Turkish Forum

Category: Asia and Pacific

  • Day of Azerbaijanis’ Genocide marked in Central Asia

    Day of Azerbaijanis’ Genocide marked in Central Asia

    Astana. Tashkent. Dushanbe. Laman Agayeva – APA. March 31 – Day of Azerbaijanis’ Genocide was also marked in Central Asia countries, APA reports. Kazakh intellectuals, members of Azerbaijani, Turkish, Ingush, Kyrgyz, Ukrainian and Georgian Diaspora attended the event in Azerbaijani embassy in Kazakhstan. Advisor of the embassy Nizami Rustamov, first secretary Namig Bakhshaliyev said hundreds of Azerbaijanis towns and villages, over 150 Azerbaijani-populated villages in the mountainous part of Karabakh were destroyed during March happenings, 50,000 Azerbaijanis were killed in Shusha, about 30,000 civilians were killed in Baku. Georgian charge d’affaires in Kazakhstan Zurab Kozmava said he perceived the terrible acts committed against Azerbaijanis and added that Georgian people had also undergone terror and aggression. President of Kazakhstan Azerbaijanis Union Vidadi Salahov said terrible happenings in the Caucasus always came from Russian imperialist circles. Chairman of Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Friendship Association Askhad Shakirov said he believed that unbiased political legal assessment will be given to the violence committed against Azerbaijanis, perpetrators will be punished. Similar events were held in Azerbaijani embassies in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

  • Azerbaijanis killed by Armenians

    Azerbaijanis killed by Armenians

    Baku. Ilhama Isabalayeva–APA. The Institute of History after Abbasgulu Aga Bakikhanov will publish the history of Iravan khanate in near future, director of the institute Yagub Mahmudov said, APA reports. The book will contain all materials about the history of Armenian movement to Iravan khanate. “The history of this khanate is very important. The Armenians established their state in the territory of this khanate in 1918”.

    Mahmudov noted that six-volume “History of Karabakh”, “Historic monuments of Nakhchivan” and toponyms changed in Armenia by the local soviet power were published in six languages and spread throughout the world. He said all efforts of the Azerbaijani researchers were directed toward the history of our lost lands. “Fatahali Khan Khoyski and other leaders of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic established the emergency commission in 1918 to draw up list of victims of the genocide. There are protocols about their names, surnames, age and property. We have to publish those documents and to deliver it to the world. We are expected to publicize the list this year”.

  • TURKEY AND ARMENIA CLOSE TO A DEAL

    TURKEY AND ARMENIA CLOSE TO A DEAL

    On March 17, Congressmen Adam Schiff, George Radanovich and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairmen Frank Pallone and Mark Kirk introduced a resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives co-sponsored by over 70 House colleagues to recognize the Armenian “genocide” of 1915. The resolution is identical to the one introduced in both the House and Senate in the 110th Congress, which was adopted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (www.anca.org, March 17). The timing of the legislation is especially critical, since President Obama will visit Turkey on April 6-7. Obama promised his American-Armenian supporters during his presidential election campaign that he would recognize the 1915 “genocide,” yet his trip to Ankara will seek to improve U.S. relations with Turkey after the difficulties experienced in recent years.

    Moreover, this comes at a time when Turkey and Armenia have finally found a way to talk directly, which could yield positive results after the “soccer match diplomacy” that began when Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul visited Armenia to watch the Turkish and Armenian national soccer teams play (Cihan Haber Ajansi, September 5, 2008). Since then, Turkish and Armenian diplomats have agreed on a successful strategy to improve their bilateral relations. In fact, political observers expect that the rapprochement might precipitate the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border, as early as April (EDM, February 10).

