Category: Azerbaijan

  • GENOCIDE OVER AZERBAIJAN  NATION IN MARCH OF 1918

    GENOCIDE OVER AZERBAIJAN NATION IN MARCH OF 1918

    Tamilla Musayeva,

    Doctor of history, professor

    Adil Mammadov, Doctor of history

    It’s already ten years since our nation has commenced building its sovereign state being in utterly difficult situation and surpassing incredible obstacles. Looking back to the passed way we observe both errors, shortcomings and those great achievements which were possible exclusively in terms of the independence. Among such achievements there is opportunity to see our nation’s history in new light, form objective approach to historical course of its evolution, reveal obscure pages of history, give proper, unbiased appraisal to its individual periods and events having been distorted, forged or just hushed up for long decades. One of the pages is March events of 1918 that were presented in soviet historiography as “civil war”, “musavatists’ counter-revolutionary rebellion” being allegedly provoked by “Musavat” party’s members with aim of overthrowing soviet regime in Baku. In present-day times owing to efforts of azerbaijani social scientists who found and analysed most archive documents being earlier thoroughly concealed, and also owing to current democratic processes in Azerbaijan there was created condition for public declaring the whole truth about the March events, qualifying them as genocide over Azerbaijanis, list the main ringleaders of this bloody massacre. February revolution and following October events, publication of such documents as “Declaration of russian nations’ rights” and “Appeal to moslem working people of Russia and East” were taken by Azerbaijan nation, intellectuals, national parties for opportunity of realizing “national autonomy within Russian Federation” idea.

    “Musavat” party that appeared at the respective period on political struggle’s proscenium advanced “Azerbaijan’s autonomy” idea as one of the paramount programme demands. But provisional extraordinary commissar on Caucasian affairs, S.Shaumyan was ardent antagonist of the idea. He considered azerbaijani nation’s legitimate and natural demand of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy as “dream of azerbaijani nationalists” to make Baku “capital of Azerbaijan khanate” (S.G.Shaumyan, Selected works. Moscow, 1978, II v., p.257). The paradox is that flatly refuting possibility of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy Shaumyan at the same time took for due plan of establishing Provisional armenian government at its territory occupied russian troops. Moreover realization of this plan in accordance with decree dated by December 29, 1917, signed by V.I.Lenin and I.V.Stalin was charged to Shaumyan. He was also commissioned with leading over determination of this “autonomy’s” bounds especially of adjoining moot areas (Decrees of Soviet government. Moscow, 1957, p. 289-299).

    The bolshevist government was pretty aware of Shaumyan’s approaches to most clue points of bolshevist party’s national programme, his radically hostile attitude to such items as granting of autonomy, nations’ right to self-determination. As far back as 1914 Lenin expressed in his letter to Shaumyan critical attitude to these views. “It’s shame on russian marxist to hold standpoint of armenian hen-coop… Because of “armenian” blindness you become apprentice of Purishkevichs and their nationalism” (Lenin V.I. Complete Works, v.48, p.302).

    It’s very interesting that on the eve of March developments “Bakinskiy rabochiy” newspaper published in March, 15 Lenin’s letter to Shaumyan written as early as December, 1913 where the latter has been sharply criticized for non-recognition of autonomy and self-determination right ideas (CW, v.48, p.233-236).

    Maximalism of Shaumyan’s views, obstinacy and strict methods during activities conducted by him were known to Centre. Right therefore Lenin wrote in his telegram to Shaumyan dated February 14, 1918 that along with “firm and resolute” policy it’s necessary to conduct very cautious diplomacy. The former took into account utterly complicated situation in this region, he demanded to solve very delicately and carefully most important problems (V.I.Lenin about Azerbaijan. Baku, 1959, p.75).

    It should be kept in mind that Shaumyan – “internationalist” regarded Azerbaijan nation highly malevolently attaching to it such labels as “Tatar (azerbaijani) mob”, “tatar ignorant masses”, “robber gangs”, “tatar ruffians” etc. It’s enough to read fluently his selected works for making sure of the above-mentioned. (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, I v., p.119, 129, 185; II v., p. 216). All of this accounts for Shaumyan’s behaviour in March days of 1918.

    Considering March events in the light of contemporaneity we reveal the facts that used to escape our consciousness, weren’t paid due attention.

    Among them – appointment of Kobozev P.A. as Extraordinary Commissar of government in Middle East and Baku province. The fact is mentioned in events chronicle from volume 36 of V.I.Lenin’s Complete Works (p. 684). In March 17, 1918 Lenin had conversation with Kobozev, signed and delivered him mandate for taking measures on securing local authorities, handed him letter addressed to Baku comrades. The letter mentioned in Complete Works is supposed to be written by Stalin on Central Committee and Lenin’s instructions. It was of great importance and provided guide to action, directed and anticipated prospects of the developments in the region. In view of the letter’s importance we’re citing it in more details: “To Stepan, Alyosha and other friends. We are sending comrade Kobozev to you as extraordinary commissar of Middle Asia and Baku. He’s resolute, has rich experience in struggle with counter-revolution in Middle Asia, knows the particulars of war art, he’s railway engineer and old party worker. Appointing him also as commissar of Baku we were guided by the fact that Stepan, Caucasian affairs commissar functions basically in Tiflis, while Baku, this central point of the entire south is already besieged from everywhere, therefore it’s impossible for Stepan to be both in Middle East and Baku at once. We are fully sure that Kobozev (he is warned by us) will act in concordance with Stepan. One thing is indubitable; in military and financial terms Baku should be fortified, if Moslems demand autonomy, we should grant it, ensure unconditional recognition of central and local soviet authorities, immediately establish within Baku Deputies Council Moslem department, highly develop Moslem literature… Kobozev will report you details. Faithfully yours, Stalin”. (Azerbaijan Republic Political Parties and Public Movements State Archives, copies fund № 453).

    Thus all measures listed in the letter were aimed on fortifying soviet power in Baku and winning round large working strata of moslems. Confrontation with local inhabitants wasn’t necessary to Centre. Here in Baku, with its extremely motley population there was required delicate and cautious approach to many complicated problems and maximalism was absolutely irrelevant here. Appointment of Kobozev, experienced party member and military specialist was in our opinion careful attempt to restrict Shaumyan’s actions from making decisions on his own as Caucasian Extraordinary Commissar. Henceforth decisions were to be taken in concord. As further events showed Centre’s apprehensions were grounded.

