Category: Azerbaijan

The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy

CAUCASUS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 29, 2009
Azerbaijan wants to know what happens

[ 28 Apr 2009 21:58 ] Brussels. Victoria Dementyeva – APA. On Tuesday, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev held joint press conference with President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso and answered the questions of journalists.

Head of the President’s Press Service Azer Gasimov informed about it. The Head of State also answered the questions regarding the discussions he had conducted with José Manuel Barroso about Turkey-Armenia rapprochement: “I have discussed a number of issues, including regional development and cooperation issues with the President of the European Commission. Of, course while talking about the regional cooperation, we could not leave aside of the latest developments in the region you have mentioned about. We have expressed our position on this issue many times. The position is that we never intervene in the affairs of other states and the relations between the two sovereign countries. This is the decision what Turkey and Armenia can make. It’s their choice how to continue their relations. But while touching on some comments about the historical roots of this issue, I want to remind that the border between Turkey and Armenia was closed in 1993 as a result of occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories by Armenia. This occupation is still continuing today. Today, Armenia still continues keeping the internationally-recognized territories of Azerbaijan under its occupation.

I reiterate that we do not have such a position to create obstacle for further development of relations between these two countries or prevent it. I want to mention that we also have a right to form our policy according to the new realities in the region and we will use this right. We receive different information from different sources. According to him, one source says that “Road Map” was accepted in certain circumstances, but another source says no circumstances have been determined yet. This is a kind of word game. I think the world, region and Azerbaijani People have a right to know what happens. Is Nagorno Karabakh problem left aside of Turkey-Armenia rapprochement? This is a very simple question and we need a very simple answer”.

April 28, 2009
Et Tu Obama?

Letter from a Former Admirer

[[email protected]]

Mr. President, how could you!

Your candidacy was a breath of fresh air. You stood for change. You made wonderful promises and the Armenian-American community put its trust in you.

We are now terribly disappointed because you acted not much differently than your predecessors on the Armenian Genocide issue. Your April 24 statement fell far short of your solemn pledge to recognize the Genocide.

As a Senator and presidential candidate, you left no doubt about your intentions on this issue. You spoke about it eloquently and passionately.

Yet, when the time came to issue your April 24 statement, we were surprised to find out that “genocide” had been replaced by “Meds Yeghern,” a clever ploy, no doubt suggested by one of your ingenious aides.

You may want to know that “Meds Yeghern” does not mean genocide; it means “Great Calamity.” Armenians used that term before the word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1940’s. “Genocide” in Armenian is “Tseghasbanoutyoun,” which is a much more precise term than “Meds Yeghern,” in case you decide to use it in the future.

Not only did your aides come up with the wrong Armenian word, but they failed to provide its English translation, so that non-Armenians could understand its meaning. What was, after all, the point of using an Armenian word in an English text? Did your staff run out of English euphemisms for genocide?

Just in case your resourceful advisors think that they were the first to devise the clever ploy of replacing “genocide” with “Meds Yeghern,” let me inform you that several previous leaders have employed that same trick. Pope John Paul II used that term in 2001 during his visit to Armenia. The BBC observed that the Pontiff had said “Meds Yeghern” in order not to offend Turkey. Your immediate predecessor, Pres. George W. Bush, used the English translation of that same tricky word in his April 24, 2005 statement — “This terrible event is what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘Great Calamity.’”

Mr. President, last year when you were seeking votes and financial support from Armenian-Americans, you did not promise them to recognize the “Meds Yeghern!” You actually told them: “As President, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Moreover, you did not state that your acknowledgment of the Genocide is contingent upon Armenian-Turkish negotiations, opening Armenia’s border, war in Iraq or anything else. You made a flat out promise, with no ifs or buts.

There are also two sets of serious contradictions in the words you used before and after your election to the presidency. In your April 24, 2009 statement, you said: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.” Yet, on January 19, 2008, as a presidential candidate, you had said: “The Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view.” Furthermore, on April 24, 2009 you stated: “My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts.” Yet, as a candidate, you stated that the Armenian Genocide is “a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable.”