    The debate surrounding Turkey’s border policy was sparked after Republican People’s Party (CHP) parliamentarian Sukru Electag claimed that “some Justice and Development Party (AKP) parliamentarians during their visit to Washington in February 2009 stated that the AKP will open the border after the local election in March 29” (Sabah, March 15). Despite the denials by AKP deputies regarding these claims, following a recent visit to Washington one AKP deputy said, “Turkey and Armenia are very close to a deal to open embassies in Ankara and Yerevan and it is very likely that the Turkey-Armenia border will be opened soon if the third parties do not harm the process” (EDM, February 10). In addition, the Chairman of the CHP, Deniz Baykal complained about the AKP’s methods in seeking to solve the Armenian problem. Baykal has accused the AKP of failing to consult the CHP “we learn the latest developments from the U.S. officials” (Radikal, March 17).

    Diplomatic traffic between Washington, Ankara, and Yerevan has reportedly prepared the way for positive developments ahead of Obama’s visit to Turkey. Ankara has intensified its diplomacy with Yerevan in order to improve relations with Armenia before Obama’s arrival (Cumhuriyet, March 11). It seems that Washington has also been involved in this process and that it has produced positive results. Armenia’s President Serj Sarkisyan and the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently held a telephone conversation in which they discussed developments between Turkey and Armenia (Milliyet, March 18). Yet, it appears that the supporters of the “genocide” resolution do not share the concerns of the U.S. State Department. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that Obama’s visit does not change the fact that “there was an Armenian genocide, and there are those of us in Congress who will continue to make that point” (Reuters, March 17).

    The trend towards greater economic cooperation has complemented these political developments. For instance, indirect trade between Turkey and Armenia has increased from $30 million in 1997 to approximately $130 million in 2005 (www.tabdc.org, March 13, 2005). Turkish and Armenian businessmen have been actively searching for alternative ways to develop better relations and in 2008 Turkish and Armenian cheese makers jointly produced a new brand (Milliyet, May 24, 2008). Furthermore, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan revealed that 40,000 Armenian citizens live and work in Turkey illegally and he has authorized their continued residence (CNNTurkey, January 28). The Armenian Energy Ministry also revealed that it has updated its infrastructure facilitating electricity sales to Turkey based on an agreement that was signed during Gul’s visit to Yerevan last September. Armenia will initially sell 1.5 billion kwh of its electricity and this will be increased in the future to 3.5 billion kwh (Cumhuriyet, March 17).

    Arguably, Turkey and Armenia have never had such close relations. Thus, Turkey does not want this process jeopardized by the U.S. Congress. Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, chief adviser to Prime Minister Erdogan, said he was confident that the U.S. administration would not allow the Armenian genocide issue to derail the positive climate in Turkish-U.S. and Turkish-Armenian relations. “All of these things could be debated from a historical perspective, but it should not hijack the strategic vision of Turkish-American relations or Turkish-Armenian relations” (Today’s Zaman, March 21).

    Turkey has one clear objective, despite these constructive developments: convincing Azerbaijan about its steps towards Armenia. It appears that in every move made by Ankara it informs Baku about its initiatives. For instance, five days after Gul’s visit to Yerevan, he went to Baku to discuss his visit to Armenia (Hurriyet, September 10, 2008). Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ali Babacan and his Azeri counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov, liaise closely on the subject (EDM, February 10). However, it remains to be seen whether the Azeris will actually accept Turkey’s policy shift towards Armenia.

    Turkey’s rapprochement with Armenia will not end the issue of the Armenian genocide claims. Turkish lobbyists have initiated new programs in various universities, aimed at producing academic work to turn the “lost” debate in their favor. Such an approach could engender a lively debate about the issue. However, because of the questionable scholarly attitudes, strategies, and shadowy relations with the Turkish establishment, academics involved in this effort to produce a “scholarly” presentation of the Turkish viewpoint might undermine their cause.

    Emrullah Uslu/Eurasia Daily Monitor

  • Azerbaijan Gains Little from Hiring Expensive U.S. Lobbying Firms

    Azerbaijan Gains Little from Hiring Expensive U.S. Lobbying Firms

    The Government of Azerbaijan, using its considerable oil income, has been waging a propaganda campaign to win over U.S. politicians and denigrate Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh).

