Category: Azerbaijan

Genocide Talks Which Are Directed By Foreign Sides

We woke up late in the morning because we had got very tired the night before. The number of dreams we had seen for a couple of days increased dramatically. We were not yet fully relieved our tiredness. Until we met Karine at 13:00, we thought it is time to visit the internet world that we had neglected for a long time.

The morning in Yerevan is clear and brilliant. We are trying to find an internet café in Erebuni. Internet access in the café that we had gone the day before was a bit problematic. Watermelon sellers on the road, grocery stores under apartments and children playing on the puddles remind us the scenes from our own country. There is a map suspended on bus station. In the map the regions such as New Arapkir (Yeni Arapkir), New Malatya (Yeni Malatya), New Zeytun (Yeni Zeytun), New Maras (Yeni Maraş) draw our attention. In the country, foreign representation is highly valued. Whichever embassy building you come close on road, its existence is informed kilometers before. Moreover, in city maps on the bus stations designed by telephone operator firm Orange, embassy buildings are indicated.

We find a café on the road and sit there. After a while, the café owner turns the loud music and turns up sura in Koran. We are really surprised to experience such a situation. We wonder whether the café owner is Muslim. While going out of the café, we are again shocked to see the cross sign on his neck. The facilities that internet provides give interested people the opportunity to listen Koran suras and people are free to utilize this. Especially the Armenians who have lived in Syria are accustomed to this situation. While giving the internet pay, I accidentally take a Turk kurus out. The café owner says that that money is not valid there and I answered saying that is Turk money. With a smile on his face, he expresses his satisfaction: ‘’Welcome!…’’

Today we are going to see Tsitsernakaberd which underlies the Turkish-Armenian crisis and the commemoration of 1915. At the request of my friend Ismail, we scheduled this plan to an earlier time. We get in a taxi and proceed to the monument.

We have come to the monument. This monument is a place designed at one time conscientiously. The construction of the monument whose name means swallow nest started in 1966 to commemorate the 50. anniversary of 1915. 12 columns represent the 12 cities which Armenians migrated to from East Anatolia. The fire between the columns is designed in such a way that it never dies down. Under the monument there is a museum named as ‘’Genocide’’. Here, first we see ‘’1909 Adana Massacre’’ poster. There is an atmosphere created here to show as if Turkey, trying to cope with 31 March movement in 1909, stirred up the troubles in Adana. Our friend informs the officer the fact that we are Turks. With a look full of interest, he sends a translator to us. An attractive woman is trying to tell her national affairs to people who are members of the nation which carried out 1915 happenings to her own nation…

In the museum, in which there are some materials from the posters of Abdulhamit to the ones of Mustafa Kemal who is introduced as dictator and the main responsible of the Pontus genocide, and from the photos of Armenian kids with Cemal Pasha who killed many bandits to provide Armenians with comfort and facilities, to the German descriptions of Talat Pasha who is told as a killer, the translator goes on telling their national affairs with a great desire.

‘’Our ex-lands…’’ says the woman. ‘’Maras, Malatya, Diyarbakir, Mus, Van…’’ On these lands, Young Turks saw every kind of massacre as legal and were mobilized to kill Armenians for a reason that they did not even know. And they were successful…

The museum mirrors a humanitarian plight with the works of French and German painters and writers. Moreover, the book ‘’The Confession of a Good Turk’’ written by a Turk who have fled from Turkey to Germany is still on sale in this museum. The expression ‘’ To sacrifice 4 million souls’’ makes us realize how much affected are the people by the heavy propagandas. As understood from the sources there, these propagandas supported by European countries and Russia is arranged to use at anytime with the aim of creating a manageable power in Caucasia. I call this an externally-guide conversation because neither a Turk nor an Armenian has been able to form the basis for a meeting to discuss these issues. The main problem is the inability to discuss our own matters.

We ask the translator whether England, France and Russia are responsible for this situation. She says: ‘’ They were the forces against the Ottoman Empire and by war’s nature, they were the enemies. The responsibility belonged to Turks.’’ ‘’And Germany?’’ we say, because most of the materials in this museum are originating from Germany.’’ Yes…’’ she says, ‘’ They are partially responsible. Moreover, did not they take the inspiration of the genocide carried out on Jews from Turks?’’