Mr. President, twice in one month, both in Ankara and Washington, you made a reference to your past statements on the genocide, in order to avoid using that word as president. This is an old trick that was also utilized by Pres. George H. W. Bush (Senior). In his presidential message of April 20, 1990, Bush stated: “My comments of June 1988 represent the depth of my feeling for the Armenian people and the sufferings they have endured.” In order to avoid saying genocide, Pres. Bush, like you, made an indirect reference to that word, by mentioning his earlier remarks as Vice President and presidential candidate: “The United States must acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian People in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, based on the testimony of survivors, scholars, and indeed our own representatives at the time, if we are to ensure that such horrors are not repeated.”

Dear Mr. President, there was no need for your staff to waste their valuable time trying to come up with such ploys and verbal gymnastics. If you did not want to say genocide, you did not have to say anything at all. The Armenian Genocide has already been acknowledged by another U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, who signed a Presidential Proclamation on April 22, 1981, in which he referred to “the genocide of the Armenians.”

Armenians actually gain nothing by having one more U.S. president reiterate what has been said before. As you know, presidential statements, just as congressional resolutions, have no legal consequence. Pres. Reagan’s proclamation and the adoption of two House resolutions on the Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984 have brought nothing tangible to Armenians in terms of seeking reparations for their immense losses in lives and property.

By not keeping your word on April 24, however, you have only succeeded in undermining your own credibility in front of the American people and world public opinion. Already, the Obameter website (politifact.com) has labeled your April 24 statement as “a broken promise.” This week, as you complete the first 100 days in office, major TV networks and the press are widely reporting your broken promise on the Armenian Genocide, thus undermining the trust of the American public in your other promises.

Finally, Mr. President, it was improper for you to exploit Turkey’s “make- believe” negotiations with Armenia by using it as a pretext for avoiding the “genocide” word in your April 24 statement. Given your high position, you must know that the Turkish government’s intent all along has been to create the false impression that its discussions with Armenia are proceeding smoothly, making everyone believe that the border would be opened shortly. Turkish leaders have been dangling that carrot in front of Armenia for many years. The fact is that, once you were elected president, Turkish officials took seriously your campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide and were told by your close aides that unless Ankara made a friendly gesture towards Armenia, you could well carry out your promise to the Armenian-American community.

While Turkish officials, with their fake diplomatic initiatives, managed to deceive the rest of the world, including Armenia’s relatively inexperienced leaders, you, Mr. President, knew better. You went along with Turkey’s false gestures knowingly, thus bartering away your principled stand on the Armenian Genocide in order to secure Turkish participation in the Afghan war, and carry out its U.S. assigned role with respect to Iraq, Iran, and Israel.

You must have also known that Turkey would not open its border with Armenia in the foreseeable future, unless the Karabagh conflict was resolved to Azerbaijan’s satisfaction. Using various carrots and sticks, with the connivance of Russia, which pursues its own economic and political interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, U.S. officials succeeded in pressuring Armenia into agreeing to issue a joint declaration with Turkey and Switzerland as mediator on the eve of April 24. This declaration was a convenient cover for you to duck the genocide issue in order to appease Turkey.

Mr. President, by compelling Armenia to sign such a declaration, you have managed to pit the Armenian Diaspora, as well as the people in Armenia against the government in Yerevan. As a direct result of that action, the ARF, one of Armenia’s influential political parties, quit the ruling coalition this week. The ARF did not wish to associate itself with a government, still reeling from last year’s contentious presidential elections, which is negotiating an agreement with Turkey that could compromise the country’s national interests and historic rights. The ARF also vehemently opposes Armenia’s announced intention to participate in a bilateral historical commission that Turkey would use to question the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. President, in the coming days, as your administration invites Armenia’s leaders to Washington in order to squeeze more concessions from them, please realize that they can only be pressured so much before they lose their authority. As was the case with Armenia’s first president, crossing the red lines on the Genocide and Karabagh issues could well jeopardize the tenuous hold on power of the remaining ruling coalition, regardless of how many promises are made and carrots extended to them by Washington.