    If he knew about concrete resolution of Centre concerning autonomy for Moslems he would have come to an agreement with “Musavat” party’s leaders and solve the problem by peaceful means. Especially as before March events “Musavat” members publicly advanced idea of autonomy within Russian Federation. Unfortunately we don’t know exactly whether this letter reached Shaumyan before the March events (Kobozev was at this time in Baku), and how he took part in them.

    Historians will have to study all of this thoroughly. One thing was undeniably obvious: Shaumyan went toward confrontation deliberately. It was necessary for realizing well-conceived plan. Frenzied atrocities over Azerbaijanis, cruelty and vandalism of dashnaks in March days in Baku give ground to suppose that it was Shaumyan’s “requital action” as stresses M.Rasul-zade in ‘Untorgettable tragedy’ article (“Azerbaijan” newspaper, March 31, 1919) on account of March developments’ first anniversary (quotation from “Historiography of March slaughter, 1918” book after A.Iskandarov, Baku, 1997, p. 103): action of cleaning Baku from Azerbaijanis because differently it’s impossible to account for mass slaughter of Azerbaijanis, absolutely innocent peaceful Azerbaijan population of Baku and other towns of the region in March days. The further course of developments confirms this.

    At this period in Baku because of blocking Baku-Tiflis railroad there gathered several thousands of armed Armenians returning from battle-fronts. Besides here were thousands well-armed fighters who represented Dashnaksutun party. Shaumyan was perfectly aware of ardent nationalistic and counter-revolutionary orientation of dashnaks’ policy. Right therefore he had to hinder from their staying in the city. But this failed to take place.

    By this time it was observed swift increase of “Musavat” party’s influence. Shaumyan admitted himself that “by the II year since revolution the party had become the most potent one in Transcaucasus” (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p.291). In these conditions he tried by any hooks to debar “Musavat” from political rival, discredit it.

    Azerbaijanis in Baku and its vicinities were completely defenceless before armed to the teeth armenian military units. At that time “Musavat” failed to dispose of any units. Y.Ratgauzer writes in his “Revolution and civil war in Baku” book: “Musavat” party didn’t have available regular military units by the time of beginning events in the city. The Musavat forces located in provinces weren’t brought up to Baku in proper time. We suppose that “Musavat” party’s leaders didn’t expect commencement of battle in March 30” (Ratgauzer Y. Revolution and civil war in Baku. 1927, Baku, p.145). Presence of numerous armed dashnaks who inundated the city incandesced situation exceedingly. The fact attracts its attention that during recordings at different plants all except Azerbaijanis have been enrolled into Red Army. Most detachments raised in that way almost completely consisted of Armenians. In many respects it was favoured by Avakyan, military commandant of Baku city who raised the detachments.

    Besides in March 29, 1918 due to Shaumyan’s order there began disarmament of “tatar regiment’s” (being part of “Wild division” raised during I World War) soldiers and officers who were on the board of Eveline ship that sailed toward Lankaran-its dislocation point.

    A small-numbered detachment of the division’s officers and soldiers headed by general Talyshinski was in Baku in view of H.Z.Tagiyev, eminent Azerbaijan oil industrialist-magnate’s tragically perished son’s funeral. Why Baku council obstacled the sole armed groups of moslems from peaceable leaving the city and failed to disarm armenian military units located in great amount in Baku that days? Haven’t all national units been liable to abolition and withdrawal from Baku in accordance with Baku Soviet’s resolution dated from March 15, 1918 on the base of Shaumyan’s report? It applied to all armed forces dislocated in the city. However Shaumyan neglected the directions given by his participance (SPIHDA,[1] fund 276, errata 3, addendum 272, sheets 5-6). This action caused discontent and protests of Baku’s moslem population. In March 30 in mosques, different parts of the city there began spontaneous movements, meetings of Azerbaijanis who demanded return of armament and withdrawal of national armenian units. These days “Achyg soz” (“Speech freedom”) newspaper-publication of “Musavat” party-addressed to local inhabitants appeal of resisting emotions, remaining calm.

    The provocative firing of a small-numbered Red Army detachment executors of which remained unknown was initial point of the terrible bloody action victims of which were peaceful azerbaijani inhabitants. Shaumyan wrote himself that they needed just a slightest cause for realizing their plan. “We took opportunity of the first attempt of armed attack to our cavalry and passed to offensive on a wide front. We already had 6000 amounted armed forces. “Dashnaksutun” also counted 3-4 thousands national units. The latter’s participance attached to the civil war national carnage feature but it was nevitasible. We did it consciously. If they (Musavatists) gained the upper hand in Baku the city would have been proclaimed as capital of Azerbaijan” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works, Moscow, 1978, v. II. p.246). Here as it’s said commentaries are needless.

    Under pretext of struggle with musavatists bolshevist-dashnak detachments practically started single-minded slaughter of peaceful Azerbaijan population. Their dwellings were bombarded from sky and sea. It was armenian units that took especially active part in atrocities over Azerbaijanis. Not the least was the fact that this time chief of Red Army’s headqu arters in Baku was Tsarism Army’s former colonel, member of dashnaks party Z.Avetisyan. For several days the outrages have lasted in the city. Stubborn fighting had been taking place in its most central part, Ichari Shahar (Inner City) area. A.I.Mikoyan commanded personally by offensive to this historical place. In March 30 one of commissars Tatevos Amiryan entered building of moslem charity “Ismailiya” with gang of armed dashnaks and set fire on it. Theatre of G.Z.Tagiyev being first one in the East was also burnt, Taza-Pir mosque seriously damaged. “Struggle with counter-revolution” turned into unprecedented carnage. S.M.Afandiyev stressed that “dashnaks slaughtered not only musavatists but also generally moslems…” (Nationalities life, 1919, July 6).

    Trying to involve into their sloven actions Caspian fleet dashnaks resorted to their pet method-provocations. Among sailors they began spreading rumours that Azerbaijanis allegedly kill Russians in the city. Therefore at the action’s beginning there thundered gun salvoes from Caspian fleet’s ship toward azerbaijani dwellings. But soon these rumours proved to be utter fiction and dashnaks’ provocation.

