Category: Southern Caucasus

Sarkisian Avoids Scrapping Turkish-Armenian Deal

Armenia — President Serzh Sarkisian addresses the parliament’s Audit Chamber on January 22, 2010.

22.04.2010

Tigran Avetisian, Emil Danielyan, Anush Martirosian

Armenia will not walk away from its historic agreements with Turkey for now and is only suspending their parliamentary ratification despite Ankara’s refusal to unconditionally normalize bilateral ties, President Serzh Sarkisian said late Thursday. (UPDATED)

In a keenly anticipated address to the nation, Sarkisian said he has decided not to withdraw Yerevan’s signature from the Turkish-Armenian normalization protocols at the request of the United States, Russia and other foreign powers that have strongly supported his policy of rapprochement with Turkey.

“The matter of the fact is that our partners have urged us to continue the process, rather than to discontinue it,” he declared in a speech posted on his website and aired by Armenia’s leading TV channels. “Out of respect for them, their efforts, and their sincere aspirations, we have decided … not to exit the process for the time being, but rather, to suspend the procedure of ratifying the Protocols. We believe this to be in the best interests of our nation.”

“Armenia shall retain her signature under the Protocols, because we desire to maintain the existing momentum for normalizing relations, because we desire peace,” he said, adding that Yerevan will be ready to kick-start the process “when we are convinced that there is a proper environment in Turkey and there is leadership in Ankara ready to reengage in the normalization process.”

Sarkisian pointed to his meetings this month with the presidents of France, the United States and Russia. “We are grateful to them for supporting our initiative, encouraging the process, and exerting efforts to secure progress,” he said.

All three powers have favored an unconditional and speedy ratification of the Turkish-Armenian protocols. Turkey has made that conditional on decisive progress in their concerted efforts to broker a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Switzerland — Armenias Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian (L) and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu sign documents during the signing ceremony of Turkey and Armenia peace deal in Zurich, 10Oct2009

Sarkisian denounced Ankara’s stance. “For a whole year, Turkey’s senior officials have not spared public statements in the language of preconditions. For a whole year, Turkey has done everything to protract time and fail the process,” he charged, adding that the Turks are “not ready to continue the process.”

“We consider unacceptable the pointless efforts of making the dialogue between Armenia and Turkey an end in itself; from this moment on, we consider the current phase of normalization exhausted,” he declared.

The Armenian president told Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Kiev in February that Turkish ratification should be completed “within the shortest possible time.” “Or else, the Republic of Armenia will withdraw its signatures from the protocols,” he was reported to warn.

In a decree signed on Thursday, Sarkisian decided instead to “suspend the procedure of ratifying the protocols” in the Armenian parliament and instructed Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian to notify Ankara about the move. Whether that means the Armenian government will formally recall the protocols from the National Assembly was not immediately clear.

That the U.S.-brokered agreements will be removed from the parliament agenda was made clear by Sarkisian’s Republican Party (HHK) and its two junior coalition partners in a joint statement issued earlier on Thursday. That was followed by a meeting of the most vocal Armenian opponents of the rapprochement with Turkey led by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun).

A joint statement issued by Dashnaktsutyun and a dozen other, mostly small, opposition parties afterwards demanded that Yerevan go farther and formally annul the Turkish-Armenian accords. Speaking to journalists, a Dashnaktsutyun leader, Vahan Hovannisian, dismissed the ruling coalition’s move as a “yet another half-measure.”

Not surprisingly, the nationalist party, which considers the protocols a sellout, was not fully satisfied with Sarkisian’s ensuing speech. “That means that at least legally, the protocols are not dead yet,” its foreign policy spokesman, Giro Manoyan, told RFE/RL’s Armenian service, commenting on the speech.

“It is necessary to take the final step. Namely, to withdraw the signature and eliminate all dangers emanating from the protocols,” said Manoyan. “In effect, Armenia does not dare to say that the process is dead,” he added.

A key argument of Dashnaktsutyun and other critics is that the protocols signed in Zurich last October allow Turkey to keep more countries of the world from recognizing the 1915 Armenian massacres in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. They point to a protocol clause envisaging the establishment of a Turkish-Armenian inter-governmental “subcommission” tasked with studying the mass killings and deportations.

In his speech, Sarkisian seemed to acknowledge that Ankara has been trying to exploit the normalization process for ensuring that U.S. President Barack Obama does not use the word “genocide” in his statements issued during the annual April 24 remembrance of more than one million Armenians slaughtered by Ottoman forces. “The Turkish practice of passing the 24th of April at any cost is simply unacceptable,” he said.