April 28, 2009
Turkey – Only in a Tank!
That was the retort from a leader of one of Armenia’s coalition parties, when in 2004 he was asked whether Armenia should resolve its differences with its western neighbor; the person who promised to release details of his 2004 Parliamentary Commission studies of grants, credits and humanitarian assistance, former Deputy Speaker of the Armenian National Assembly, Vahan Hovhanissian.

In 2004, Vahan Hovhanissian’s Parliamentary Commission found corruption worth $200 million dollars, at a time when the total Armenian state budget had just increased from $400 million to 600 million dollars. But he reneged on his promise to release the details to the Armenian people, so his rating plummeted and the party’s reputation suffered another setback. The Dashnak Party had long been hanging on to Kocharian’s apron strings, so Hovhanissian was put up as Republican Party fodder in the 2008 Presidential election to allow the apron to be passed on to the Dashnaks arch enemy Serzh Sargsyan.

Vahan has since parked his tank, and together with his fellow party leaders, for the past few months he has been sneaking toward the Turkish border, ‘Cap-in-Hand’, eagerly awaiting his pickings from the compensation package Sargsyan and Nalbandian have negotiated for their ‘No Pre-conditions’ capitulation with Turkey.

That was until the 27th April, when Dashnak Party leaders eventually decided they could no longer stay in Armenia’s Government coalition, ostensibly betrayed by their leader, Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan.

Vahan Hovhanissian, Armen Rostumian, Kiro Manukian, Hrai Karapetian, and other Dashnak Party leaders have long known of the deal their President and his MFA Nalbandian have been clandestinely negotiating for Turkey to open (or maybe not to open) the Armenian border. But they have been silently sitting back and waiting for the ‘No Pre-conditions Roadmap’ to be finalized. Public knowledge of a signed 22nd April ‘Genocide Sell-Out Memorandum’ was the straw which broke the Dashnaks party back in the Sargsyan coalition; they could no longer reasonably explain their collusion in such treachery, especially with such opposition outrage and probably under pressure from Genocide lobbying Dashnaks in the Diaspora.

But with regard the signed memorandum, the Dashnaks should not blame their President Sargsyan, the blame for that has to go to America’s President. Assurances of a ‘warming relationship with Turkey’ would no longer hold water for the honest and well-intentioned Barac Obama, not even from the President of Armenia. Only a signed document would have sufficed for him to renege on his Genocide promise to the people of Armenia, so that is what he and his administration demanded – and got.

The signed document came in the form of the Nalbandian – Babacan ‘No Pre-conditions Roadmap’, which officially remains under wraps. But snippets of the details can be found through Turkish, Russian or other international media, even Azerbaijan – but certainly not from Armenia.
- First non pre-condition: Armenia will agree to Turkey’s commission, or a number of commissions, to study Turkish / Armenian affairs, not excluding Genocide.
- Second non pre-condition: Armenia will ratify the Kars agreement of 1920, formally withdrawing claims to historic Armenian lands in the east of Turkey.
- Third non pre-condition: Armenia will agree to Azerbaijani demands on Karabakh, including withdrawal of troops from the surrounding territories.
- Fourth non pre-condition: Armenia will not have an embassy on Turkish territory, but diplomatic relations will be conducted through Tbilisi.
- Fifth non pre-condition: Turkey will determine if and when the border will be opened, possibly starting with one day each month.
The Nalbandian – Babacan ‘Roadmap’ will no doubt motor on unhindered by the Dashnak Party departure, and Armenia’s coalition will probably be more relieved than distraught by the Dashnak Party loss.