    Not only national armenian units but also those of Red Army took active part in violences over peaceful Azerbaijanis. In these terms the fact should be stressed that the latters consisted of armenians at 70%. According to G.Avetiysn, corresponding member of Armenian Republic Academy of Sciences, “for Baku Army battled 4 brigades of Caucasian Red Army consisting of 25 battalions and 18000 soldiers. About 70% of the latters were Armenians” (“Communist”, Yerevan, August 26, 1989, №199).

    Even after accepting Baku Council ultimatum by Azerbaijanis murders and robberies by Armenian units continued. Only after interfering of Japaridze who noted events march to go extremely far, and also order of 36-th Turkestan regiment about stopping moslems’ carnage and threat of gun firing at armenian dwellings the massacre was ceased.

    Much more atrocities inflicted during punitive raid to Shamakhi and Guba where over 50 villages had been set on fire and sacked.

    The great-numbered detachment expedited to Guba commanded by Dashnaksutun Amazasp consisted solely of Armenians being members of Dashnaksutun party. The detachment was raised under the personal control of G.Korganov, chairman of war-revolutionary committee of Caucasian army, Armenian by nationality.

    Beside of murders Amazasp’s punitive detachment marauded and robbed Azerbaijanis’ property.

    In result of the punitive action about 2000 peaceful azerbaijanis were killed in Guba. Speaking before local inhabitants Amazasp declared: “I’m hero of armenian nation and protector of his interests… I’m sent here not for establishing order and Soviet power but for taking vengeance for murdered Armenians, I had commandment of killing all moslems from Caspian coasts to Shahdag and razing your dwellings to the ground. History of Azerbaijan in documents and publications, Baku, 1990, p. 185;

    Before events in Guba armed forces of Baku council commanded by Amazasp Avetisov commited io the flames and completely burnt Shamakhy town (A.Balayev. Azerbaijan national movement in 1917-1918, Baku, “Elm” p.h., 1998, p. 175).

    Punitive operations were conducted in Lankaran, Khachmaz, Hajigabul, Salyan provinces. Direct participation of S.Shaumyan in bloody March events of 1918 and dashnaks’ atrocities in Baku and province were reported in “Azerbaijan” newspaper dated October 8, 1918. There was founded special provinces commission on investigating these crimes. Shaumyan cynically confessed that “in result of civil war suffered mass of poor and homeless moslems”. He stressed they “had to make use of armenian regiment. We even couldn’t permit ourselves luxury of neglecting its services. It was necessary to use the regiment’s services, and the victory is so much great that it slightly clouds reality” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p. 249, 250). Even “Nash golos” (“Our voice”) menshevist newspaper characterized the events as national massacre. The eyewitness of March events People’s Enlightenment Commissar of Baku People’s Commissars Council N.Kolesnikova wrote in her memoirs that “dashnak groups commenced in the town massacres, arsons of houses, robberies, murders of innocent peaceful citizens, mainly Azerbaijanis” (Ko­lesnikova N.N. About history of struggle for Soviet power in Baku, Moscow, 1960, p. 71). In letter addressed to Council of People’s Commissars, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic dated from April 13, 1918 Shaumyan trying to justify heinous crimes of Armenian units in Baku in March days and conceal from bolshevist authorities the real scales of Azerbaijanis slaughter made under his leadership falsified death roll, facts of threatenings by the side of moslems. Realizing that it’s impossible to conceal everything and aspiring to calm down Centre he wrote: “Moslem mass heavily suffered but now it’s consolidating around bolshevists and council”, that “oil is already at our disposal”. Here was also especially stressed role of armenian national units in defence of Soviet power (“Historical archives”, №2, 1957, p. 55-57).

    In Shaumyan and Japaridze addressed letter published in “Gummat” newspaper in April 3, 1918, Narimanov mentioning March events wrote: “This smirches Soviet power, casts slurs upon it. If the next few days you don’t tear the black veil and don’t remove the stain bolshevist idea and Soviet power will fail to consolidate here…”

    You know that power won by means of arms failing to be supported by people can’t stay long (N.Narimanov. Selected works in 3 vol., II v., Baku, “Azernashr” p.h., 1989, p. 122-123). These words turned out to be prophetic. After March events despite of Shaumyan’s allegations broad masses of azerbaijani people turned away from Soviet power. In “Baku organization of bolshevists in 1917-18” article published in 1923 A.J.Mikoyan had to admit: “March events also resulted in much more estrangement of moslem working” masses from Soviet power (“Bakinski rabochiy” (Baku worker), March 14, 1923, №57). March events had serious public repurcussions. S. Ter-Gabrielyan, notable bolshevist wrote in letter addressed to S. Shaumyan sent by him from Astrakhan in April 28, 1918 that the local community and newly arrived Russians who left on a mass scale Baku for Astrakhan regarded developments in “Baku not as struggle “ for Soviet power, but national carnage, and that “this carnage was organized by Armenians” (Sur. Shaumyan. The Baku Commune. Baku, 1927, p.94).

    Armenians’ outrages in Baku since March 30 till April 2, then continued in provinces were none other than massacre on national basis or more exactly – genocide over azerbaijani nation. Right therefore Soviet power in Baku held out not long and ignominiously quitted the stage in 1918.

    Today we can definitely say it was well-conceived and well-planned action prepared by Shaumyan and victims of which were Azerbaijan moslems. With armenian troops and Dashnaksutun party’s cut-throats Shaumyan vented his hatred toward musavatists by massacres in azerbaijani dwellings of Baku, Azerbaijan provinces. Just in Baku that days were murdered over 10000 peaceful inhabitants, in Shamakhy-7000, Guba-2000, Lankaran and Astara – more than 1000, Salyan and Hajigabul – almost 1000. In March – April, 1918 armenian – bolshevist detachments killed in Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Mugan, Lankaran districts more than 50000 Azerbaijanis (“Statement of Azerbaijan Republic National Council” article in “Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 2001).

    Using bolshevist power and slogans as a cover Shaumyan betrayed Soviet power discrediting it by his actions. But this wasn’t principal for him. His purpose was another-extermination of Azerbaijanis. All his efforts were aimed that March days on deporting Azerbaijanis from the lands for their further joining to “armenian autonomy” establishment of which was charged to Shaumyan due to decree of People’s Commissars Council dated December 29, 1917.

