement. Despite backtracking from his campaign promise, Obama called the killing of Armenians a great atrocity and used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern” (great disaster) to describe the events, as well as noting that his views on that period of history remained unchanged.

Turkish officials and politicians uniformly criticized Obama’s statement, calling it one-sided and historically inaccurate. Turkish President Abdullah Gul said he disagreed with parts of Obama’s statement, adding that “in particular, there are hundreds of thousands of Turks and Muslims who lost their lives in 1915. Everyone’s suffering has to be shared.” A press statement released by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also maintained that some expressions in Obama’s statement combined with the interpretation of the events of 1915 were unacceptable from Turkey’s perspective (Anadolu Ajansi, April 25).

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was more pointed in his criticism: “the statement is far from satisfying. We cannot accept it as it is.” Erdogan questioned Obama’s attitude and argued that by giving credence to Armenian claims, Obama had bowed to short-term political considerations. “We are deeply saddened by politicians’ attempts to exploit the events of 1915 for electoral concerns,” Erdogan added. Reflecting a sense of “disappointment” with Obama, Erdogan maintained that Turkey is not a country that can be manipulated with empty promises (Hurriyet, April 27).

Representatives of the opposition parties also criticized Obama’s statement. The leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party argued that he used only the Armenian side’s terminology. Whereas the leader of the Nationalist Action Party alleged that the statement taken in its entirety, supported unequivocally Armenian genocide claims. The opposition found Obama’s account of the 1915 events as distorting historical reality. Moreover, they capitalized on this incident to criticize the government’s foreign policy, maintaining that in order to prevent Obama from using the word “genocide” involved making concessions to Armenia in breach of Turkey’s national interests -which also alienated Azerbaijan. Characterizing Obama’s statement as the starkest proof yet of the government’s failed approach, they called for a reversal of such “submissive” policies, and backing away from the rapprochement with Yerevan (Anadolu Ajansi, ANKA, April 25).

The strong reactions from both the government and the opposition raised questions as to how this development might damage Turkish-American relations. Since Obama’s inauguration, Turkey and the United States have revitalized their strategic partnership. Yet Ankara made it clear that a miscalculated American intervention in the Armenian issue might spoil Turkish-American relations.

In its official responses so far, Turkey has not taken punitive measures to protest against Obama’s statement. Turkish diplomatic sources reported that U.S. Ambassador to Ankara, James Jeffrey, was invited to the Foreign Ministry to discuss the developments. Ankara’s concerns and uneasiness regarding the statement were relayed to him, but no official note of protest to Washington was presented (ANKA, April 27).

For its part, Ankara must have realized that despite its intensive diplomacy, it has failed to influence Western public opinion in favor of its view of the events in 1915. This episode shows that the government cannot sustain its policy of denial, and should develop a new approach to explain its own version of events. Nonetheless, Turkey is unlikely to sever ties with the United States, though the controversy demonstrates how the politics of the Armenian “genocide” can potentially undermine Turkish-American relations. The periodic resurrection of this debate in American politics hijacks Turkish-American relations, perpetuating a crisis of trust. Nor does it further the interests of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, since American intervention threatens to derail any genuine desire to find a solution in Ankara. In the face of domestic opposition, no Turkish government can afford to proceed with a dialogue with Armenia or maintain friendly relations with the United States if Washington is perceived as taking sides.

https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-uneasy-over-obamas-statement-on-armenia/

April 29, 2009