After leaving the museum, we go on to see the monument. This monument is a place consisting of 12 columns and a fire that never dies down. With the blood and tears music played on the background, the environment here is rather gloomy. After a man with tears on his eyes leave the monument, we also go out to see the surrounding area of the monument. In the further park, there is a tree park consisting of trees which have been planted by the leaders around the world. The children of American ambassador Henry Morghenthau, who has a place on our minds with reporting against Turkey, have planted trees here.

After a little talk, we go to Erebuni, feeling hungry find a restaurant and sit there. Our friend says the the women working there that we are Turks. The woman is surprised and says that until that time she has never had a Turkish customer. Being Turkish here causes a short-term shock among people and that’s all…

We are looking at the menu to choose something to eat. As we go on looking, our astonishment increases because in menu there are the same dishes as in Turkey.

We order chicken shish and ‘’tan’’( ayran) as a beverage. During the meal, we talk about the similarities between Turk and Armenian culture. In Armenian language, there are lots of Turkish word. But the fact that these words have come from Turkish are not widely known there. The words such as ‘’Yaban, meydan, chardak, charshaf, yahudi, hach’’ are used in the same meaning in both languages.

When we say that in Armenian culture there are abduction of girls, coffee fortune-telling and asking for the girl in a marriage, Karine becomes both shocked and happy. The same fortune-telling conversations are also existent in their culture.

Our friend asks why there are many claims in Turkey against Armenians. We emphasize the fact that the situation is not what is thought and political problems create social problems. The family of our friend accepted our request to see them. They say after two days we can go to their country house. After leaving the restaurant, we are going towards the motel. All the way, we talk about Yerevan and the similarities between our languages.

I want to call some places with telephone. After telephone breaks down, the women working there goes and brings me another phone in a hurry. They are really warm and friendly people… (to be continued)

Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU / Caspian Weekly

Translated By : Yasemin Taşçı / Volunteer of TUIC

August 26, 2010
Will Turkey put a base in Azerbaijan in response to Russia-Armenia agreement?

Nakhchivan

That’s what the Russian newspaper Nezavismaya Gaezta says, citing Azeri news reports alleging Azeri dissatisfaction with their relations with Russia (summary via RT):

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan and Turkey may have prepared their “symmetrical answer to Yerevan and Moscow,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily said. A Turkish military base may be deployed in Azerbaijan as a result of the talks between Baku and Ankara, the paper noted.

“The topic was allegedly discussed during the recent visit of Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul to Baku and his meeting with Azerbaijan’s leader Ilkham Aliev,” the daily said. According to Azerbaijan’s media, the military base may be deployed in Nakhichevan autonomous republic, an exclave between Armenia and Turkey.

The relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan are so close that the question arises why Ankara has not yet deployed its military base in the friendly country, the paper asked. Baku may have expected Russia’s more effective role in settling the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, the daily explained.

Hoping that Russia could “influence its strategic ally – Yerevan – and help to promote the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity,” Baku “did not venture on strengthening a pro-Turkey vector or another one,” the daily stressed.

However, the authorities in Baku think that “expectations were overestimated” as the situation over Nagorno-Karabakh remains unchanged, the daily said.

“Baku, in fact, has determined the limitation of its expectations after which it will probably try to change the situation in its favor by other actions,” the daily said. “This limit is President Medvedev’s visit to Baku scheduled for September.”

(The original article, in Russian, here.)

One thing notably missing from this analysis is Russia’s alleged pending sale of S-300 air defense systems to Azerbaijan (which Russia continues to not deny), and which obviously should change Baku’s perception of whether or not Russia is selling it out.

And as I’ve discussed before, all of this speculation about a Turkish military base in Azerbaijan seems to be coming solely from Azerbaijan, and not at all from Turkey. And it’s hard to imagine would Turkey would gain from having a base in Nakhchivan.

Still, as EurasiaNet has reported, Turkey has increased its ties to Nakhchivan, and has at least spoken vaguely of military cooperation:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went still further, noting that “Nakhchivan is exposed to various threats from the Armenian state.”

“Therefore, military cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan and the NAR [Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic] is one of the major components of our relations,” Erdogan said.

Azerbaijan maintains a base in Nakhchivan that has received heavy Turkish support in the past, but no official information is available about the current scope of military cooperation between the two countries in the exclave.

And things are changing pretty quickly, at least in geopolitical time, in the relations between Turkey and Armenia, Turkey and Russia and Turkey and Azerbaijan. So we shouldn’t be too surprised by further big moves to come.