    To accomplish these twin objectives, Azerbaijan has spent millions of dollars over the past 3 years to hire several major lobbying firms, such as: The Livingston Group; JWI; Chlopak, Leonard, Schechter & Associates; and Melwood Communications. In addition, the Consulate General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles hired Sitrick & Company over a year ago and later replaced it with The Tool Shed Group, founded by Jason Katz, former Director of Public Affairs for the American Jewish Committee.

    While Azerbaijan’s Embassy, with the support of its lobbying groups, has been targeting top U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., its Consulate in Los Angeles has been more interested in countering the political influence of California’s large Armenian community. Fortunately, neither the Embassy nor the Consulate has had much success.

    Recently, the Embassy of Azerbaijan tried to get members of Congress to go on record condemning Armenia for the alleged killings of hundreds of Azeris in 1992 during the Artsakh war. Despite concerted efforts by its high-powered lobbying firms, Azerbaijan succeeded in convincing just 1 out of 535 members of the House and Senate to do so. Cong. Ed Whitfield (Republican-Kentucky), Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey, was the only member of Congress who made remarks about this highly controversial incident.

    Azerbaijan was even less successful in California, despite its heavy investment of time, money, and manpower. Back in 2005, Pres. Ilham Aliyev appointed Elin Suleymanov, a graduate of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, as Azerbaijan’s first Consul General to Los Angeles. Suleymanov told the Azeri Press Agency that one of his key assignments is to counteract the political clout of California’s Armenian community. He promptly wrote a letter to the owners of a theater in Los Angeles, requesting the cancellation of an Artsakh-related event organized by a local Armenian group. The diplomat’s complaint was summarily dismissed and the event took place as scheduled.

    Consul General Sueleymanov’s failure cannot be attributed to his lack of enthusiasm and energy. He has actively tried to promote Azerbaijan’s interests, while missing no opportunity to belittle Armenia and Artsakh. The lobbying firms hired by his government have arranged for him to tour Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Wyoming and parts of California to deliver speeches to university students, greet local politicians, and have guest editorials published under his name in obscure newspapers.

    Suleymanov even visited the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana and claimed that there are racial similarities between Azerbaijanis and Native Americans. A student at the University of Montana quoted Suleymanov as stating that Native Americans actually originated from the region of Azerbaijan and that is why the Consul General “felt a certain kinship for tribal people of the U.S., like brothers or cousins.”

    A major accomplishment of Azerbaijan’s lobbying firms was arranging the visit of four California legislators to Baku in September 2007. Reciprocally, several members of Azerbaijan’s Parliament and a Minister have visited California more than once in the past three years.

    Nevertheless, despite Azerbaijan’s intensive lobbying of California legislators, only 1 out of 120 members of the State Assembly and Senate agreed to send a letter to President Aliyev in February 2009, expressing sympathy for “the victims of Khojali.” This letter, signed by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, was copied from a draft provided by lobbyist Jason Katz. It was noteworthy that Katz had raised the possibility of sending friendly legislators on junkets to Azerbaijan.

    California State Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (Democrat-Glendale) worked to prevent other legislators from signing the Azerbaijani letter by alerting his colleagues about the falsehoods contained in it. The lone letter signed by Assemblyman Fuentes was hailed by Consul General Suleymanov as a major victory for Azerbaijan. The Azeri media disseminated that letter worldwide, misrepresenting it as a condemnation of an alleged “genocide” committed by Armenians!

    The government of Azerbaijan and its representatives in the United States do not seem to realize that it is not in their best interest to denigrate and provoke the influential Armenian community in California. It was no mere accident that Suleymanov’s recent appearance at California State University at Northridge was greeted with a student protest.