But whilst the Dashnaks did little good in the coalition, they could well do considerable harm out of it. If the Dashnak Party effort goes towards regulating the out of control Sargsyan regime, then there may be the hope of a better future for Armenia. But if the Dashnak Party continues collaboration with its Kocharian / Sargsyan mentors, and its capabilities and influence are directed toward frustrating the efforts of Armenia’s only real opposition leader, Levon Ter-Petrossian, and his National Congress, then the Dashnak Party will seriously harm the chances of a more democratic future for the Republic and add yet another disgrace to its already badly tarnished reputation.

Bruce Tasker
Armenian Parliamentary Analyst
April 28, 2009
Armenia’s Dashnaktutsiun Party leaves Government coalition

Could it possibly be true that Armenia’s Dashnaktutsiun Party has decided to leave the Government coalition and join the opposition?

PanArmenian reports that that was the only issue on the Dashnaktutsiun 25th April agenda, when the party apparently also resolved to resign from their ministerial positions. If so, this is a decided blow to Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan’s plans to continue along his ‘roadmap’ with Turkey, and could even mark the beginning of the end for his illegitimate regime.

The Armenia / Turkey dispute must of course be resolved as should the Karabakh issue with Azerbaijan, but the clandestine manner in which the process has been conducted by the Armenian authorities to date has been absolutely unacceptable. If this article can be believed, it seems the Dashnaks could have decided enough is enough.

PanArmenian is however an Armenian state-backed media organization, so this information could simply be the Republicans throwing a cat amongst Armenia’s already flighty opposition pigeons, to buy time whilst Sargsyan and Nalbandian crawl their ways out of the political ‘roadmap’ fallout. That could well be the case, as PanArmenian also released an article “ARFD to launch an internet protest campaign against Armenian-Turkish agreement”, which actually refers to a petition published, not by the Dashnaks, but by the highly popular Canadian Diaspora website ‘Keghart’.

April 26, 2009
Obama’s April 24 statement no comfort for Turks

by Ferruh Demirmen

It is becoming almost an annual ritual for American presidents to issue commemorative declarations every year on April 24 to remember the Armenian “victims” of a tragic historic episode that took place almost 100 years ago. How many other foreign historic episodes nearly a century old do the American presidents commemorate every year? The answer: “zero.”

And wherein lies the secret for such homage to Armenian people? Money, my friends, and lots of it in the form of campaign contributions.

And the hapless Turks, ever watchful if the dreaded word “genocide” will be spelled out on such occasions, take a deep breath if that does not happen. They sit mostly on the sidelines, waiting for the events to unfold. Never mind that, the “g” word or no “g” word, they may be blamed for atrocities in history they did not commit.

The Turk’s attitude is the poor man’s consolation for being spared a bigger affront.

The litany

Last year, referring to “human dignity” and “epic human tragedy,” President Bush issued a statement to “honor the memory of the victims of one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”

Not a single word about the context, and the Moslem victims.

It is a melodramatic soap opera that takes place every year, and this year it was no different.

A few days ago President Obama, referring to “man’s inhumanity to man,” called the 1915 events “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.” He remembered the “1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.”

So, Obama didn’t use the “g” word. Big deal! But he used the equivalent term in Armenian: “Medz Yeghern,” meaning Big Calamity. To the Turks, it is nearly as offensive as the “g” word. And Obama, a smart and perceptive man, should have known.

Never believe the ANCA-type hypocrites who feigned disappointment in Obama’s choice of words because he didn’t use the “g” word. The Dashnakians must have relished Obama’s use of the term “Medz Yeghern.”

It is the first time an American president pandered to the Freudian psyche of the Armenian lobby.

The term “genocide” is a legal term, anyway, and notwithstanding the untoward motives of ANCA-swayed politicians, the UN and the International Court of Justice are the only legal entities empowered to give credibility to that word.

A matter of balance

In all honesty, no one can blame Obama, or any other American president for that matter, to commemorate the tragic sufferings and deaths of Armenians during World War I. We must all condemn tragic events that befell humanity.

But humanity also calls for a sense of balance, or justice. Where is the context, the faithfulness to historical truth, and remembrance of Turkish and Kurdish sufferings and casualties in such condemnations?