, August 20, 2010

August 21, 2010
Russia to prolong military presence in Armenia

YEREVAN, Aug 18 (Reuters) – Armenia said on Wednesday it had agreed to extend the lease on a Russian military base in the South Caucasus country until 2044, strengthening Moscow’s military presence in the strategic region.

The deal will be signed during a visit to Yerevan by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday and Friday.

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian confirmed the lease extension in an interview with Rossiya-24 television.

It will prolong for decades Russia’s military presence in Armenia, its chief strategic and economic ally in a region criss-crossed by pipelines carrying Central Asian and Caspian oil and gas to Europe.

The Russian military also has troops in two breakaway regions of neighbouring Georgia, where it is building up bases in the wake of a five-day war over rebel South Ossetia in 2008.

Russia and Armenia signed a deal in 1995 allowing the Russian base in the town of Gyumri on Armenia’s closed western border with Turkey to operate for 25 years. Nalbandian said the changes would extend that deal to 49 years from 1995.

He said the deal would spell out that the Russian base would help secure the landlocked country of 3.2 million people, where the spectre of renewed conflict with oil-producing Azerbaijan over rebel Nagorno-Karabakh is never far away.

“And in realising those goals, the Russian side will assist in providing Armenia with weapons and modern military equipment,” Nalbandian said. Some in the Armenian opposition have complained the deal undermines the country’s independence.

Russia has several thousand soldiers in Gyumri, who help patrol Armenia’s western border with NATO-member Turkey. Ankara closed the frontier in 1993 in solidarity with close Muslim ally Azerbaijan during the war over Nagorno-Karabakh.

The mountain region threw off Azeri rule in the early 1990s with Armenian backing. A ceasefire was agreed in 1994 but a peace deal has never been agreed and Azerbaijan frequently threatens to take the territory back by force.

Russia is part of a mediating group including France and the United States trying for the past 15 years, without success, to forge a peace deal.

Although it has traditionally enjoyed close relations with Armenia, Russia has sought in recent years to develop ties with Azerbaijan as it vies with the West for access to energy reserves in the Caspian Sea.

August 18, 2010
Armenia To Seek ‘Long-Range’ Weapons

Armenia — Surface-to-air missiles at a military base in Gyumri, undated

10.08.2010

Sargis Harutyunyan

Armenia plans to acquire long-range precision-guided weapons and will be ready to use them in possible armed conflicts with hostile neighbors, Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian said on Tuesday.

The announcement followed a meeting of an Armenian government commission on national security that tentatively approved two programs envisaging a modernization of the country’s Armed Forces. One of the documents deals with army weaponry, while the other details measures to develop the domestic defense industry.

“These are extremely important programs,” Ohanian told journalists. “Their implementation will qualitatively improve the level of the Armed Forces in the short and medium terms.”

“The two programs envisage both the acquisition of state-of-the-art weapons and their partial manufacturing by the local defense industry,” he said. “The main directions are the expansion of our long-range strike capacity and the introduction of extremely precise systems, which will allow us to minimize the enemy’s civilian casualties during conflicts.”

Armenia — Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian (R) and National Security Council Secretary Artur Baghdasarian chair a meeting of a government commission on defense, 10August 2010.

“Their application will also allow us to thwart free enemy movements deep inside the entire theater of hostilities,” added the minister. He did not specify whether Yerevan will be seeking to have surface-to-surface missiles capable of hitting any target in Azerbaijan.

The Armenian military is believed to be already equipped with short-range tactical missiles. But little is known about their type and technical characteristics. The army command gave a rare glimpse of such weaponry in September 2006 when it demonstrated new rockets with a firing range of up to 110 kilometers during a military parade in Yerevan.

Ohanian did not deny that the modernization plan is connected with the persisting risk of another Armenian-Azerbaijani war for Nagorno-Karabakh. “You know what kind of a region we live in and how dependent we are during the escalation of conflicts,” he said. “We are therefore forced to do such work.”

It was not immediately clear whether Yerevan’s desire to get hold of more powerful weapons is connected with a new Russian-Armenian military agreement expected to be signed soon. The agreement will reportedly take the form of significant changes in a 1995 treaty regulating the presence of a Russian military base in Armenia.

Official Russian and Armenian sources have said that those changes would extend that presence and assign the base a greater role in ensuring Armenia’s security. A relevant Russian government document cited by the Interfax news agency late last month also makes clear that Moscow will commit itself to providing its South Caucasus ally with “modern and compatible weaponry and (special) military hardware.”