Armenia — Presidents Gul (L) and Sarkisian in Yerevan, 06Sep2008

“Our struggle for the international recognition of the Genocide continues,” added Sarkisian. “If some circles in Turkey attempt to use our candor to our detriment, to manipulate the process to avoid the reality of the 24th of April, they should know all too well that the 24th of April is the day that symbolizes the Armenian Genocide, but in no way shall it mark the time boundary of its international recognition.”

Obama declined to describe the events of 1915 as genocide in April 2009, implicitly citing the need not to undermine the Turkish-Armenian dialogue. The Turkish government hopes that he will do the same on Saturday.

While lambasting Ankara, Sarkisian paid tribute to his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, whose historic September 2008 visit to Yerevan marked a dramatic thaw in Turkish-Armenian relations. “While announcing to the world the end of the current phase of the process … I express gratitude to President Abdullah Gul of Turkey for political correctness displayed throughout this period and the positive relationship that developed between us,” he said.

(The full English-language text of President Serzh Sarkisian’s speech is available at )

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/2021597.html

April 22, 2010
The Genocide of the Armenian Monuments in Georgia
“Happy, though unaware of it, are those nations of the world who do not have
civilization-destroying neighbours”.*

The purpose of this current paper is to determine the issue of the Armenian monuments in the territory of Georgia, which are under a complete and intentional neglect by the Georgian Government. We will mainly touch upon the vulnerable condition of the Armenian Churches in Tbilisi the “owners of which are still disputed”.

The policy of destruction and misappropriation of Armenian cultural monuments by the neighbouring peoples is a common occurrence throughout the Armenian history. But what is worrying me is the following: the “Christian Georgia”, where the Armenians have always comprised a significant part of its population, who have greatly contributed to building Georgia’s modern capital, Tbilisi, and had a very important role to play in terms of Georgia’s national self-determination, has now adopted an anti-cultural policy against Armenian cultural heritages (though in Tbilisi one will find a Greek church turned into a Georgian Orthodox Church).

The matter is that the vandalism against the Armenian cultural monuments in Georgia is not in the best interests of the Georgian people and can result in the damaging of the good relations between the two neighbouring peoples.

Historical Background

According to historical materials the Armenian church in Georgia has been a recognized separate religious entity since 5th century AD. One of major Armenian medieval historians, Oukhtannes, reports that in the 5th century, in the Georgian town of Tsurtavi, there was an Armenian prelacy under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarch, led by a bishop called Movses.

Another historian, Matheos of Urkha, reports that during the reign of Georgia’s king David IV the Builder Armenian church in Georgia was officially granted status of a recognized diocese. St. George’s (Surb Kevork) Armenian Cathedral of Tbilisi was then its administrative centre.

During fifteen centuries of Armenian ecclesiastical presence in Georgia over six hundred religious and cultural sites, namely churches, seminaries, monasteries, were created by members of the Armenian Church. A portion of these sites is now non-existent due to natural disasters, vandalism, and other factors.

When the Caucasus was split into ethnic republics (the collapse of the Soviet Union), and Tiflis became the capital of the Georgian republic, the number of Armenians in the city slowly but irrevocably began to diminish. In the 1950s, every third resident of the city was Armenian. According to the most recent census, taken in 2002, Armenians make up 14 percent of the city’s inhabitants, and six percent of the population in all of Georgia. For the first time in centuries, there are more Azerbaijanis than Armenians in the territory of what is now Georgia.

When Mikhail Gorbachev introduced perestroika and glasnost in the 1980s, Georgia was one of the first republics where, one after the other, churches began reopening their doors. The Armenian side insists that in Tbilisi alone, at least seven Armenian churches were reopened – but, of course, not reopened and reconstructed as Georgian Orthodox churches.

During the last 20 years the Georgian government has been doing its best to wash off all the traces of the Armenian unique architectural style from the Armenian churches. The destruction of a whole building is not excluded either. We should be grateful to them from time to time for keeping some of the churches, having turned them into ‘dog-shelters’ (Georgian neighbors keep their dogs in the courtyard of St. Nshan Church, built in 1701, although there is a sign on the church that reads, “Protected by the state”).

One thing is really bothering: why the number of the Azerbaijani inhabitants in Georgia has increased? Has it any ties connected with the tough and unreasonable attitude of the Georgian authorities towards the Armenian cultural monuments as well as the Armenian Diocese in Georgia?