    Should Azerbaijan’s Consul General and his hired guns continue to disseminate falsehoods about Armenia and Artsakh in the Western United States, Armenian-Americans could neutralize their propaganda by establishing a public affairs office for Artsakh in Los Angeles, as a branch of the one now operating in Washington, D.C.
  • Protest action in the Netherlands on the occasion of March 31, the Day of Genocide of Azerbaijanis

    Protest action in the Netherlands on the occasion of March 31, the Day of Genocide of Azerbaijanis

    Baku–APA. Benelux Azerbaijanis Congress and Azerbaijani-Dutch Solidarity Society held protest action in Rotterdam, the Netherlands on the occasion of March 31, the Day of Genocide of Azerbaijanis, press service of the State Committee for Work with Diaspora told APA. Representatives of the Azerbaijani and Turkish, as well as Polish communities joined the action. Nearly 150 young people, worn white T-shirts with the map of Azerbaijan and its occupied territories and number of genocide victims, participated in the protest action. The protesters chanted slogans in Dutch, condemning the genocide committed by Armenians against the Azerbaijani people. Nearly 10 leaflets in Dutch describing details about the genocide against Azerbaijanis were spread among the local residents.

  • Effect of Turkey’s local elections on Azerbaijan’s interests

    Effect of Turkey’s local elections on Azerbaijan’s interests

    How will the results of local elections in the regions bordering on Armenia effect on the Azerbaijan’s interests?

    Baku. Vugar Masimoglu–APA. Results of local elections in Turkey unveiled the changes in the voters’ consciousness. First, there is monolithic electorate in the country created as a result of long-year political crises. The Turkish voter’s consciousness was guided by the political ideas for long years. The people made their choice not for the promises, but for the political views and parties of the people they voted for. However the confrontation between the parties and unsuccessful government coalitions replacing each other tired the voter’s consciousness. The Turkish voter fears of the political, government and economic crises and therefore the voters supported AKP, which is not promising the fears. For that reason, AKP has won at least 40 percent of the votes since 2002.

    AKP electorate was formed from such monolithic voters. The results of the municipal elections show that AKP can lead in the elections with 3-5 % differences while the electorate is not free from the fears of political and economic crises. AKP electorate is not only the conservative religious people, as it was in the first times. It includes various categories of voters representing the various layers of the society. Usually the governments in Turkey, for example Ecevit’s cabinet, fell because of economic crises. Despite there is more serious economic crisis in Turkey currently, AKP lost just a little part of its electorate and the economic crisis had insignificant effect on the municipal elections, because the Turkish voters prefer to vote not for the political views, but for the respective stability. In fact, AKP lost 8 percent of the votes, it had in 2007. However AKP has a chance to compensate its losses in the next elections because not only the political parties, but the personality of the candidates running for the municipalities.

    How can the results of Turkish local elections be assessed from Azerbaijan’s aspect? It is obvious that Azerbaijan attaches great importance to Turkey-Armenia relations, especially to the opening of borders between the two countries. Of course, the results of the elections in the regions bordering on Armenia will play important role in the future relations of Turkey with this state. Another reason making these regions interesting for Azerbaijan is that the great majority of the region’s population consists of Azerbaijanis. But both in Kars and Igdir the results of the elections are not satisfying. Especially in Igdir, where 65 percent of the population consists of Azerbaijanis, it is a failure that the candidate of Democratic Society Party (DTP) won the elections. Head of municipality and parliamentarians in Igdir had been Azerbaijanis for 80 years, our compatriots mostly won as candidates of MHP, DYP and ANAP. For the first time in 2007 Igdir could not send an Azerbaijani to the Turkish parliament and yesterday for the first time in its history non-Azerbaijani was elected head of the municipality. Igdir, which borders on Nakhchivan, is a very important place in terms of Azerbaijan’s interests. Change of the demographic situation in Igdir, which borders on Armenia, Iran and Nakhchivan, may have a negative impact on the interests of our country in future.

    The results of the elections in Kars can be assessed as relatively normal. Naif Alibayoglu, who supported opening of the borders with Armenia and pursued policy in this direction, failed to win the elections. If the new head of municipality from AKP does not continue Alibayoglu’s policy, this change will reduce the interest in the opening of borders in Kars. But this time it is possible that the development in Kars will be continued in Igdir and it is interesting what will be the attitude of the new head of municipality from DTP towards the opening of borders.