    The prominent german researcher Erikh Figle in his “Truth terror. Armenian terrorism – roots and reasons” (Baku, “Azernashr”, 2000) speaking of Shaumyan’s activity in 1918 stresses that Stepan Shaumyan was leader of armenian communists in Baku where he formed bolshevist government tyranny of which intended to expatriate or exterminate Azerbaijanis. His aim was “Baku’s armenianizing by any hooks or crooks” (p. 101, ibid).

    Unfortunately these heinous crimes commited in Baku and provinces in March, 1918 received in due course proper and objective appraisal neither by world society nor republic’s authorities. For sake of internationalism and consolidation of nations friendship these facts were painstakingly kept silent, concealed. Right this gave full scope to nationalist – separatistic forces. In 1988 as a result of the so-called Highland Garabagh problem a great number of Azerbaijanis were killed and expatriated from their primordial lands of Armenia because of their national belonging, in January of 1990 savage crimes were committed over people who expressed protest against the actions, in 1992 bloody Khojaly genocide took place. Adventurous actions of armenian aggressors and “Great Armenia” ideologists on ethnical mopping – up resulted in expatriating more than millions of our countrymen from their motherland and their superhuman sufferings. Just in XX c. as it’s stressed in “Appeal to Azerbaijan nation in view of March 31, day of Azerbaijanis Genocide” over 2 millions of Azerbaijanis became victims of loathsome genocide policy pursued by our enemies in one or another form” (“Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 1999).

    Current advancing of Armenia’s claims to Nakhchivan being primordial azerbaijani land, calls to abolishing Gars treaty concluded in October of 1921 between Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Turkey, claims to Georgian, Turkish landsall of this are after-effect of impunity reigning in world society respect to aggressive Armenian Republic.

    Today our major task is forming in present and future generations eternal memory of genocide committed over Azerbaijan nation in the last century, attain political and legal appraisal of these events from international community, avert its grave consequences and do the all best for this never recur.

    Our long silence and tolerance costed us dear. Right therefore republic government adopted resolution of declaring March 31 as day of Azerbaijanis Genocide.

    In these terms important are monumental works and documentary archives revealing dashnak terrorists, their heinous crimes on azerbaijani land during the last century. Committing genocide over Azerbaijanis they represent themselves as innocent victims having been subject to genocide. As early as July 15, 1918 due to decree of Azerbaijan Republic under the leadership of Foreign Affairs Ministry there was established extraordinary “Inquiry Committee” on investigating violences made by Armenians over moslems within the entire Transcaucasus since I World War. In the committee’s materials there was stressed that in March days basically suffered Azerbaijanis, their properties were plundered and dwellings burnt out. In State Archives of Republic there are kept materials of the committee which are impossible to be read without shudder, scales of vandalism displayed by Armenians that bloody days are incommensurate. The documents were drawn up on hot trails, March events described by eye-witnesses. Today when our state is member of many in ternational organizations, the committee’s materials must be published and become possessions of the world society. Let it know the real executors of genocide on our land, those who through XX c. claimed to our areas, who hold the region’s inhabitants in permanent tension can’t go on any longer. The Armenians’ claims must be repulsed finally and decisively.

    Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

    History Institute named after Bakikhanov A.A.

    Historical Facts of Armenia’s Actions in Azerbaijan Land

    Baku Елм2003


    [1]Arkhive- SPSASR.



    [1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

  • France Urges Progress On Karabakh, Turkish-Armenian Ties

    France Urges Progress On Karabakh, Turkish-Armenian Ties

    A03ED15E 850E 4ED9 BD81 3BD94ABB150B w527 sFrance — President Nicolas Sarkozy (L) bids farewell to his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian at Elysee Palace in Paris, 10Mar2010

    10.03.2010
    Ruzan Kyureghian in Paris

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged more intensive efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a quick implementation of the Turkish-Armenian normalization agreements during talks with his visiting Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sarkisian, on Wednesday.

    The two leaders met in Paris on the second day of Sarkisian’s official visit to France. None of them made any public statements after the meeting. Their joint news briefing scheduled beforehand was cancelled for unknown reasons.

    Official Armenian and French sources said the talks touched upon bilateral relations, the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.

    A spokesman for Sarkozy said the French leader called for “developing the dynamic” of the ongoing work on the “basic principles” of a Karabakh settlement put forward by the U.S., Russian and French mediators co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group.

    The mediators hope that Armenia and Azerbaijan will iron out their remaining differences over the proposed framework agreement in the course of this year. Armenian leaders have indicated, however, that a breakthrough in the peace talks is still not on the horizon.

    1F4F0B61 E69D 4271 BBCE EAD0724F217D w270 s

    France — Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian reviews the presidential guard at Elysee Palace in Paris, 10Mar2010

    Sarkozy, according to his spokesman, urged the conflicting parties to reinvigorate their search for a mutually acceptable deal. “One should take the necessary steps that will lead to a lasting peace and would be beneficial not only for the two countries but the whole region,” he was cited as telling Sarkisian.

    Sarkozy was also reported to say that Armenia and Turkey should have “the courage to move forward and use this historic opportunity” to normalize their relations. The spokesman said he specifically stressed that a speedy ratification of their fence-mending “protocols” is expected not only by France but the broader international community.

    Sarkisian’s office gave no details of the two presidents’ discussions on Karabakh and Turkey, in a written statement issued later in the day. It said only that Sarkozy praised the Armenian leader’s “efforts aimed at establishing peace and stability in the region.”

    “Nicolas Sarkozy reaffirmed his country’s intention to develop relations with the Republic of Armenia in all directions and stressed that France has been and remains Armenia’s friend, always standing by its side,” read the statement. He also spoke of a “sincere sympathy towards Armenia and the Armenian people” existing France, it said.

    Sarkisian, for his part, described France as his country’s “reliable partner and ally on the international stage. “President Sarkisian noted with satisfaction that French-Armenian relations are dynamically developing in all areas,” his office said.

    The Elysee Palace spokesman said the two men discussed ways of boosting bilateral economic ties and welcomed in that regard the French telecom giant Orange’s recent entry into Armenia. He said France is not satisfied with the current volume of French-Armenian commercial contacts and hopes that they will increase in the near future.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1980071.html
  • Britain has ‘no financial interest’ in Armenia

    Britain has ‘no financial interest’ in Armenia

    UJGreat Britain will not recognize the ‘Armenian genocide’ in the near future.