Artur Baghdasarian, the secretary of Armenia’s National Security Council who chaired Tuesday’s meeting together with Ohanian, confirmed this last week. “There exist joint projects on this matter and we will be consistently implementing them,” he told the Regnum news agency.

Earlier in July, Armenia and Russia announced plans to significantly step up cooperation between their defense industries after talks between their top security officials held in Yerevan. Baghdasarian reiterated on Tuesday the agreements reached during the “extremely important” talks envisage, among other things, the establishment of Russian-Armenian defense joint ventures.

That was followed by Russian media reports that Moscow has agreed to sell sophisticated S-300 air-defense systems to Azerbaijan in a $300 million deal that could affect the balance of forces in the Karabakh conflict. Russian defense officials have made conflicting statements about the veracity of the information, adding to concerns expressed by Armenian pundits and politicians.

Ohanian on Tuesday commented evasively on the possible S-300 sale. “I think that acquisition of any new weaponry will have a certain impact on the balance of forces [in the Karabakh conflict,] but want to remind that the S-300 systems are defensive systems,” he said. “At the same time, we can’t say we have information about their possible purchase [by Azerbaijan.]”

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/2124090.html

August 10, 2010
Senator Delays Vote On Obama Pick For U.S. Envoy In Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan — U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza at a press-conference in Baku, 03Apr2009

04.08.2010

A pro-Armenian member of the U.S. Senate blocked on Tuesday a planned vote on President Barack Obama’s choice of the new U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan opposed by some Armenian-American groups.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was scheduled to decide whether to pave the way for the congressional confirmation of Matthew Bryza’s nomination, which was announced by the White House in May.

Bryza was one of the most visible U.S. officials in the South Caucasus during the administration of former President George W. Bush, serving as deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. He was also the U.S. co-chair of the Minsk Group until last fall.

Reports from Washington said the committee vote was postponed at least until September at the initiative of Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat-California). The move was welcomed by the main Armenian advocacy groups in the United States.

“The hold-over requested today by Senator Boxer provides needed additional time for a closer look into a flawed nomination,” said Aram Hamparian, the executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), a vocal opponent of Bryza’s appointment.

“We appreciate Senator Barbara Boxer’s determination to ensure that key policy issues are addressed,” Taniel Koushakjian, the grassroots director of the Armenian Assembly of America, said in a separate statement. Unlike the ANCA, the Assembly has not explicitly rejected Obama’s pick for the vacant post in Baku.

Boxer was among several pro-Armenian senators who questioned Bryza’s impartiality in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict during committee hearings late last month. The Assembly statement said she “felt that her questions to Mr. Bryza were not answered directly.”

In particular, the former Bush administration official was pressed by Senator Robert Menendez (Democrat-New Jersey) on a pro-Azerbaijani statement attributed to him in 2008. He said it was incorrectly translated from Russian, and pledged to respect the concept of self-determination for Karabakh’s population.

Bryza also denied playing any role in the 2006 dismissal of the then U.S. ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, that was widely attributed to this public affirmation of the 1915 Armenian genocide.

It was Menendez who blocked congressional endorsement of Evans’s replacement nominated by Bush at the time. The senator’s so-called “hold” forced the Republican administration to propose another ambassadorial candidate to the Senate two years later.

Significantly, the pro-Armenian senators’ concerns seem to be shared by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In a recent letter to the State Department, Reid, who himself has a warm rapport with Armenian-American leaders, voiced misgivings about Bryza’s nomination.

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/2118786.html

August 4, 2010
Slow Progress in Turkish-Armenian Normalization

Slow Progress in Turkish-Armenian Normalization

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 139

July 20, 2010

By Saban Kardas

Turkey’s prospective participation in a six-day NATO exercise in Armenia in September, and the informal Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting in Astana, reignited the debate on the stalled Turkish-Armenian normalization process. The Armenia 2010 exercise will focus on post-earthquake civil emergency drills.

A senior columnist in the daily newspaper, Radikal, Murat Yetkin, first publicized Turkey’s agreement to participate in the exercise and, if the need arose, the Turkish border would be opened to vehicles in order to supply the disaster-hit areas in the scenario. Local administrative sources were examining the condition of the transportation infrastructure, which corresponded with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, visiting the region, promoted speculation that it might lead to the “border opening” (Radikal, July 14).

According to a subsequent story in Hurriyet, Turkish diplomatic sources confirmed Ankara’s participation, involving three or four personnel, and added that they were also making the necessary preparations to temporarily re-open the Turkish-Armenian border. Such an opening of the border would involve the transfer of NATO equipment into Armenia, through the Dogukapi border crossing in the Turkish city of Kars, where the governor’s office concluded the roads and railways were in good condition, also adding that the crossing could stay open for a month (Hurriyet, July 15).