Accordingly I would say that the sense of nationalism (in a disapproval meaning) in Georgia is now accepted in a higher level. Georgian scientific establishment corporately with mass-media periodically launch anti-Armenian campaigns in press and television. One example of such discriminatory and illogical attitude is the reaction of press to the Armenian Diocese’s publication of the fact of existence over six hundred Armenian Christian sites in Georgia throughout the history of Armenian presence in Georgia. Georgian public was misled by media accusations of the Armenian Church of demanding six hundred temples’ rights of ownership. In fact, the Armenian Church has never demanded six hundred churches back into its domain, and it is a very much regrettable fact that the Georgian public was misled by public-financed media institutes.

Another matter of utter importance to the Armenian Church is the issue of ownership of the Armenian temples, built by Armenian Apostolic Church, unto which the Armenian Church had full rights up to the Soviet period of Georgia’s history. Communist government of the Soviet Union has nationalized Armenian temples but after restoration of Georgian sovereignty the temples haven’t been returned to their lawful owners.

The ‘Disputed Churches’

There is another issue that requires serious attention. It is very common in Georgia to hear from all sorts of officials that the Armenian churches are actually ‘disputed’ as in to which denomination they belong. What is striking of all is that they suggest that there should be a special committee which will determine historic ownership of these churches. But in fact, all Armenian churches are marked by several features, only found in Armenian ecclesiastical architecture.

All Armenian churches, including so-called ‘disputed’ churches of Georgia, have their altars at a particular height, determined by the Armenian Church canon. Georgian church altars are at all times built at a much lower level than the Armenian altars. Also Armenian baptisteries are always found in a northern niche of any Armenian church. These features are not found in any other architecture tradition apart from Armenian. All ‘disputed’ churches are marked by these features.

Anyways, one may see here the exact continuation of changing the history a policy that nears vandalism. A bright example of it is the idea of suggesting a special committee determined by the Georgian government concerning the origin of those Armenian churches, as if we have nothing to do but taking Georgian destroyed churches, reconstructing and making them ours.

The Armenian Apostolic Church, more specifically the Georgian-Armenian Diocese, with its limited financial resources and staff simply cannot also take care of those “disputed” churches. The churches are legally within the Georgian government’s authority. As long as those churches are “disputed,” they are subjected to total neglect because the Georgian-Armenian Diocese is not legally allowed to take care of them and the Georgian state refuses to repair them or provide for their maintenance.

Among the other “disputed” Armenian churches:
- The Shamkoretsots or Red Bible Church found in the Havlabar neighborhood is almost completely destroyed. There are allegations that the church was bombed in 1989.
- The basilica of Minas Yerevantsots is also semi-ruined, Georgian refugees from Abkhazia live in its courtyard.
- The interior of Saint Gevorg Mughnetsi Church in the Sololag neighborhood of Tbilisi is also destroyed.
- St. Nshan, in the center of Old Tbilisi, is in poor condition and will not last long.
The Georgian side is not indifferent toward Norashen, which is located right beside a Greek church which by the way has been made into a Georgian church. What makes the Georgian authorities to realize their evil plans is that the number of Armenians living in the vicinity of those churches has considerably decreased. They were not only attending the churches but also were guardians.

So the gradual destruction and misappropriation both by the Georgian state and ecclesiastical leaders is to be observed here. A few years ago, Father Tariel systematically collected Armenian tombstones from the Norashen church’s property and replaced them with Georgian ones to prove that the church was indeed Georgian. A number of representatives of the Armenian community witnessed how the tombstones of benefactors Mikhael and Lidia Tamamshyan were destroyed in broad daylight. With the intervention of the Armenian community, the destruction was halted . . . probably until the next wave of destruction.

The fact that the Georgian intelligentsia have not opposed to the cultural genocide, planned and purposefully carried out particularly in the recent ten years, makes us believe that the authorities of that country have succeeded in contaminating the intelligentsia with unhealthy attitudes. The misappropriation of churches…What shame and vandalism! Can people of such inferior instincts govern nations and preach any religion?

Conclusion

I came to a conclusion that this so-called ‘Georgianization’ is witnessing the unhappy fact that the Georgian government has to solve a very important issue within its country, the freedom of conscious: there is no religious minority in Georgia to have an official status, eventually state-established churches. Whenever the Armenian Diocese in Georgia demands from the Georgian Clergy to solve this problem, they bring forward the excuse that it is the Government who must pass a proper law first of all.

Aftermath of the Soviet Union collapse had its distracting effect on the future of the Armenian monuments. Thousands of Armenians had to leave Georgia because of bad living-conditions. They were not much concerned with the opening of the churches when they were facing survival issues.

But today even if there are not much Armenians left there, this issue is of a high importance both in Armenia and in Georgia. An example of it is the person of Samvel Karapetian, a scientist-hero who has dedicated his life to the struggle against the policy of destruction or appropriation of Armenian cultural monuments and the conscious Armenian Diocese in Georgia.