    Turkey is an important economic, political and strategic partner for Great Britain and as long as this continues, the issue of the Armenian genocide will not be on the agenda of the British parliament or government, the former British ambassador to Armenia, David Miller, said on 9 March, according to Aykakan zhamanak newspaper.

    Miller was speaking at the screening of a film about the Armenian genocide at the London School of Economics.

    ‘Armenia is not Azerbaijan with which Britain has financial interests. Armenia is not Georgia which is of great strategic importance. Armenia is interesting for Britain only in terms of the prevention of war in the region,’ Miller said.

    News-Armenia

  • TWO NEW STUDIES PUBLISHED ON THE TURKISH ARMENIAN CONFLICT

    TWO NEW STUDIES PUBLISHED ON THE TURKISH ARMENIAN CONFLICT

    Study One:

    The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy, 1915
    Edward J. Erickson
    War in History 2008 15 (2) 141–167 (27 pages)
    10.1177/0968344507087001 © 2008 SAGE Publications

    First page, first paragraph:

    “ Mainstream western scholarship maintains that the Armenian insurrection of
    1915 was never an actual threat to the security of the Ottoman state in the First World War and that the relocation of the Armenians of eastern Anatolia was unnecessary. In truth, no study of the Armenian insurrection and its effect on Ottoman military policy has ever been conducted. This article examines the Ottoman army’s lines of communications architecture and logistics posture in eastern Anatolia in 1915. Armenian threats to the logistics and security of the
    Ottoman armies in Caucasia and Palestine are overlaid on this system. Evolving and escalatory Ottoman military policies are then explained in terms of threat assessments and contemporary counter-insurgency strategy. The article seeks to inform the reader why the Ottomans reacted so vigorously and violently to the events of the spring of 1915 “

    Last page, last paragraph:

    “ Nothing can justify the massacres of the Armenians nor can a case be made that the entire Armenian population of the six Anatolian provinces was an active and hostile threat to Ottoman national security. However, a case can be made that the Ottomans judged the Armenians to be a great threat to the 3rd and 4th Armies and that genuine intelligence and security concerns drove that decision. It may also be stated that the Ottoman reaction was escalatory and responsive rather than premeditated and pre-planned. In this context the
    Ottoman relocation decision becomes more understandable as a military solution to a military problem. While political and ideological imperatives perhaps drove the decision equally, if not harder, these do not negate the fact that the Armenians were a great military danger.”

    ***

    Study Two:

    Captain Larkin and the Turks: The Strategic Impact of the Operations of HMS Doris in Early 1915
    Edward J. Erickson
    Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1, 151–162, January 2010

    Page 1, first paragraph:

    “ As the Ottoman Empire entered the First World War in November 1914 there were a
    number of troubling events involving Armenians that served to convince the Turks
    of impending Armenian insurgency. It is well known that in the Caucasus, numbers
    of Armenian men fled to join the Czar’s armies against the Ottoman Empire and
    guerrilla warfare between Armenian bands and the Turks broke out on the frontier
    near the Black Sea. It is less well known that the Ottomans were also extremely
    concerned about Armenian activities in the area of Alexandretta (the modern
    Turkish port of Iskenderun) particularly around Dörtyol, a tiny railway stop and
    village close by the Mediterranean Sea. This concern was mainly the result of the
    operations of the HMS Doris in December 1914 and January 1915. This article uses
    British, German, and Turkish archival sources to focus on the ship’s operations in
    the vicinity of Dörtyol and on the strategic affect these had on Ottoman perceptions
    of threats to the empire and on actual Ottoman responses. The Doris figures
    prominently in two critical strategic outcomes – the relocation of the Armenians in
    1915 and in the activation of three Ottoman army divisions for coastal defence and
    internal security.”

    Last page, last paragraph:

    “ Arguably, in the end, Larkin’s missions were a failure as the Ottoman lines of
    communication were never seriously disrupted nor did the prospective British
    amphibious invasion at Alexandretta ever take place. Nevertheless, Captain Frank
    Larkin’s voyages in command of HMS Doris in the winter of 1914–15 had an effect
    out of all proportion to their duration and scale. Larkin’s activities were so actively
    consistent and aggressive that the Ottomans came to believe that a British
    amphibious invasion was being coordinated with and supported by an imminent
    Armenian insurrection in the vicinity of Do¨ rtyol. Unintentionally, Larkin played a
    key role in driving the Turks to some very poor decisions. It is problematic to
    imagine that had Larkin actually been tasked to conduct deception operations or
    diversionary activities that his raiding would have been nearly as convincing as what
    he actually accomplished. In any case, there is no question that Larkin and HMS
    Doris helped convince the Turks to make strategic decisions that diverted substantial
    valuable and scarce resources away from the war effort.”

  • TURNING POINT IN TURKISH AMERICAN PUBLIC ADVOCACY

    TURNING POINT IN TURKISH AMERICAN PUBLIC ADVOCACY

    ATAA’s Statement on H.Res. 252

    Dear Turkish Americans and Friends of Türkiye:

    House Resolution 252 passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) by a vote of 23-22 after HFAC Chairman Howard Berman extended the voting period thrice and forced reluctant legislators to show up and vote in favor of the resolution.

    The passage of H.Res. 252 represented ethnic politics at its worst, and made a mockery of the U.S. legislative, judicial and foreign policy processes. Indeed, United States foreign policy regarding Turkey, Armenia and the broader region was hijacked by ultra-nationalist Armenian politics in a few Congressional districts.

    The recalling of Turkish Ambassador Namık Tan was an expression of Turkey’s disappointment in what now appears to be a contradiction in the United States’ position on Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. It was also an expression in defense of the dignity of the Turkish people to whom the U.S. now appears to have denied fair and just treatment by this prejudicial resolution plagued with blatantly libelous falsifications.

    At this stage it is difficult to expect the Turkish people to support the ratification of the Turkey – Armenia protocols, as the people’s interest now turns to whether U.S. President Obama will attempt to rehabilitate U.S. credibility in Turkey and among Turkish Americans, or permit further deterioration in a Proclamation on April 24. Furthermore, an alleged agreement between the White House and HFAC not to bring H.Res. 252 to a floor vote appears empty, if not also deceptive, as confidence in the ability of the Resolution to actually pass Congress is meager.