Turkish media speculated that such cooperation might help to reduce political tension, and this incident may serve as a model to test the ground for the long-delayed opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. However, Armenian diplomatic sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, signaled that they were not planning to request Turkey’s assistance in this matter. They dismissed the Turkish statement as “a public relations stunt aimed at burnishing Turkey’s image” (Radio Free Europe, July 16).

This harsh reaction underscored the extent of the divisions between Turkey and Armenia. After taking various groundbreaking steps in 2009, which culminated in the signing of the protocols in October, Turkey and Armenia failed to sustain the initial momentum. For its part, the Turkish government had to put the rapprochement process on the backburner, faced with resistance from the nationalist domestic opposition and the concerns raised by Azerbaijan. Nonetheless, Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, maintained on many occasions that Turkey remained committed to the spirit of normalization and would seize every opportunity to continue with the process. For Davutoglu, relations with Armenia remain a major challenge to his “zero problems with neighbors” policy. He maintains that the normalization process, though slow, still continues and if Armenia takes constructive steps, it could prove successful.

However, as Turkish leaders previously emphasized on various occasions, without any concrete progress in the Azeri-Armenian dispute, Turkey will not undertake further steps towards the normalization of its diplomatic relations with Armenia, including the re-opening of the border. Therefore, Turkey has urged the Minsk group to refocus on the Karabakh dispute on the one hand, and work to facilitate the resolution of this conflict on the other.

Responding to a question submitted by a Member of Parliament from the Nationalist Action Party during a parliamentary debate, Davutoglu defended the government’s policy, arguing that the Turkish-Armenian process also stimulated efforts to resolve the Azeri-Armenian dispute.

Davutoglu also noted that the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan pertaining to the return of the occupied Azeri regions were underway. He indicated that negotiations have reached the level of discussing the details for the deployment of an international peacekeeping force in zones from which Armenian forces are withdrawn, though he denied rumors that Turkey also submitted a proposal to supply such peacekeeping units (Anadolu Ajansi, July 16).

Moreover, addressing the Karabakh dispute has been of great concern internationally, especially considering the fluctuating tensions in the region due to deadly armed exchanges between Azeri and Armenian forces along the ceasefire line.

Ahead of the informal meeting of the foreign ministers of the OSCE in Astana, expectations were raised that Azerbaijan and Armenia might achieve some progress. Prior to his departure for Astana, Azeri Foreign Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, said that he was expecting that an Armenian withdrawal from the Kalbajar and Lachin regions, currently under Armenian occupation, would be tabled during the discussions in Astana. Since these issues were previously agreed upon through Russian mediation, he asked the Armenian side to abide by earlier promises. Nonetheless, he complained that Armenia was raising fresh issues, and deviating from the earlier consensus (www.azernews.az, July 16).

Baku argues that only after its demand for the immediate return of occupied territories is met, can it reciprocate on other demands by Armenia, such as the status of the Lachin corridor connecting Karabakh to Armenia. This position has also been supported by Turkey for some time, so that it could reenergize its own normalization process with Armenia. The meeting between Mammadyarov and his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, in Astana as well as the efforts by the Minsk group co-chairs, however, failed to meet such expectations. The Minsk group released a statement stressing that “the efforts made so far by the parties to the conflict, were insufficient to overcome existing differences” and expressed “regret over recent developments that have exacerbated tensions in the region (www.azernews.az, July 17).

Following his meeting with Davutoglu, Mammadyarov held a press conference concerning his meeting with Nalbandian. He criticized his Armenian counterpart, arguing that the Armenian side made a last minute move and stepped back from a deal, despite the fact that they had come close to reaching an agreement. He expressed disappointment with the Armenian side, saying they were not interested in any progress (Dogan Haber Ajansi, July 17).

Davutoglu also regretted the failure to reach an agreement. In an apparent show of solidarity with his Azeri counterpart, he referred to the speculation about re-opening the border. He ruled out this possibility for the time being, adding that no one should have such expectations (Cihan Haber Ajansi, July 17). Last week’s developments underscored, once again, the complicated manner in which Turkish-Armenian normalization is mired in the Azeri-Armenian dispute.

https://jamestown.org/program/slow-progress-in-turkish-armenian-normalization/

July 21, 2010