Anyways, the careless and indifferent attitude of the Armenian government towards the destruction of the historical and cultural monuments of their own people is very irritating.

If Georgia carries out all those destructions on a governmental level no Religious authority (the Armenian Diocese in Georgia) has the power to oppose it. It is an issue which has to be solved by the two Governments of Georgia and Armenia.

*(Center for the study of national cause and genocide.
The Armenian Genocide, Causes and Lessons, v. 2, Yerevan, 1995, p. 30)

Karine BAGHDASARYAN / Yerevan
April 22, 2010
Yerevan Set To Announce Key Decision On Turkey

Armenia — President Sarkissian holds a meeting of National Security Council, 21Apr2010

21.04.2010

President Serzh Sarkisian will address the nation on Thursday to announce a promised crucial decision on the future of Armenia’s frozen normalization agreements with Turkey, his office said on Wednesday.

In a written statement, the presidential press service said Sarkisian discussed that decision at a special meeting with the top state officials sitting on his National Security Council. It said he briefed them on the results of his latest visits to Washington and Moscow that reportedly focused on the stalled Turkish-Armenian normalization process.

“Members of the Security Council discussed the latest developments in the process of normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey,” said the statement. “President Sarkisian said that he has held a series of consultations on this issue with the leaders of the parties making up the [governing] political coalition.”

“The president of the republic will address the people on the results of the decision made as a result of the discussions,” it added without elaboration.

Sarkisian has repeatedly threatened to scrap the Turkish-Armenian protocols if Turkey fails to ratify them “within a reasonable time frame.” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reiterated after his Washington talks with Sarkisian that the Turkish parliament will not validate the deal before a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Erdogan’s statements were a clear indication that the two sides failed to agree on how to kick-start their historic rapprochement.

Sarkisian said before flying to the U.S. capital that he has all but decided what to do next in the U.S.-backed process. His foreign minister, Edward Nalbandian, told journalists after the ensuing U.S.-Turkish-Armenian negotiations that Yerevan is now even more confident about the wisdom of that move.

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/2020637.html

April 21, 2010
Excluding Azerbaijan Can’t Bring Stability To The South Caucasus

Azerbaijani football fans at the Turkey-Armenia World Cup qualifying match in Bursa in October 2009
April 21, 2010
By Novruz Mammadov
The United States has recently stepped up efforts to repair relations between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in response to the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani territories by Armenian forces. Lately, U.S. officials have been urging Turkey to ignore Armenia’s continuing occupation and reopen the border. While Washington says that its aim is to improve stability and development throughout the region, in reality U.S. policies have become increasingly pro-Armenian — and exclusive of Azerbaijan.

Washington believes that a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement could kill two birds with one stone. First, it might smooth over — at least temporarily — one of the major trouble spots in U.S.-Turkish relations: the issue of Armenian genocide claims. Second, some U.S. officials argue that improving ties between Armenia and Turkey will ultimately contribute to a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They appear to believe improved relations will lead to a moderation of Armenian policies and open the way to new initiatives on Karabakh.

However, we must disagree. Armenia continues to occupy almost 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory. It is ironic that while claiming to be the first victim of genocide in the 20th century, Armenia itself carried out one of the century’s major ethnic-cleansing campaigns in Europe — a campaign that resulted in thousands of deaths and the displacement of nearly 1 million Azerbaijanis. Many members of the Armenian political elite — including President Serge Sarkisian — rose through the ranks because of their personal involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. They have used the war as a pretext for strengthening their own hold over Armenian politics, so it is not surprising that they have not been constructive in settlement talks.

Pretext For Occupation

Azerbaijan has proposed granting the highest form of autonomy to Nagorno-Karabakh and is prepared to invest heavily in the region’s development once a peace deal is reached. Baku has been cooperating closely with the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to resolve the conflict peacefully.

However, Armenia remains intransient, and this creates the suspicion that Yerevan wants to keep the conflict unresolved as an excuse for indefinite occupation.

In this context, Armenia’s closed borders are the main form of leverage that might compel Yerevan to engage seriously in the resolution of the conflict. There is no reason to believe that opening the borders will make Armenia more willing to compromise; on the contrary, removing this sole punishment will only increase Armenia’s interest in further entrenching the status quo.