    House Resolution 252 signals a turning point in Turkish American public advocacy. The 23-22 vote reflects the growing efficacy of the Turkish American public advocacy network, including its infrastructure, technical abilities, critical mass, cooperation, solidarity, and resolve. In 2007, H.Res. 106 passed the HFAC 27-21, after the late Congressman Tom Lantos voted in favor of the motion, and was followed by three standby members. In 2005, H.Res. 316 and 195 passed overwhelmingly 42-7 and 35-11, respectively. This is just the beginning, as an awakening Turkish American community and a resurging Turkish Republic take command of their destiny for “Peace at Home, Peace in the World.”

    I thank the Turkish American community, particularly YOU – the individual Turkish American and friend of Türkiye — for your tremendous efforts. In solidarity within diversity, over 5000 letters were submitted through the ATAA-FTAA-TCA campaign. ATAA visited most of the HFAC members at least once at the local level and three times on Capitol Hill. On March 3, 2010, the ATAA and FTAA joined in solidarity on Capitol Hill, as we visited each HFAC member one final time.

    I also thank the Azerbaijani, Crimean, Turkmen, Turcoman, Uzbek, Kazakh, Kirghiz, and Uighur American communities for their support. The Azerbaijan Society of America in New York – PaxTurcica in Los Angeles – USAN in Washington, DC supported the ATAA-FTAA-TCA letter campaign and Congressional visits. In addition, the Azerbaijanian American Cultural Alliance traveled from Texas to show its support at the March 4 HFAC Hearing.

    I thank the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) for their invaluable support and guidance.

    Finally, I thank the ATAA Executive Committee, Board of Directors and Board of Trustees, and ATAA’s dedicated staff for their excellence in representing the Turkish American community in opposition to H.Res. 252 and in support of U.S.-Turkish relations. They have done this in parallel with four major ATAA projects, including Census 2010, SayTurk, Turkish American Broad Advocacy Network (TABAN) grassroots program, Turkish Student Outreach, and www.MediaWatchNow.com.

    Our task is not finished, though. In fact, it might be said that it is just starting now. First, we should build on this momentum to maintain our contact with our representatives to educate them on matters concerning Turkey USA relations, so that such “ill-informed” resolutions will not be supported in Congress. We should establish lasting bonds of friendship for future. Next, we should revive, reinvigorate, and grow our component organizations to reach out and touch every Turkish American in 50 states, to deter future misguided attacks on our heritage.

    Together we can do it and ATAA is here for you.

    Gunay Evinch
    President
    Assembly of Turkish American Associations

    ***

    Sevgili Türk Amerikalı’lar ve Türkiye’nin dostları:

    Sözde Ermeni soykırımı ilgili yasa tasarısı (H.Res. 252) Meclis Dı İlikiler Komitesi (HFAC) den 22 hayır ve 23 evet oyu alarak geçti. HFAC Bakanı Howard Berman oylama süresini 3 kez uzatıp oy vermekte isteksiz gözüken üyeleri zorlayarak tasarı lehine oy vermelerini sağladı.

    Etnik siyasetin en kötü ekilde temsil edildiği H.Res. 252 oylaması, Amerikan, yasama, yargı ve dı ilikiler süreçlerini maskaralık haline getirmitir. Nitekim, Amerika Birleik Devletleri’nin, Türkiye, Ermenistan ve bölge ülkelerle olan dı politikası aırı milliyetçi Ermenilerin Kongre seçim bölgelerindeki politikaları yüzünden gasp edilmitir.

    Bir hayal kırıklığı ifadesi olarak, Türk Büyükelçisi Namık Tan’ın geri çağrılması, Türk-Ermeni yakınlamasını destekleyen ABD için bir çeliki gibi görünüyor. Bu aynı zamanda, Türk insanının onurunu savunmanın da bir göstergesi olarak da algılanabilir. Bu sakıncalı karar tasarısı ile A.B.D adil tavrından uzaklamı duruyor.

    Bu aamada, Türk halkından Türkiye ve Ermenistan arasındaki protokolleri deskteklemesini beklemek oldukça zor görünmektedir. imdi merakla beklenen, Bakan Obama’nın, Amerika’nın Türkiye ve Türk Amerikalılar için güvenirliliği yeniden sağlamak için çaba gösterip göstermemesi ya da 24 Nisan resmi açıklamasını yaparak ilikileri daha da zor bir hale getirip getirmemesidir. Ayrıca, H.Res. 252 tasarısının oylamaya getirilmemesi konusunda Beyaz Saray ve HFAC arasında bir karar sağlanamamakla birlikte bu tasarının Kongre’ den geçip geçmemesi u an için belirsiz gözükmektedir.

    H.Res. 252, Türk-Amerikan ortak savunmasında dönüm noktasının sinyallerini vermektedir. 23-22’lik oy sonucu, altyapı, teknik becerileri, kritik kütle, ibirliği ve dayanıma da dahil olmak üzere Türk-Amerikan ortak savunma ağının artan etkinliğini yansıtmaktadır. 2007 yılında, H. Res. 106, Kongre üyesi Tom Lantosun lehte geç oyuyla HFAC de 27-21 oyla geçmiti. 2005 yılında H. Res. 316 ve 195 sırasıyla 42-7 ve 35-11 lik ezici bir çoğunlukla geçti. Bu sadece bir balangıç, aynı zamanda Türk Amerikan toplumu için büyük bir uyanı ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Yurt ta ve Dünya da Barı” için komutayı ele almasıdır.

    Türk Amerikan toplumuna, özellikle de “Siz” değerli Türk Amerikalılara ve Türkiye’nin dostlarına göstermi olduğunuz muazzam gayretten dolayı teekkür ediyorum. Farklılıklar içinde dayanıma ilkesinden yola çıkarak, ATAA-FTAA-TCA olarak yürüttüğümüz mektup kampanyası kapsamında 5000’in üzerinde mektup Kongre’ye gönderildi. ATAA, ABD Temsilciler Meclisi Dı İlikiler Komisyonu’ndaki üyelerin ofisleri yerel düzeyde en az bir kere ve Capital Hill’de birkaç kez ziyaret edildi. 3 Mart 2010’da ATAA ve FTAA birlik olup tüm Komisyon üyelerinin ofislerini ziyaret ettik.