Why is the number of Armenian casualties in these statements, which historical records show could not have exceeded half a million, boosted to 1.5 million?

Why is there no mention of the betrayal of the Ottomans by the Armenian populace, who, by forming armed gangs, attacked the Ottoman civilians and Ottoman armies from behind during wartime when the country was under Russian, French and British occupation?

More Moslems perished in the hands of terrorist Armenian gangs than the Armenians under Moslem backlash.

Do the American presidents, or politicians of all stripes for that matter, have the right to be selective in condemning “man’s inhumanity to man?”

Did the sufferings and deaths of Turks, Kurds, and even Jews in some cases, matter at all?

As Obama-the-candidate was being indoctrinated by Dashnakians as to the events during World War I and learn diligently the words “Medz Yeghern,” he should have asked his hosts to teach him how to say “betrayal”or “treason” in Armenian. And cite that word in his April 24 statement.

Those irresistible greenbacks

President Obama is a clever man with a huge popularity at home and abroad. Unlike President Bush, who had a habit of bumbling through his unscripted speeches, Obama chooses his words carefully. His language in his April 24 statement is a testimony to the irresistible effectiveness of ANCA’s lobbying efforts. His perception of history was clouded by Armenian propaganda.

The enthusiastic sponsorship that Obama received on ANCA’s website, through videos and webcasts, in apparent violation of ANCA’s tax-exempt status, is all too fresh in minds.

Obama didn’t stop with one-sided depiction of history. Adding insult to injury, he paid homage to Americans of Armenian descent for their contributions to the American society while ignoring Turkish Americans.

Fair is fair. Does Obama think Turks are zombies of no redeemable value?

Surely, the greenbacks, lots of them, must have done wonders for the Armenian propagandists in shaping Obama’s mind.

Dubious diplomacy

Will the Turks take notice of such indignity? We don’t know. But the higher-ups in the Turkish government in Ankara probably will not. They engaged in secret negotiations in Switzerland toward normalization of relations between Ankara and Yerevan, reporting the “progress” to the Obama administration but leaving the Turkish people – as well as the Azeri people – in the dark.

Which begs the question: Did those high-flying Turkish diplomats in Switzerland think they were representing the Obama administration instead of the Turkish people?

The Azeri have a very legitimate stake in the Turkish-Armenian talks because of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

In the meanwhile the Azeri, being briefed about the Switzerland talks by the Russians, who in turn were briefed by the Armenians, became incensed at Turks’ audacity at conducting diplomacy behind their back. The Azeri showed their displeasure by starting energy-related talks with the Russian energy giant Gazprom. Turkey’s east-west Nabucco energy transit project, already suffering from a cold bout, has become shakier still. The Azeri gas is supposed to be the initial feed gas for the project. Ankara now has its hands full trying to placate a jittery Baku.

The imponderables

Setting all this aside, President Obama perhaps deserves credit for tempering his April 24 statement with some moderation. Even Vice President Joe Biden, the inveterate genocide hawk, softened his stance. Obama could have been harsher in his statement. The moderation, of course, stems from anticipation of a growing dialog between Turkey and Armenia that started in Switzerland. Whether that will materialize, is something else. Obama didn’t want to throw cold water on the process.

But with his unmistakable pro-Armenian bias, most Turks will remain unimpressed with Obama’s stance.

The outcome of the Turkish-Armenian talks so far is a “road map” of which details are kept under wraps. Apparently there are no pre-conditions to advance talks to the next level. But the road map has many roadblocks for both sides – as well, for the Azeri.

In the meantime, the Turkish-American relations will become hostage to the outcome of diplomatic traffic between Ankara, Yerevan and Baku. With “Medz Yeghern” language in the background, it is not a reassuring thought. Turks are not comforted by Obama’s language.

Separately, there is no guarantee that a Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi will not pass a pro-genocide resolution soon.

[email protected]

April 26, 2009