We understand that Armenia has a powerful diaspora and that justice does not necessarily always prevail. Over the last 15 years, despite maintaining the occupation of part of a neighboring country, Armenia has received preferential treatment from the West, which has actually punished Azerbaijan. The infamous Section 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, which banned direct U.S. aid to Azerbaijan, is a clear example of this. Western governments and media have largely been silent on the plight of the nearly 1 million Azerbaijanis who were displaced by Armenian aggression. This has naturally led the Azerbaijani public to think that the West’s talk of democracy and human rights is nothing more than a selectively applied method of promoting its own interests.

In Defense Of Justice

It is high time for the United States and Europe to adopt a fair position and to prevent the narrow interests of their Armenian lobbies from prevailing over justice and their own national interests.

In any event, attempts to pressure Ankara to abandon Azerbaijan are shortsighted and likely to backfire. Azerbaijan and Turkey are strategic allies with deep historical ties. Turkey has played an important role in Azerbaijan’s partnership with the West on key security and energy projects. Azerbaijan spearheaded the opening of Caspian energy resources to the West and insisted that major oil and gas pipelines be routed through Georgia and Turkey.

Baku has also wholeheartedly supported U.S. security initiatives by sending troops to Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Azerbaijan also provides supply-transit support for the NATO effort in Afghanistan. Those who know the region understand the significant risks Azerbaijan took and the pressure it overcame in order to pursue close cooperation with the West on energy and security issues.

Long-term peace and normalization of relations in the South Caucasus cannot be achieved by rewarding aggression and by excluding the region’s strategically most important country. By pushing Turkey to abandon Azerbaijan, the United States risks alienating one of its most important and reliable partners in a critical region of the world.

Novruz Mammadov is head of the Foreign Relations Department of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan. The views expressed in this commentary are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

https://www.rferl.org/a/Excluding_Azerbaijan_Cannot_Bring_Stability_To_The_South_Caucasus/2020228.html

April 21, 2010
Turkish and Azerbaijani Diasporas against Armenians in Australia

19 Apr 2010 13:58

Baku – APA. Armenian Youth Federation of Australia attempted to hold protest action outside the Turkey’s Consulate in Sydney for so-called “Armenian genocide” anniversary. According to APA, Turkish and Azerbaijani Diaspora representatives gathered outside the Turkey’s Consulate General waving the flags of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Australia and chanting slogans to support Turkey.

They hanged Turkish flags on the Consulate’s iron fence. Some of the Armenians gathered outside the building attempted to create confrontation and to resist to police cavalry. Representatives of the Turkish and Azerbaijani societies told Armenians that they claim 1915 events falsely and real genocide was committed by Armenians in Khojaly town of Azerbaijan in 1992. “Your dirty policy can not force the people to forget Aghdam, Kelbajar and Lachin. Sooner or later you will shame yourself with your false claims in the world”, they told Armenians.

April 19, 2010
Azeri-U.S. Military Drills Cancelled Amid Row

Azerbaijan — President Ilham Aliyev chairs cabinet meeting on first quarter 2010 socio-economic results, Baku, 14Apr2010

19.04.2010

(Reuters) – Planned joint military exercises by Azerbaijan and the United States were cancelled on Monday against a backdrop of strained ties between Washington and the oil-producing former Soviet republic.

The announcement by Azerbaijan followed its sharp criticism of Washington’s role in its festering conflict with Armenia over the breakaway mountain region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Diplomats say the criticism reflects Azeri anger over U.S. support for a deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan’s close Muslim ally Turkey to mend ties and reopen their border. Azerbaijan, a supplier oil and gas to the West, fears the deal will weaken its hand in talks over the rebel territory.

Azerbaijan did not specify who cancelled the exercises planned for May, or why, but the U.S. embassy said it suggested “that the question be posed to the government of Azerbaijan”.

An Azeri Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters: “The exercises are cancelled, but the reason is not known.”

In an interview with Reuters on Friday, a senior aide to Azeri President Ilham Aliyev accused the United States of siding with Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and warned that Baku could “reconsider” its relations with Washington.

The United States is co-mediator with Russia and France in talks over the rebel region, where ethnic Armenians backed by Armenia threw off Azeri rule in the early 1990s in a war that killed 30,000 people. A peace deal has never been signed. Turkey closed its frontier with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan during the war, and Azerbaijan says it should stay closed until ethnic Armenian forces pull back.

Despite misgivings over human rights under Aliyev, the United States has traditionally had good relations with Azerbaijan, which hosts oil majors including BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Stung by the Azeri backlash, Turkey now says it will only ratify the deal with Armenia if Yerevan makes concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh. Diplomats say the issue is weighing on negotiations between Turkey and Azerbaijan on gas supplies and transit, complicating plans for the U.S. and European-backed Nabucco pipeline.

April 19, 2010