    Azeri, Kırımlı, Türkmen, Özbek, Kazak, Kırgız ve Uygur toplumlarına bizden desteklerini esirgemedikleri için teekkürlerimi iletiyorum. New York’taki Azerbaycan-Amerikan Toplumu, Los Angeles’daki Pax Turcica, Washington DC’deki Amerikan-Azeri Network ATAA-FTAA-TCA mektup kampanyasında ve Kongre ziyaretlerinde bize hep destek oldular. Bunun yanı sıra, Azerbaycan Amerikan Kültür Birliği 4 Mart’ta Dı İlikiler Komisyonu’ndaki oturumda Teksas’tan gelerek bizi yalnız bırakmadılar.

    Ayrıca, Amerika Türk Koalisyonu’na çok kıymetli destek ve katkılarından ötürü ükranlarımı sunuyorum.

    Son olarak, ATAA İcra Kuruluna, Yönetim Kuruluna ve Mütevelli Heyetine ve kendini iine adamı olan profesyonel ekibine, Türk Amerikan toplumunu 252 yasa tasarısına karı en iyi ekilde temsil ettikleri için ve Türk Amerikan ilikilerine yaptıkları katkılardan dolayı teekkür ediyorum. Ayrıca bir diğer önemli nokta, ATAA ekibinin bütün bu çalımaları dört büyük ATAA projesi ile birlikte yürütmü olmasıdır. Bunlar sırasıyla, Nüfus Sayımı için balattığımız Saytürk kampanyası, TABAN projesi, Türk Öğrenci Eriim programı ve medyada Türkiye hakkında çıkan yazıları takip ettiğimiz www.MediaWatchNow.com’ dur.

    Daha görevimiz bitmedi. Hala iin baında sayılırız. Bu gibi temelsiz tasarıların Kongre’de destek bulmasını önlemek için, öncelikle yapmamız gereken; mecliste temsilcilerimizle ilikilerimizi sürdürmek ve onları Türk Amerikan ilikilerini ilgilendiren meseleler üzerinde eğitmek olmalıdır. Gelecek için sağlam temelli ilikiler kurmamız gerekir. Bundan sonra, mirasımıza yapılan asılsız saldırıları engellemek; canlanma, yenilenme ve yerel derneklerimize ve 50 farklı eyalette yaayan her Türk Amerikalıya ulamakla mümkün olacaktır.

    Beraber baarabiliriz ve ATAA her konuda sizin yanınızda.

    Gunay Evinch
    Bakan
    Türk Amerikan Dernekleri Kurulu

    ***

    Assembly of Turkish American Associations
    1526 18th St., NW Washington, DC 20036
    Ph: 202.483.9090 Fx: 202.483.9092
    www.ataa.org, assembly@ataa.org

  • GENOCIDE CHARGES DO NOT MAKE SENSE

    GENOCIDE CHARGES DO NOT MAKE SENSE

    To: Los Angeles Times, Editorial Board

    Re: “ Making sense of genocide “
    , Los Angeles Times, 8 March 2010; a rebuttal.

    GENOCIDE CHARGES DO NOT MAKE SENSE

    I will not get into the argument of whether it is good or bad for American interests today to pass judgment on others’ history of 100 years ago and a half world away when we have not faced our own history about slavery, extermination (genocide?) of native Americans, extermination (genocide?) of civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or Dresden, racist treatment of Asians, Latinos, and many other groups, and more.

    After all, if the 23 U.S. Congressmen and women in the House Foreign Affairs Committee did not care about the US interests when they irresponsibly voted yes to pass a bogus genocide resolution on March 4, 2010, despite last minute discouragements and warnings from Secretary Clinton, why should I, a humble individual American citizen?

    “ Turkey needs to come to grips with its bloody past so it can move forward in its relations with Armenia and the U.S.” pontificates the high and mighty editorial board of Los Angeles times but makes no attempt to produce or mention any court verdict to support its judgment of genocide. It does not, because it cannot. It cannot because there is not any.

    All this genocide talk, therefore, is little more than a racist and dishonest version of history rammed down the throats of unsuspecting public, perhaps with the best of intentions, but then again, perhaps not. It is like a crusade of sorts by some holier-than-thou opinion thugs, some big media bullies, and their fellow Turk-haters in media, academia, and politics. They may rule the waves in shaping public opinion but are powerless to change the truth about the past.

    The plain truth is the Ottoman-Armenians took up arms against their own government and staged not just one, but many bloody revolts between 1877 and 1915. The last one, The Van Revolt on April 1915, broke the camel’s back. That was the 9/11 for the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian thugs, paramilitaries, and other irregulars, armed to the teeth, first killed up to 40,000 Muslims in Van then turned over the city to the invading Russian armies. How big is that?

    Consider this: The United States went to war across the oceans, in a place halfway across the world called Afghanistan, against a group of nameless, faceless terrorists for much, much less than that… in the 21st Century. Why is it wrong for the Ottoman Empire to do the same to its own terrorists with well known names and faces… in the 20th Century?

    Besides, the latter did not bomb to smithereens all cities in the regions involved (Van, Mush, Bitlis, and others) killing many civilians and chalked it off casually to “collateral damage” like the U.S. did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the Ottoman Empire moved the treasonous elements to deny them their logistic support in their community, which unfortunately, openly and widely supported such violence against their own neighbors, government, and state, at a time of war of survival and brutal foreign invasions, no less.

    This wartime measure, taken as a homeland security action in the face of a series of horrific rebellions by Armenians, was TERESET— short for temporary resettlement of 1915—which is now deliberately misrepresented as genocide by Armenian falsifiers and their fellow Turk haters. Genocide is a political claim, unproven by any competent tribunal, unsubstantiated by untainted historical evidence, and unjustified by moral values .

    Some 70 American historians and researchers, world renown experts like Bernard Lewis of Princeton, Stanford Shaw of UCLA, Mango of London, and many others among them, signed a public statement published in the New York Times and Washington Post on May 19, 1985, trying to knock some sense into the myopic and selfish politicians promoting a bogus genocide then, reminding that politicians make history and historians write it. For this process to work, they said, archives must be opened, unmolested research allowed, peer review and debate encouraged, and a civilized atmosphere to explore the controversy established. Current research, they argued, pointed to the fact that it was a “…inter communal warfare fought by Christian and Muslim irregulars…” , not genocide. “We do not wish to minimize the Armenian suffering,” they added, “but we are also cognizant that it cannot be viewed as separate from the Muslims suffering” in the same era and area and due to same wartime conditions.

    Editorials boards, first starting at the Boston Globe in 2003, then spreading into the New York Times and finally to the Los Angeles Times, under intense Armenian pressure and intimidation, and armed with no court verdict and in total disregard for the “six T’s of the Turkish Armenian conflict”, rule that the controversy shall be labeled genocide. Thus, Armenian propaganda, agitation, terror, raids, feuds, attacks, revolts, treason, territorial demands, and Turkish deaths at the hands of Armenia insurgents, and more, in pretty much in that order from 1877 to 1915 and beyond, all swept under the rug to sanitize their genocide claim so that it would stick. I call this ethocide, extermination of ethics via malicious mass deception by individuals or groups for political, economical, social, and other gain.

    Ethocidal coverage of the Turkish Armenian conflict have reached gargantuan dimensions as Armenian propaganda obliterated critical thinking, replaced scholarship with friendship, and facts with myths. Even the records of the U.S. Congress are not immune to the falsification attempts of the Armenians lobby: General Hubbard report of 1920 mentions refined Armenian brutalities victimizing Muslims, not race extermination of Armenians as touted. Furthermore, House Resolution 192 dated 22 April 1922 certifies and celebrates that the there are 1,414,000 Armenian alive as of 31 December 1921, making a genocide technically impossible and refuting such claims until eternity. Do you think honest truth seekers should be given a chance to learn the other side of the story based on rock solid evidence such as these? The truth is not in millions of propaganda documents but in those “tidbits” of information hidden in a few documents that the genocide promoters overlook.

    That said, can the Los Angeles Times editorial board answer one simple question, as a service to its unsuspecting readers of nothing else, since the former knows everything there is to know about the “alleged” genocide”:

    How many Muslims, mostly Turks, were killed by the Armenians during WWI and how many of those even before 24 April 1915?

    I wish I could see the faces in the editorial board now—deer in headlights— frantically calling each other for the answer. The know-it-all, high-and-mighty opinion-makers are blindsided by this simplest of the question which readily exposes how little the editors really know (or care) about the other side of the story … which they continue to censor as you read these lines.

    Sincerely,

    ***

    To read more:

    1) Ethocide (malicious mass deception for political gain): www.ethocide.com

    2) Armenian falsifications: www.tallarmeniantale.com

    3) Armenian distortions: www.ataa.org

    4) Armenian propaganda exposed: www.historyoftruth.com

    5) Armenian treason and terrorism: www.turkla.com

    6) Armenian revolts and demands: www.armenians-1915.blogspot.com

    7) Middle East Policy, Book Reviews, Volume XVII, Spring 2010, Number 1, “ Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur: Osmanlı Belgelerine Göre Savaş Yıllarında Ermenilere Yönelik Politikalar “ [The Armenian Question Resolved: Policies Toward the Armenians in the War Years according to Ottoman Documents], Reviewed by Erman Şahin (The Armenian lobby’s poster boy of sorts and paid Armenian-agent Taner Akcam’s shoddy propaganda work is scholarly dissected)

    ***
    The following data sources was compiled by Sukru Server Aya:

    8) Armenian lies, Parts 1 & 2:

    9) Armenian lies, Part 3:

    10) General Harbord Report :
    https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/04/2813-conditions-in-near-east-report-of.html

    11) “Genocide Of Truth”, by Sukru Server Aya, ISBN 9789 756516249, , a new free e-book based on neutral or anti-Turkish sources:

    12) “WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE” Boston 1918, book by G. Pastermadjian, formerly a terrorist involved in the raiding of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul in 1896; returned to Turkey in 1908 after declaration of the second Constitution; got elected as Congressman from Erzurum; then revolted and became one of the top Revolution leaders; escaped to USA after Armenia was Sovietized; wrote this book as a proud record of braveries (and confessing to Armenian war crimes and hate crimes in the process); later became the USA ambassador for the Armenian Republic which was founded as a protectorate of The Ottoman Empire in early 1919. Many excerpts and original photos of Armenian crimes much censored in the West:
    Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/11/2187-book-excerpts-pastermadjians-why.html

    13) “THE ARMENIAN QUESTION Before the Peace Conference”, report submitted by the Armenian delegation on Feb. 26th, 1919. (Confession of Armenian war crimes, clarification and admission of Armenian hate crimes and acts of treason involved in Armenian revolts and territorial demands engulfing more than half of Anatolia, to be freed from non-Christian elements (!):
    Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/06/2512-free-e-book-armenian-question.html

    14) “ARMENIA and the Settlement” Booklet , for the minutes of a conference held in London on June 19, 1919 by prominent pro-Armenian Dignitaries, confessing to anti-Turkism and support of British politicians: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/02/2750-armenia-and-settlement.html

    15) “NEAR EAST RELIEF REPORT” Joint resolution of the U.S. Senate & Congress, accepted unanimously on April 22, 1922. The contents of this official document belies the arguments and reasons enlisted in U.S. House Resolution 252 : Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/02/2335-free-e-book-near-east-relief.html

    16) Adjustment of Payments due to United States by Turkey, Sept. 1937. Document of the settlement of all claims between the United states and the Ottoman Empire which makes further indemnity claims by American citizens today impossible, a fact not know, ignored, or dismissed by eternally daydreaming Armenian extremists :
    Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/11/2644-free-consolation-versus-frail.html

    17) Order of the Court Case, European Court of Justice Dec. 17.2003, court unanimously rejected an application demanding payment “of indemnities and refusal of Turkey’s acceptance into E.U. unless she accepts the ‘genocide allegation’, based on a decision of the European Parliament back in 1987”. Court resolved that 1987 resolution is a political declaration that can change in time, cannot therefore, have binding legal consequences for other institutions. For details see:
    Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/04/1594-grgoire-krikorian-and-others-v.html